Really? Drottnings av England hus? That sounds bizarre.
In English neither sounds right. “The queen of England’s corgis” can be mistakenly parsed as containing the phrase “England’s corgis”, while “The queen’s of England house” makes no sense.
(Drottningen’s (definite form) av England hus, really.)
Grammatically speaking it is correct, but I’d say that most, if not all, Swedes feel subconsiously that it sounds bizarre, too, so we stick to Drottningen av Englands hus. The psychology behind this is that the phrase Drottningen av England feels like an unit that you can’t break up into two parts.
AHHH!!!
OK, lemme explain “sons-of-bitches” vs “son-of-a-bitches”
Yes, yes, yes, the former is technically correct. (And to my ears, has a nicer ring to it anyhow.)
I’m sure there’s someone with a better linguistic background than me who can explain this (Jomo Mojo? matt_mcl?) better than I can.
To people who use the plural “son-of-a-bitches,” the phrase has lost the meaning of individual words. It’s parsed as one syntactical unit, something like sonnuvabitch.
For these people, the natural instinct would be to put the plural morpheme at the end. For those of us who parse each individual word we would, of course, put the plural morpheme at the end of the head of the phrase.
The cold logic everyone is using is not always applicable in language. After all, isn’t “SsOB” correct, not “SOBs” and “RsBI” not “RBIs”?
Now, passer-by I just don’t understand, especially since it can be written as “passerby.” The correct plural, even in that form, is “passersby.” Are there any other words in the English language in which we infix the plural morpheme?
I wouldn’t say “passer-bys” is “obviously incorrect.” Maybe to you, perhaps even to me, but I would wager that a lot of English speakers would pluralize it that way. Is it “incorrect”? I would say absolutely not. It’s perfectly logical as well and coherent.
maybe.
“POWs” always sounded strange to me. I thought it should have been “PsOW”
-
It would be “Queen of England’s coat,” because “Queen of England” is (as used here) a title) and the entire title takes the possessive. If she’s “Queen of England, Scotland, and the Isles, as well as Her Possessions Across the Sea” (or whatever), you still put the possessive at the end of the title. Never (in English) “Queen’s of England coat,” which doesn’t make any sense (in English).
-
Abbreviations take the possessive at the end because the abbreviation (as used in conversation and writing) becomes one “word” (in quotes because they are not technically ‘words’) that stands in for the phrase abbreviated. As a stand-in “word,” an abbreviation is pluralized at the end. RBIs. POWs.
[hijack]
I despise it when sports anchors pronounce the word “RBI” as “ribby.” Are you really that pressed for time?
[/hijack]
–Cliffy
Jodi- I totally agree with you. And I think that’s what’s happeneing with some of the words mentioned above - they become either entire titles or become treated as one word, hence the tendency to put the plural marker at the end.
I’m still interested to hear if any of you would actually use the plural “culs-de-sac,” even though it is correct.
As for “ribbies,” aw come on, it’s just a slang term for “RBIs.” OK, it only saves one syllable, but I think it’s kinda cute. 
It’s just like Cubbies, which is the slang plural acronym for Chicago’s Unwinning Bastards.