This has been disproved over time

[GoodTaste]

Does "this" refer to the description or the conclusion that "the murder had many witnesses who refused to come to the Kitty Genovese’s defense"?

====================

The Kitty Genovese murder in Queens, New York, in 1964 is one of the most famous murder cases to come out of New York City and into the national spotlight. What propelled it wasn’t the crime or the investigation, but the press coverage that alleged the murder had many witnesses who refused to come to the Kitty Genovese’s defense. This has been disproved over time, but not before it became part of the accepted lore of the crime.

Source: https://www.history.com/topics/crime/kitty-genovese

 

[jutfrank]

It refers to the allegation that there were many witnesses who refused to come forward.

 

[GoesStation]

What propelled it wasn’t the crime or the investigation, but the press coverage that alleged the murder had many witnesses who refused to come to the Kitty Genovese’s defense.

Can you find the error in the text you quoted? (It was in the original; you didn't make a mistake there.)

 

[GoodTaste]

Can you find the error in the text you quoted? (It was in the original; you didn't make a mistake there.)

Well, I've now read it for 5 times and couldn't find the error. Please point it out:

What propelled it wasn’t the crime or the investigation, but the press coverage that alleged the murder had many witnesses who refused to come to the Kitty Genovese’s defense.

 

[jutfrank]

Somewhere in here:

the Kitty Genovese’s defense

 

[GoodTaste]

I initially did cast doubt on this part. "The" seems not very natural and not necessary here. But considering that it particularly refers to this murder case, "the Kitty Genovese’s defense" appears okay.

What is your idea?

 

[GoesStation]

Kitty Genovese was a person. Do you ever use an article before a person's name? (You can when the name is used as an attributive noun. It's not used that way here.)

The writer probably wrote the defense of Kitty Genovese, and then decided to use the possessive and forgot to remove the article.

 

[GoodTaste]

Kitty Genovese was a person. Do you ever use an article before a person's name? (You can when the name is used as an attributive noun. It's not used that way here.)

The writer probably wrote the defense of Kitty Genovese, and then decided to use the possessive and forgot to remove the article.

I think in the case of "the Kitty Genovese’s defense", the article defines "defense" rather than the name. That is:

the Kitty Genovese’s defense = the defense of Kitty Genovese’s.

The form of the possessive expression "Kitty Genovese’s" serves as an equivalent of an adjective which modifies the main target "defense." (Comparing "the great river"- "the" defines "river" rather than "great.")

So the possibility that "the Kitty Genovese’s defense" is grammatical cannot be ruled out easily.

 

[GoesStation]

I think in the case of "the Kitty Genovese’s defense", the article defines "defense" rather than the name. That is:

the Kitty Genovese’s defense = the defense of Kitty Genovese’s.

The form of the possessive expression "Kitty Genovese’s" serves as an equivalent of an adjective which modifies the main target "defense." (Comparing "the great river"- "the" defines "river" rather than "great.")

So the possibility that "the Kitty Genovese’s defense" is grammatical cannot be ruled out easily.

It's not grammatical.

There! That was easy.

Sorry for the snark. The construction just doesn't work. The closest grammatical construction I can think of would involve several families named "Genovese". One of them is headed by Kitty. They're all accused of a crime, and we're discussing their various defenses. Now we get to our defense of the Kitty Genovese family. We can't say the Genoveses' defense because that doesn't tell us which Genovese family we're talking about. We have to specify that by saying the Kitty Genoveses' defense. Note that the apostrophe has to be at the end of the pluralized family name here -- and that this is not what the original text was about.

Knowing the historical context would help, too. Have you read about the Kitty Genovese murder, who the victim was, and how it was reported at the time?

 

[jutfrank]

The form of the possessive expression "Kitty Genovese’s" serves as an equivalent of an adjective which modifies the main target "defense." (Comparing "the great river"- "the" defines "river" rather than "great.")

So the possibility that "the Kitty Genovese’s defense" is grammatical cannot be ruled out easily.

I think you're thinking of the Kitty Genovese defence.

It would be ungrammatical if you didn't remove the 's.

 

[GoodTaste]

It's not grammatical.

There! That was easy.

Sorry for the snark. The construction just doesn't work. The closest grammatical construction I can think of would involve several families named "Genovese". One of them is headed by Kitty. They're all accused of a crime, and we're discussing their various defenses. Now we get to our defense of the Kitty Genovese family. We can't say the Genoveses' defense because that doesn't tell us which Genovese family we're talking about. We have to specify that by saying the Kitty Genoveses' defense. Note that the apostrophe has to be at the end of the pluralized family name here -- and that this is not what the original text was about.

