Dan - OK, I’m sorta following your logic, but not quite.
Adjectives can modify other adjectives. There’s not rule prohibiting that. They just happen to mainly modify nouns.
Adverbs modify verbs. I can’t think of an instance at the moment in which an adverb would modify an adjective.
And with “red dog’s” house, I parse the possessive apostrophe-“s” to belong to the noun phrase “red dog,” not just simply dog. Just as in “the bride and groom’s wedding cake” the apostrophe-“s” belongs to “bride and groom.”
Though on further reflection, I’m not sure if that analysis is absolutely correct; although I know in other languages both red and dog would be put in the genetive case in such an example. Not that there need be such lingual parallelism in English.
Crap. I’m confused now. My synapses must be misfiring or I’m confusing something. Adverbs do modify adjectives. Adjectives only modify substantives. Where in the hell did I read that adjectives can modify other adjectives? I’m gonna have to dig through some books here…I swear I’m not hallucinating.
OK, I am a bit scatter brained, but I’ve figured out exactly what I’ve meant to say.
In a phrase such as “the big red dog,” both big and red are adjectives modifying dog. In a phrase such as “the astonishingly big red dog,” then “astonishingly” is obviously an adverb modifying big.
So far so good.
Let us continue with the shaky premise that “dog’s” is an adjective.
Now, you can parse (unlikely) “red dog’s house” as red qualifying house and “dog’s” qualifying house. Then both are adjectives. There is no way that “red” can be construed as an adverb in this case.
In the more likely scenerio, as I’ve outlined above, I posit the possessive goes with the whole “red dog.”
Am I beginning to make sense now? Just had my first cup of joe and am busy lubricating those neurotransmitters.
What you say about attributing the “'s” to “red dog” and not just to “dog” is interesting, but I can’t find any backup for it on grammar sites, and I’ve never heard that rule before. I’ll have to think about it to see if it introduces any weird complications into the issue.
As it is, however, I think we’re much better off just recognizing that the possessive case of a noun may look like an adjective, but it’s really a noun and should be treated as such.
I don’t know that anyone would assume that “the red dog’s house” is red; I think everyone would assume that the dog is red. If you wanted it to mean otherwise, you’d be much better off saying, “the dog’s red house.”
This is further argument for my point. Adjectives modify the noun they’re closest to in virtually all cases. When we read, “the red dog’s house,” we assume that “red” modifies “dog,” since it’s the closest noun. That doesn’t apply if “dog’s” isn’t a noun.
Finally, to bring this full circle, even if we say that the apostrophe-s applies to the full phrase of “red dog,” that means that the apostrophe-s is applying to a noun phrase, yes? It means that “dog,” in “red dog,” must be a noun, since “red” is still modifying it.
And if that’s the case, “Toni Morrison’s” must still contain the noun “Toni Morrison,” by the same logic. And if that’s the case, “her” has a proper antecedent after all.
In other words, your argument (which I know you’re doing devilsadvocately) seems to boil down to: adding an apostrophe-s to a noun turns it into a noun phrase which acts as an adjective; it still contains a noun which may be modified by adjectives within the noun phrase.
And the high school teacher is still, therefore, wrong.
I’m thinking of this issue from a linguistic point of view, since I’ve had more formal study in that area than traditional grammar, so I may see things a little differently than a grammarian.
Going with the apostrophe-“s” tidbit, would the possessive only refer to Morrison in “Toni Morrison’s”? Obviously, the space doesn’t keep this from being treated as a single syntactical unit. Or how about a more parallel example. “Big John’s house.” I think of the “s” belonging to [Big John].
In “red dog’s house,” it’s either [red dog]'s house. or red [dog]'s house which is rendered properly in English as dog’s red house. Or substituting “of” for the possessive we get “house of the red dog” or “red house of the dog.”
It seems clear to me from the “of” substitution what exactly the possessive “s” refers to, namely, “red dog.”
But I may be incorrect in my assessment. Also, this explanation is a bit hypothetical, as it has been stated correctly before that the genetive case of a noun is a noun, not an adjective. But I can see how some people can interpret it as an adjective.
Neither of these is correct. “Dog’s” is a possessive noun showing that the dog owns the house. “Red” is an adjective modifying “dog’s.”
I don’t see any advantage to saying that the apostrophe-s attaches to “red dog” rather than just to “dog,” any more than we should say that the -s on the end of “Many red dogs can play chess” pluralizes “many red dog.”
Similarly, if I say, “Frankie greatly enjoys chewing on Coke bottles,” is the “-s” on the end of “enjoy” conjugating the verb “enjoy” or the verb phrase “greatly enjoy”? If the latter, why?
“Big John’s house” is a different situation, since the fellow’s name is clearly “Big John.” In this case, “Big John” is a noun composed of two separate words, similar to “Toni Morrison.”
To wit: when you’re declining nouns or conjugating verbs, it’s rarely helpful to try to decline/conjugate the entire phrase. Just mess around with the actual noun, the actual verb, and you’ll get it right.
Ah, didn’t see your response. Yes, we basically agree. The only thing I’m arguing is that that “red” in “red dog’s house” would not be an adverb even if “dog’s” is considered an adjective. Then again, who really cares?
Mm…still not sure. In Polish, for example, both “red” and “dog” would decline to the genetive. Dom czerwonego psa. This means “red dog’s house.”
If you don’t decline “red” you’d get “Czerwony dom psa,” or “dog’s red house.” The genetive needs to be applied to both parts.
