# Editing Error: "Men's" in the paternity column **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [October 19, 2007, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/editing-error-mens-in-the-paternity-column/423323 "2007-10-19T19:32:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2007, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/editing-error-mens-in-the-paternity-column/423323/1 "2007-10-19T19:32:02Z")
The new column, [Who’s your Daddy? Is it true 10-15% of children in modern society were not sired by their putative fathers?](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/071019.html) contains the following sentence: > [@](#): > > _The notion of a **man’s** being duped_ this way has for millennia inspired a potent mix of anxiety (on the part of potential cuckolds) and snickering (on the part of everyone else), and thus any suggestion of its pervasiveness is bound to attract a lot of attention, as it’s apparently attracted yours. emphasis added I cannot conceive what the construction is that allows for a contraction, or a possessive there. I think it is an erroneous use of the apostrophe-s. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2007, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/editing-error-mens-in-the-paternity-column/423323/2 "2007-10-19T19:36:33Z")
I think it’s actually formally correct, though a little old-fashioned. It works fine for me with or without the apostrophe-s: The notion of a man’s being duped this way … The notion of a man being duped this way … ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2007, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/editing-error-mens-in-the-paternity-column/423323/3 "2007-10-19T19:53:27Z")
[QUOTE=Giles] I think it’s actually formally correct, though a little old-fashioned. It works fine for me with or without the apostrophe-s: The notion of a man’s being duped this way … The notion of a man being duped this way … [/QUOTE] I agree as to both. ---
**Author:** ![Freudian\_Slit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/5daacb/32.png) [@Freudian\_Slit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freudian_Slit)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2007, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/editing-error-mens-in-the-paternity-column/423323/4 "2007-10-19T19:54:18Z")
I’ve seen them both, too. I thought they were both fairly common. ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2007, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/editing-error-mens-in-the-paternity-column/423323/5 "2007-10-19T21:44:51Z")
Technically, gerunds take possessives. It’s correct. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2007, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/editing-error-mens-in-the-paternity-column/423323/6 "2007-10-19T21:48:52Z")
Yes, both are possible. It is not that “man” and “man’s” are interchangeable – they aren’t – but either one yields a grammatically correct sentence. Indeed, “man’s” is rather to be preferred, because it demands that “being” be taken as a gerund, rather than a present participle, which in turn means that the “of” must be associated with “being”, which is correct. “Man”, on the other hand, allows “being” to be taken as a present participle, which in turn means that the “of” is associated with “man”, which is not the sense desired. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2007, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/editing-error-mens-in-the-paternity-column/423323/7 "2007-10-20T00:51:44Z")
Color me confused: what, particularly, is being “possessed” here? The only answer is “being duped”, but how can one possess that? “The notion of being duped” is what the sentence would read without the term “a man’s.” Where in there is there a thing to be possessed other than the “notion?” I’m not saying y’all are wrong; can someone point me to a grammar cite, such as a style manual or an English handbook? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![fachverwirrt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/94ad74/32.png) [@fachverwirrt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fachverwirrt)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2007, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/editing-error-mens-in-the-paternity-column/423323/8 "2007-10-20T01:00:14Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] Color me confused: what, particularly, is being “possessed” here? The only answer is “being duped”, but how can one possess that? “The notion of being duped” is what the sentence would read without the term “a man’s.” Where in there is there a thing to be possessed other than the “notion?” [/QUOTE] “Being duped”. Strange answer that, but that’s pretty much it. It’s more a question of clarity than anything else. To expand on **John W. Kennedy** ’s post, consider the following sentences: I dislike that man standing in front of me. I dislike that man’s standing in front of me. In the first, “standing” is a participle. The sense of the sentence is “there is a man standing in front of me. I dislike him.” His position is merely a quantifier and has no bearing on whether or not I like him. In the second, “standing” is a noun (which is possessed by the man–it’s his standing, not anyone else’s) and the sense of it is “there is a man standing in front of me. I dislike his standing place.” I have no opinion of the man, merely where he is standing. Another way to look at it: grammar is weird. ETA: Here are a couple of cites. [Cite.](http://www.getitwriteonline.com/archive/022205.htm) [Cite again.](http://www.grammartips.homestead.com/possessivewithgerund.html) ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2007, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/editing-error-mens-in-the-paternity-column/423323/9 "2007-10-20T01:07:41Z")
Worse (albeit true) is this classic from “Why did so many Native Americans die of European diseases but not vice versa?” reprinted earlier in the week (emphasis mine): Dear Cecil: Why is it that native Americans died from \*\*Europeans \*\* brought by the Europeans but Europeans didn’t die in great numbers from native American diseases? ---
**Author:** ![Junior\_Spaceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Junior\_Spaceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Junior_Spaceman)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2007, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/editing-error-mens-in-the-paternity-column/423323/10 "2007-10-20T04:14:59Z")
Talk about a Freudian slip! ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2007, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/editing-error-mens-in-the-paternity-column/423323/11 "2007-10-20T10:21:52Z")
[QUOTE=fachverwirrt] Technically, gerunds take possessives. It’s correct. [/QUOTE] Yep. That should be the end of it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2007, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/editing-error-mens-in-the-paternity-column/423323/12 "2007-10-20T12:53:17Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] Color me confused: what, particularly, is being “possessed” here? The only answer is “being duped”, but how can one possess that? [/QUOTE] Chestnuts, chestnuts. Benedict Arnold betrayed his country, but how could he have possessed it? ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2007, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/editing-error-mens-in-the-paternity-column/423323/13 "2007-10-21T03:59:42Z")
It’s kind of like the generic “man” who appears in cliches or axioms, isn’t it? “A man’s home is his castle,” “A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do,” etc. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2007, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/editing-error-mens-in-the-paternity-column/423323/14 "2007-10-21T13:03:46Z")
[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir] It’s kind of like the generic “man” who appears in cliches or axioms, isn’t it? “A man’s home is his castle,” “A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do,” etc. [/QUOTE] Except, of course, in the first case you offer, home is possessed by man, and that’s easy to understand, since home is a noun. In the second, the _'s_ construction contracts _man has_, which is correct grammar to use with “got to.” So both of those are much more obvious. I guess what was causing me trouble was looking at “being duped” and seeing it as a gerund phrase rather than as a participle construction. But, of course, it pretty much has to be a gerund if it acts as the object of the word “of.” When you combine the confusion with a typical episode of CRS (endemic at my age), it just didn’t look right. :eek: :o :smack: