ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: genitive

Hela — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 07:00:42 GMT

Thank you, MrP

Re: genitive

MrPedantic — Wed, 08 Feb 2006 00:00:44 GMT

Hello Hela

Yes, you have to add the 's to "Tess". It seems that we may only leave off the s if the terminal sound is z:

1. Loch Ness's other monster.

2. Black Bess's younger sister.

3. The princess's pillow.

But:

4. Jones' house/Jones's house.

You might see or hear "Sophocles's" or "Socrates's"; and you would be a little more likely to see/hear "Marcus Aurelius's"; but the consensus seems to be that where a classical name refers to a classical character, you avoid the "apostrophe-s".

Perhaps it's a little too Germanic to sit happily with a Greek or Latin (or Hebrew) name. Though when a name is now an accepted English forename, the genitive seems more acceptable, e.g. "Marcus's", in reference to a modern person.

MrP

Re: genitive

Hela — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:49:34 GMT

And what about a name that ends with 2 "s", do we HAVE TO add the apostrophe s?

e.g. This is Tess's house = /tesiz/

So you wouldn't add an "s" to Sophocloses and Socrates because they are already pronounced with /siz or tiz/ sound at the end, right?

See you soon

Re: genitive

MrPedantic — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:45:37 GMT

Hela wrote:

PS: Please do not forget to answer my previous question:

Dear MrP, why should we write "Bill Gates' achievements" and not "Bill Gates's achievements" and still pronounce /geitsiz/? Is it the same for "James' house" (or "James's house")?

Hello Hela

I would take the terminal s in "Gates's" and "James's" as optional. For instance, the park in London is usually styled "St James's Park"; but the football ground in Newcastle is "St James' Park".

Where a proper noun ends with an "-iz" sound, though, or in Classical/Biblical names, most people avoid the terminal s.

MrP

Re: genitive

paco2004 — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:10:51 GMT

Clive wrote:
How about the Queen? (Or perhaps she is ruled out on the grounds of gender?)

I agree. The use of The King's English has been suspended since 6, Feb, 1952, when King George VI died. Since then an elegant lady has been speaking the Queen's English instead.

paco

Re: genitive

Clive — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 14:30:31 GMT

Hi,

In Great Britain, nowadays, there is no person who speaks the King's English.

How about the Queen? (Or perhaps she is ruled out on the grounds of gender?)

Clive

Re: genitive

paco2004 — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:57:38 GMT

Hela wrote:
"The King of England" it's because we're talking about a title but we have to say "The King's English" it's because we're talking about a particular dialect that is spoken by a particular person.

Hello Hela

You are quite right. In Great Britain, nowadays, there is no person who speaks the King's English, but in USA, there was a very noble person who spoke King's English eloquently. The below is an example of King's English. How beautifully it sounds!

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.' I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today."

Best wishes

paco

Re: genitive

Hela — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 10:52:20 GMT

Hi everybody,

Sorry to ask the question again: if we say "The King of England" it's because we're talking about a title but we have to say "The King's English" it's because we're talking about a particular dialect that is spoken by a particular person, which makes both "concepts" closely related?

See you

Re: genitive

paco2004 — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 22:34:17 GMT

OK, I too will be done with the issue of England's King.

paco

Re: genitive

Clive — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 21:55:54 GMT

Hi,

You are speaking the American Language. . . No, I speak British English modified by years in Canada.

Somehow, I seem to have given the impression that I would normally say 'England's King'. That was not my intention. I merely intended to say that one could say that.

Anyway, I enjoyed discussing this. I guess we have just about exhausted this topic, haven't we?

Best wishes, Clive

Re: genitive

paco2004 — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 20:56:19 GMT

Hi, Clive

I don't know that use of "we" necessarily means the king and the country were taken as the same entity. The OED, a mere dictionary for a British dialect of your language, quotes "We, Dermot, prince of Leynester (1425)" as the oldest use of "we" of that usage. The OED says the "we" was commonly followed by a personal title or name. Anyway, even if what you told is true, I am wondering if it could be an evidence to support the opinion "England's King" is a natural expression. The OED is saying in its entry of "of" about the issue on England's King and the King of England as follows:

"OF" XIV. In the sense belonging or pertaining to; expressing possession and its converse: "the owner of the house", "the house of the owner".

Formerly expressed by the genitive, and still to some extent by the possessive case (with transposition of order). The use of of began in Old English with senses 47, 48, expressing origin. After the Norman Conquest the example of the French "de", which had taken the place of the L. genitive, caused the gradual extension of "of" to all uses in which Old English had the genitive; the purely possessive sense was the last to be so affected, and it is that in which the genitive or "possessive" case is still chiefly used. Thus, we say the King's English, in preference to the English of the King; but the King of England in preference to England's King, which is not natural or ordinary prose English.

You are speaking the American Language which is spoken in a country where Martin Luther King was born, and so I don't say "England's King" is completely wrong as far as you concerned.

Best wishes,

paco

Re: genitive

Clive — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 20:08:42 GMT

Hi Paco,

I agree with you.

However, I'd like to add one further comment. I wouldn't say that historically speaking, kings or queens are not an entity owned by a country but an entity owning a country. Instead, I'd prefer to say that, in earlier history, the king and the country were seen as one and the same. In a sense, the king embodied the country. Hence, the use of the royal 'we'. Consider this dialogue from Henry V, in which Shakespeare demonstrates the Tudor attitude to this matter. The King and the country are one and the same.

HENRY V

Peace to this meeting, wherefore we are met!
Unto our brother France, and to our sister,
Health and fair time of day;

KING OF FRANCE

Right joyous are we to behold your face,
Most worthy brother England; fairly met:
So are you, princes English, every one.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: genitive

paco2004 — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 19:46:55 GMT

Hello

I have a feeling that some collocations in any natural language possess traits of the past in which the speakers' ancestors lived. "England's King" may be an expression suitable to the speakers who were born and have been living in democratic countries where people can have a notion that they are electing their ruler or governor through votes. But I think the collocation "England's King" was unsuitable to the notion of the people in the old time in which a king had an absolute sovereignty over a country and the people who lived there. For those people, I think, an expression like "ruler of England" or "King of England" might better fit their notion toward the king, and on occasions when they had to use "England" as a word attributive to the king, they should have said "English King" rather than "England's King". Expressions like "New York's Mayor" sound natural to me, but I would prefer "British Queen" rather to "Britain's Queen", because, historically speaking, kings or queens are not an entity owned by a country but an entity owning a country.

Best wishes,

paco

Re: genitive

Clive — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 17:24:57 GMT

Hi guys,

"The King of England" is more natural than "England's King". True, but I think that's because it is usually used as a title. If I were a historian comparing kings, I might well say something like In the late 18th century, France's king suffered a fate that England's king avoided.

Possession is an odd concept in some ways. For example, when we speak of Tom's watch, that seems clear. But how about when we use a word like 'family' with the 'of' construction? Does The family of Tom suggest that Tom possesses the family, or that the family possesses Tom, or even both?

Same question when we speak of the King of England, who possesses who?

I think that the form England's King more clearly suggests that it is England that is 'doing the possessing'.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: genitive

paco2004 — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 10:37:29 GMT

Hello Hela

"King of England's castle" is more natural than "England's King's castle". One reason of this may be that "King of England" is more natural than "England's King".

I personally have a feeling that repetition of s'-genitives is a convenient expression in certain contexts. (EX) I love my teacher's ex-husband's sister's husband's brother.

paco