HELP - Possesive form.

Uriel:

In older forms of English, the possssive (genitive) was written simply by adding the "s" to the noun. The apostrophe came into use almost by mistake and has since stuck.

The "-s" genitive ending is common to other Germanic languages too (in masculine and neuter German nouns for example).

Again, we're talking about writing here. If the apostrophe was not there in the first place, we'd never miss it.

Adam just seems to think that "context" has no place in written language.

JJM, well, you are close, but not exactly correct. The matter is that in Middle English, the marking for genitive case was -es (rather than -s) for type 1 nouns in both the singular and plural, and the apostrophe actually represents the "e" in such. Type 2 nouns did not mark the genitive in the singular, and only marked it in the plural, with -ene (while type 1 nouns did not distinguish the genitive in the plural). Since Middle English, the genitive case marking -es has been transformed into the genitive clitic -s, which while no longer being a case proper still fits the same range of functions as the original genitive case (and hence why I call it a genitive clitic rather than just a possessive clitic).

"which while no longer being a case proper"

Excuse me, but are you attempting to suggest that in (for example) "that boy's car" the noun "boy's" is not in the genitive?

"In older forms of English, the possssive (genitive) was written simply by adding the "s" to the noun. The apostrophe came into use almost by mistake and has since stuck. "

How could it have come into use by mistake?

You need to put the apostrophe in so you know if it's singular or plural.

If I say "The cats" food how would you know if "cats" is singular or plural?

I mean, it only take a person with half a braincell to be able to understand the workings of an apostrophe. It isn't that difficult to understand.

In languages such as German and Swedish, they just add "S" for a possessive. They don't have to put an apostrophe with it because they don't add "S" onto words to form plurals. But because English adds "S" to form plurals, then we MUST put in the apostrophe for every possessive, so then you know if the word is singular or plural.

Blimey, it's so easy to udnerstand, but some people here just haven't seemed to grasp the workings of the apostrophe.

"The "-s" genitive ending is common to other Germanic languages too (in masculine and neuter German nouns for example). "

Yeah, because in German and other Germanic languages they do NOT add "S", "ES" or "IES" to form plurals, so they can add "S" onto the end of the word to form the possessive and there will be no confusion.

But in English, most plural words end in the letter "S" AND possessives end in the letter "S", so we NEED to put in the apostrophe so that -

1) You know it's a possessive and not a normal plural;

2) So that you know if the possessive is singular and plural.

Thus, "cats" is a normal plural, "cat's" is singular possessive, and "cats'" is plural possessive. The apostrophe stops confusion.

Apostrophe.
The most common way to form a possessive in English is with apostrophe and s: "a hard day's night." After a plural noun ending in s, put just an apostrophe: "two hours' work" (i.e., "the work of two hours"). If a plural doesn't end in s — children, men, people — plain old apostrophe-s: "children's," "men's," "people's." It's never "mens'" or "childrens'."
There's also the opposite case: when a singular noun ends in s. That's a little trickier. Most style guides prefer s's: James's house. Plain old s-apostrophe (as in James' house) is common in journalism, but most other publishers prefer James's. It's a matter of house style.

Note that, with the exception of the little-used one, the possessives of pronouns never get apostrophes: theirs, not their's; hers, not her's; its, not it's. See It's versus Its.

Apostrophes are sometimes used to make acronyms or other abbreviations plural (another matter of a local house style). My preference: don't use apostrophes to make abbreviations plural — not "They took their SAT's," but "They took their SATs." The only exception is when having no apostrophe might be confusing: "Two As" is ambiguous (it might be read as the word as); make it "Two A's." Never use apostrophes as single quotation marks to set off words or phrases (unless you need a quotation within a quotation).


Also, do NOT use apostrophes for abbreviations and numbers. So it's ATMs and NOT ATM's. It's "the 1960s" and NOT "the 1960's". Of course, you can use the apostrophe for these things if you are using them as a possessive.

"How does the apostrophe help me? "

"Boy's" is singular, and "boys' " is plural.

Without the apostrophe, it wouldn't be a possessive. It would just be a plural - "boys."

You can't take out the possessive. You wouldn't be able to read things properly.

If you were reading a book and there was a sentence that read "The huge waves lashed against the lighthouses walls. The lighthousekeepers, hearing the sounds, suddenly started to panic" then the word "lighthouses" would cause confusion, because it would be hard to fathom out if "lighthouses" is singular or plural.