I’m not saying this need be the case in English, but I do believe, from a linguistic standpoint, that the plural or possessive marker refers to the entire noun phrase. Otherwise, explain the “bride and groom’s cake” example.
English doesn’t work like Polish, apparently :). Adjectives are, to the best of my knowledge, never declined in English. That may be the root of the problem, if you’re trying to apply the rules of a declined language to a word-order language (I can’t remember the technical terms).
As for the bride and groom’s cake, the page I linked to earlier explains:
Nothing in here means that in normal cases the apostrophe-s applies to the entire noun phrase. And even if it did, it wouldn’t explain why the noun within the noun phrase couldn’t be considered the antecedent to a prounoun.
What would you say in response to my point that you don’t pluralize verb phrases or noun phrases? Do you agree than in English this is the case?
I don’t speak Polish, but I infer from pulykamell’s posts that, in Polish, adjectives agree in number and case with the nouns that they modify. If so, then it is not necessarily true that the number or case inflection “refers to the entire noun phrase.” It may be that the noun is inflected and the adjective simply “absorbs” the noun’s inflection, but is not itself possessed of number and case as inherent characteristics. (But perhaps it is a distinction without a difference.)
The example bride and groom’s cake is different because bride and groom is a compound noun, consisting of two independent nouns that are merged into a single concept–unlike, say, red dog, which is simply a noun with a modifer.
An adjective is never inflected in English for number or case. A few adjectives are inflected for gender: the two that I can think of are blond(e) and brunet(te).
How is this any better than “Toni Morrison’s genius…”? The phrase “Toni Morrison’s” is exactly as adjectival as the phrase “of Toni Morrison”.
Meanwhile, I’ll agree that a genetive form of a noun (whether formed by “of” or “'s”) is obviously an adjective, since an adjective is anything which modifies a noun, and a genetive of another noun does modify a noun. Along the same lines, I would consider a noun, together with an adjective modifying it, to be recursively defined as a noun. So “dog” is a noun, “red dog” is a noun formed by modifying the noun “dog” with the adjective “red”, “red dog’s” is an adjective formed by taking the genetive of the noun “red dog”, and “red dog’s house” is a noun formed by modifying the noun “house” with the adjective “red dog’s”.
Regardless: Last I checked, there are no rules governing what can be taken as a pronoun’s antecedent. The sentence “Her genius allows her to create art” is perfectly grammatical. Now, grammar aside, clarity dictates that the antecedent of a pronoun should be obvious. In this case, it is.
But if we want to get really nitpicky: The sentence as written still contains a grammatical error. It should read “Toni Morrison’s juno enables her to create novels that arise from and express the injustices African Americans have endured.”, since women don’t have genii. I mean, since we’re basing the rules on Latin usage, anyway.
What you might mean to say is that “a noun, together with an adjective modifying it, can be defined as a noun phrase.” In that case, you’d be correct.
But a “noun” does not include other parts of speech.
Furthermore, you’re incorrect when you say that anything modifying a noun is an adjective. Adjectival phrases can also modify nouns: just ask Anne of Green Gables.
Possessive nouns have a unique relationship to the possessees. I think the clearest way to describe them is that they are adjectival noun phrases consisting of the possessive noun and any modifiers that apply to the possessive noun.
This is a little convoluted, but it avoids the problem of declaring every adjective in the dictionary also to be an adverb.
OK. I know this is an old thread, but I just thought I’d throw my 2¢ in.
I went over to the library one day, and pulled out five different books on “rules of English usage.” I also didn’t find anything saying that it was correct usage in as many words. However, by implication in various examples they seemed to support its “okayedness.”
More important was that in none of the categories under which something could be lurking relevant to the question (“antecedents,” “pronouns,” “genitive/possessive case”) did I find any explicit proscription on the usage contained in the sentence example.
So. . . I’m still a little curious as to what “older grammar textbooks” contained the rule.
panamajack- Curse you! I live by the teachings of the collected works of the Paignton Zoo Monkey House.
I am hoping that the poweful message of hope and the affirmations of the collected works of the Paignton Zoo Monkey House will lead me down the path that leads to true love with my new true love, Balance.
r_k - To me, you are so much more than a mere sub-editor! You are a creature of wisdom and style.
You know, the two linked stories in the thread make clear exactly what the teacher alleged and what the College Board concluded.
The teacher alleged that it is improper to use “her” to reference to a modifier, which “Toni Morrison’s” clearly functions as. The College Board, presumably having reviewed some such usage manuals, probably supplied by the teacher, accepted that some students may have learned that such a construction was flawed, and should be remedied by re-using “Morrison” rather than the pronoun “her”.
As is often the case in grammar disputes, there probably is no “right” answer, though I am inclined to agree with the assertion that the use of a noun in its possessive form does not preclude latter substitution of a pronoun for that noun. After all, would the sentence be correct if it started, “Her genius enables her to …?” Of course it would.
Thanks to all of you who replied to my question. I can understand why the PSAT folks made the decision they made now.
If the one point could make the difference between a student receiving several thousand dollars worth of scholarships (National Merit, for instance), then I’m glad the teacher made the effort.
I hope that is the case, but pedantic twits are often very stubborn.
Amen to that, but I think that – particularly for students up through high school underclassmen – it is desirable to make sure they know the rules and break them on purpose rather than never teaching the rules in the first place.
RR
