# Apostraphes's Possessive Usage

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [February 19, 2011, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904 "2011-02-19T11:56:28Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\
**Post date:** [February 19, 2011, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/21 "2011-02-19T23:59:47Z")

</div>

> [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](#):
>
> Well, the \*grammar blue-noses will tell you that, except in extraordinary circumstances, only people should show ownership with the 's possessive construction.
> 
> Another example of some weird restrictions on possessive usage came up several years ago with some test in which this sentence was deemed incorrect by those standards. "Toni Morrison’s genius enables her to create novels. . . . " The point of contention was the the antecedent of “her” is a possessive, which, according to some usage books is bad practice.
> 
> \*For example, Wilson Follett’s “Modern American Usage” (1966)

Follett is the one guide I don’t have. However, the contemporaneous (1965) _The Careful Writer_, by Theodore Bernstein, the notoriously conservative head copy editor for _The New York Times_, has an enlightening discourse on it.

> [@](#):
>
> Undoubtedly we are witnessing these days a reversion in part from the prepositional genitive – _the specialty of the day_ – to the simple " 's" genitive of olden days – _the day’s specialty_. This reversion was rather wryly forecast twoscore years ago by Fowler. His teeth were set on edge at that time by such possessives as _Ontario’s Prime Minister_. Most of us today have somewhat less sensitive teeth. The reversion, however, is not a complete one and probably will never be. Whereas we may be able to accept _Ontario’s Prime Minister_, we still cringe at a form like this: “Until recent years they wore dresses of black bombazine, a fabric unheard of since the century’s turn.”
> 
> The distinction that used to be made, and still is to some extent, is that the prepositional genitive is associated with things, whereas the " 's" genitive is associated with animate beings. At no time, however, was this distinction an ironclad rule. Curme cites the example, “A book’s chances depend more on its selling qualities than its worth.” He points out that to take the " 's" genitive, “the things must usually have some sort of individual life like a living being, but this idea of life may be very faint. It is faintest when the name of a thing is used as the subject of a gerund, where it is often not felt at all.”

Bernstein was so conservative that my rule of thumb when reading him is simple. If he allowed something then, it is completely acceptable today with no qualifications. If he disallowed something, find another source that is more modern to discover today’s conventions. I mean, this is a man who wouldn’t allow the word balding, because baldish was more descriptive.

So I have to admit that at some point before my birth, this distinction was made. It was probably gone by 1965, if Bernstein was giving up on the point, although no doubt most older teachers wouldn’t have changed their lesson plans for years. Today it would be bizarre to cavil at “the table’s top,” which is an example he doesn’t like. Some newspapers still dislike constructions like Ontario’s Prime Minister, but not because of the genitive. Rather because it leads to noun strings: Ontario’s Prime Minister John Middlename Smyth’s former brother-in-law’s dentist’s CPA announced today… which are nevertheless extremely common.

Use the simple genitive. Any time you like. Don’t worry about it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![hibernicus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hibernicus/32/2802_2.png) [@hibernicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hibernicus)\
**Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/22 "2011-02-20T00:25:30Z")

</div>

> [@Malacandra](#):
>
> Indeed? I’m much obliged to you. 🆒

🆒

However, I was wrong about one thing: according to Wikipedia, this use of the “[his genitive](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_genitive)” form enjoyed popularity in the period between 1680 and 1700, and not among “early Modern English” writers as I wrote.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\
**Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/23 "2011-02-20T01:13:08Z")

</div>

I would have written:  
Though many think the Doors hinge on the power of Morrison’s voice, Manzarek’s, Densmore’s, and Krieger’s musicianship were instrumental to their success.

On a related note, our primary client’s style manual (now how would the OP’s teacher handle an the organization’s possessive?) strongly prefers no possessive acronyms. Lots of minor sentence rewriting on that front, though most are fairly easy (e.g., the success of the UN’s programmes is due to… --\> the success of UN programmes is due to…).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\
**Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/24 "2011-02-20T01:58:03Z")

</div>

> [@JBDivmstr](#):
>
> And just **WHO** , are “_ **They** _”?:dubious:  
> I was taught to use the apostraphe in the same way that you described, but a quick perusal of this mornings newspaper, (_ **see** _, what I mean! That was from habit.:smack:) seems to confirm that it is now used regardless of whether or not the possessor is animate. ie:human.😕

I’ve never known the possessive _'s_ to be limited to animate nouns. I have never heard this rule before, and I thought I’d heard all the grammar superstitions that are taught as “proper English” in the classroom. Even Fowler, a grammarian’s grammarian, used the possessive case with inanimate nouns in his “King’s English” freely in 1908:

[Somewhat arbitrary page from the book](http://www.bartleby.com/116/212.html):

> [@](#):
>
> … a moment’s uneasiness …  
> … the gerund’s case …

Who comes up with such nonsense? I mean, just look at a line of Shakespeare: “Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?” or the first line of the US national anthem or the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\
**Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/25 "2011-02-20T02:04:08Z")

</div>

This reminds me of my 3rd grade teacher who would always correct us for the use of love/like.

She would insist you can’t LOVE things, only people. You LIKE your bike, you LOVE your grandmother, she’d say.

Of course I LOVE blueberry cheesecake case settled 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Quasimodem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/e274bd/32.png) [@Quasimodem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quasimodem)\
**Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/26 "2011-02-20T02:36:34Z")

</div>

How about _this_ one?:

“The success of the remaining Doors hinges on the resurrection of Jim Morrison.”

I see what I did there. 🙂

Quasi

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\
**Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/27 "2011-02-20T02:47:52Z")

</div>

I don’t get it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Quasimodem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/e274bd/32.png) [@Quasimodem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quasimodem)\
**Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/28 "2011-02-20T02:49:04Z")

</div>

Quasi-satire. Feel free to ignore it. 😉

Q

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\
**Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/29 "2011-02-20T02:59:04Z")

</div>

Only if you ignore post #23 😃

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Quasimodem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/e274bd/32.png) [@Quasimodem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quasimodem)\
**Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/30 "2011-02-20T03:03:18Z")

</div>

[QUOTE=]  
Rhythmdvl;13485780]Only if you ignore post #23 😃  
[/QUOTE]

:D:D:D:D Oh, crap, **Rhythmdvl**! I didn’t even see that one! :D:D:D:D

Great minds, and all that? 🙂

Q

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\
**Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/31 "2011-02-20T03:30:48Z")

</div>

> [@Quasimodem](#):
>
> Great minds, and all that? 🙂

Either that or people are strange.  
Maybe both?  
:p:p

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\
**Post date:** [February 20, 2011, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/32 "2011-02-20T03:44:00Z")

</div>

> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#):
>
> However, the purse zipper would be wrong even in colloquial terms.

“Purse zipper” sounds perfectly fine to my ears. Googling seems to confirm that it’s common enough.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/33 "2011-02-21T14:29:30Z")

</div>

I was actually, at one point, taught almost the exact opposite. I was told that, in truly formal prose, a proper noun could not take the possessive 's, and instead the construction \_\_\_\_ of \_\_\_\_ was used.

I remember this only because I though of it as the French method of possession, as that is the standard method in that language for all possessives.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jbaker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jbaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jbaker)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/34 "2011-02-21T20:07:34Z")

</div>

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage addresses this odd belief:

\<\<_Genitive with inanimate nouns._ Look at this list of phrases:  
the nation’s capital  
a week’s pay  
a dollar’s worth  
a stone’s throw  
the Hundred Years’ War  
land’s end  
on a winter’s night

In each of the phrases the noun in the possessive case stands for something inanimate. One of the curious things about these constructions is that a considerable number of 19th-century grammarians reasoned themselves into believing that they did not exist or were wrong. Some 20th-century commentators - Follett 1966, for instance - still think they are wrong. And why? Because you are not supposed to be able to attribute possession to something inanimate.  
The argument is a case of fooling oneself with one’s own terminology. After the 18th-century grammarians began to refer to the genitive case as the possessive case, grammarians and other commentators got it into their heads that the only use of the case was to show possession. But not one of the examples in the list is a possessive genitive; they are subjective or objective or descriptive genitives . . . . And they are all perfectly standard.\>\>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/35 "2011-02-21T20:22:20Z")

</div>

> [@pulykamell](#):
>
> “Purse zipper” sounds perfectly fine to my ears. Googling seems to confirm that it’s common enough.

I explained the rule above.

Summary:

Any noun can be used as an adjective for another noun. This is actually a contraction of the adjective clause “the Noun1 that is for Noun2.”

Examples:  
The cutter that is for cookies = cookie cutter.  
The knife that is for steak = steak knife.  
The paper that is for the toilet = toilet paper.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Snickers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Snickers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snickers)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/36 "2011-02-21T20:22:58Z")

</div>

I worked with a technical editor that used this piece of incorrect thought as she went through my work. Drove me nuts, it did. “You’re personifying stuff - our style guide doesn’t allow that.” Lady, your style guide is crap and leads to torturous syntax and unclear writing. Of course the car can “have” wheels or the book pages or whatever, and to think otherwise is screwy.

Oof - that feels good to get off my chest.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![legalsnugs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/45deac/32.png) [@legalsnugs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/legalsnugs)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/37 "2011-02-21T20:24:41Z")

</div>

> [@innocuous](#):
>
> **Apostraphes’s Possessive Usage**

Whatever possession rule you do decide to use, the usage (and spelling!) above will \*\*\*never \*\*\*be correct.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rachellelogram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rachellelogram/32/8689_2.png) [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/38 "2011-02-21T22:00:37Z")

</div>

> [@Superhal](#):
>
> I explained the rule above.
> 
> Summary:
> 
> Any noun can be used as an adjective for another noun. This is actually a contraction of the adjective clause “the Noun1 that is for Noun2.”
> 
> Examples:  
> The cutter that is for cookies = cookie cutter.  
> The knife that is for steak = steak knife.  
> The paper that is for the toilet = toilet paper.

And the zipper that is for the purse = purse zipper, yes?

I’m not sure why it wouldn’t be colloquially acceptable. Or even just acceptable.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![WotNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e19b73/32.png) [@WotNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WotNot)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/39 "2011-02-21T22:16:08Z")

</div>

> [@innocuous](#):
>
> Back in primary school, I swear the rule of apostraphes was drilled into me that inanimate objects could not use the 's construction to show possessiveness. Only people can own things, so one could say Carl’s foot–one could not say the door’s hinges because the door can’t own anything.
> 
> For example, in the way I was taught:
> 
> 1. The door’s hinge (not correct, the door can’t own hinges)
> 2. The doors hinge (correct?, the point of contention)
> 3. The hinges of the door (grammatically correct, just forget the whole thing and avoid the issue)

It seems to me that, even if the idea that an inanimate object couldn’t take the possessive were true (which I think we’ve seen it isn’t), example 2 would still be wrong. “The doors hinge” is still possessive, it’s just arbitrarily spelled differently.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\
**Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904/40 "2011-02-21T22:23:04Z")

</div>

> [@rachelellogram](#):
>
> And the zipper that is for the purse = purse zipper, yes?
> 
> I’m not sure why it wouldn’t be colloquially acceptable. Or even just acceptable.

It is acceptable, both colloquially and in grammar books.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/apostraphess-possessive-usage/571904.md?page=3)