So to know if it's singular or plural, apostrophes are a must. So the sentence can read -

1) The huge waves lashed against the lighthouses's walls. The lighthousekeepers, hearing the huge waves' sounds, started to panic." (So now we know there is ONE lighthouse)

or

2) The huge waves lashed against the lighthouses' walls. The lighthousekeepers, hearing the huge waves' sounds, started to panic." (Now we know there is more than one lighthouse)

So you can't write without using the apostrophe. You would just get confused.

That should be "lighthouse's" for the first one.

>>Yeah, because in German and other Germanic languages they do NOT add "S", "ES" or "IES" to form plurals, so they can add "S" onto the end of the word to form the possessive and there will be no confusion.<<

Actually, to be a pedant, such is done in Low Saxon, Dutch, and to a lesser extent German. Note though that such is relatively limited in use in German, coexists with -en plurals in Dutch, and used alongside (but more than) -en, -er, -e, umlaut, and superlength plurals in Low Saxon. Furthermore, -Vr plurals in North Germanic languages are actually cognate with -s plurals in English, Dutch, and Low Saxon. Note though that -s plurals were actually borrowed into German from Low Saxon and Dutch rather than being truly native to German and cognate with -s plurals in Low Saxon, Dutch, and English and -Vr plurals in the North Germanic languages.

>>"which while no longer being a case proper"

Excuse me, but are you attempting to suggest that in (for example) "that boy's car" the noun "boy's" is not in the genitive?<<

Such is *functionally* genitive, but such is acting as a clitical analytic construction rather than as a *case* per se. Remember that if it were just a case marking, one couldn't say things like "The person and their spouse's house" as you'd have to say "The person's and their spouse's house", as the former is only made possible by the genitive being transformed from a case to a clitical construction in English.

"Such is *functionally* genitive, but such is acting as a clitical analytic construction rather than as a *case* per se. Remember that if it were just a case marking, one couldn't say things like "The person and their spouse's house" as you'd have to say "The person's and their spouse's house", as the former is only made possible by the genitive being transformed from a case to a clitical construction in English."

Excuse me, but since when was language supposed to do what you say?

The fact that "person" has no inflection and "spouse's" does is neither here nor there - "spouse's" is fully genitive.

JJM, you're missing the point, which is that there is a difference between a genitive clitic (as in, say, English or Low Saxon) and a genitive case marking (as in, say, German). If English used a genitive *case*, all nouns for which said case applied would have to be marked (or at least be silently marked, like feminine and plural nouns in German), but as it uses a genitive *clitic* instead, one can apply a single clitic to an entire noun *phrase* rather than have to apply it individually to each noun to which it applies. Hence, in the example of "the person and their spouse's house", the genitive clitic "'s" applies to the entire noun phrase "the person and their spouse", even though it is phonologically and orthographically attached to just the word "spouse".

On the other hand, as *case* markings are inflections or affixes rather than clitics, morphologically they may only apply to individual syntactic words and cannot apply to entire phrases at once. Hence, had English a genitive case rather than a genitive clitic, one could not say "the person and their spouse's house", as one would not be able to apply the genitive case marking "'s" to the entire noun phrase "the person and their spouse" at once; rather, one would have to individually apply it to each noun in question, which would result in "the person's and their spouse's" rather than "the person and their spouse's".

"Hence, had English a genitive case rather than a genitive clitic, one could not say 'the person and their spouse's house', as one would not be able to apply the genitive case marking ''s' to the entire noun phrase 'the person and their spouse' at once; rather, one would have to individually apply it to each noun in question, which would result in 'the person's and their spouse's' rather than 'the person and their spouse's'."

All very impressive.

But it's really entirely a matter of opinion. You've simply made up a rule for English here.

I can make up rules too:

"In constructions such as "the person and their spouse" only the latter noun needs to be inflected for the genitive to show mutual possession, eg, "the person and their spouse's house."

My rule is equally valid.

You seem to have missed the point: language is not like mathematics and can't be shoe-horned into universally applicable rules.

Adam:

"If I say 'The cats' food how would you know if 'cats' is singular or plural?"

Since the apostrophe is purely a written artifice, and doesn't exist in the spoken language, presumably I'd know if you meant "cat's" or "cats'" simply by the context of what you saying.

Try saying this:

"the cat's food"

Now say this:

"the cats' food"

Do they sound any different?