Knowing the historical context would help, too. Have you read about the Kitty Genovese murder, who the victim was, and how it was reported at the time?

Are you consistent with "the ***'s defense"? Now you're talking about "the Genoveses' defense". Yet the OP is talking about "the Kitty Genovese’s defense" (and jutfrank quoted it correctly in #5). It seems to me that you've put the apostrophe in a wrong position and thus been misled.

Your Genoveses' involves several families named "Genovese", which bestows us uncertainties. Yet in the OP Genovese’s only refers to the victim herself and is not misleading.

 

[GoesStation]

Are you consistent with "the ***'s defense"? Now you're talking about "the Genoveses' defense". Yet the OP is talking about "the Kitty Genovese’s defense" (and jutfrank quoted it correctly in #5). It seems to me that you've put the apostrophe in a wrong position and thus been misled.

Your Genoveses' involves several families named "Genovese", which bestows us uncertainties. Yet in the OP Genovese’s only refers to the victim herself and is not misleading.

There is no context in which "the Kitty Genovese’s defense" is possible. I constructed one that works if you move the apostrophe.

 

[GoodTaste]

Doesn't the article from the History.Com site (the link has been offered in the OP) provide sufficient context? Here's more from the article:

KITTY GENOVESE MURDER

Kitty Genovese was returning from work home at around 2:30 a.m. on March 13, 1964, when she was approached by a man with a knife. Genovese ran toward her apartment building front door, and the man grabbed her and stabbed her while she screamed.


A neighbor, Robert Mozer, yelled out his window, “Let that girl alone!” causing the attacker to flee.


Genovese, seriously injured, crawled to the rear of her apartment building, out of the view of any possible witnesses. Ten minutes later, her attacker returned, stabbed her, raped her and stole her money.


She was found by neighbor Sophia Farrar, who screamed for someone to call the police. Police arrived several minutes later. Genovese died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital.


The murder elicited a brief news item in The New York Times.

WHO WAS KITTY GENOVESE?


Catherine Susan “Kitty” Genovese was born in Brooklyn, New York, on July 7, 1935, to parents Vincent and Rachel Genovese. The oldest of five children, Genovese was a graduate of Prospect Heights High School and remembered as a very good student and voted “Class Cut-Up” in her senior year.

 

[GoesStation]

Doesn't the article from the History.Com site (the link has been offered in the OP) provide sufficient context?

Sufficient context for what? The phrase the Kitty Genovese’s is ungrammatical. You can't construct a grammatical sentence that includes it. (I'm not counting sentences that include the phrase as a quotation.)

 

[GoodTaste]

We do say "Trump's defense" rather than "the Trump's defense", which sounds odd.

Please pay attention to

1) The timeframe. Trump is contemporary of our time. The Kitty Genovese murder happened about 60 yearrs ago (in 1964). It seems to me that 60 years later, we'd naturally write "the Trump's defense". By the same token, "the Kitty Genovese’s defense" is okay in its grammar.

2) The article emphasizes the event. The Kitty Genovese’s defense is frequently quoted by psychologists as a typical case of "Bystander Effects". With the article, the historical value of the case is highlighted.

 

[jutfrank]

Kitty Genovese's defense :tick:
the Kitty Genovese defense :tick:
the Kitty Genovese's defense :cross:

I'm sure that the grammar error in the OP is a simple case of a misplaced article. The writer meant to use the first of the two grammatical forms above.

The pattern used is: to come to somebody's defense

 

[GoesStation]

The phrase the Kitty Genovese’s is ungrammatical. You can't construct a grammatical sentence that includes it. (I'm not counting sentences that include the phrase as a quotation.)

1) The timeframe. Trump is contemporary of our time. The Kitty Genovese murder happened about 60 yearrs ago (in 1964). It seems to me that 60 years later, we'd naturally write "the Trump's defense". By the same token, "the Kitty Genovese’s defense" is okay in its grammar.

That is a sentence containing an ungrammatical phrase. It is therefore ungrammatical.

2) The article emphasizes the event. The Kitty Genovese’s defense is frequently quoted by psychologists as a typical case of "Bystander Effects". With the article, the historical value of the case is highlighted.

If you find such a citation, you've found a typo.

 

[SoothingDave]

Anybody else hate how "had been disproved" sounds? I would use "disproven."

 

[GoesStation]

(Dis)proved is the natural form in BrE.

And in American English, though I found some evidence that disproven also exists.

 

[SoothingDave]

Oh, I know this is one of those things where I am outside of the norm. I just don't like it.