(1) French <les enfants levèrent la main> (they raised one hand each)
(2) French <les enfants levèrent les mains> (they raised two hands each)
(1)&(2) English <the children raised their hands>
To be more accurate : in French noun number is gramatically (la+nil vs les+s), and semantically (either 1 or 2), required whereas in English noun number is required to be grammatical only (compulsory plural : their+s - singular their+nil being impossible).
No ambiguity left should English allow inflexional possessive pronouns : their = sg and *theirs = pl, instead of their = sg or pl.
Fleur,
It doesn't matter how many individuals or the gender.
Everybody is a "general" term used as plural, I mean it could be any number or gender.
Greg,
Your similarity of the sentences in French and English doesn't make sense to me. I meat, I don't see it being similar.
"Theirs" is the possesive of "their" and not the plural of.
"les enfants levèrent la main" =the kids raised their hand, which has same meaning as in French.
Chamonix,
I was unaware that <the kids raised their hand> was grammatically correct in English. I was taught that <the kids raised their hands> was the only formulation possible.
The possessive 'their' is by nature invariable in English. That's why I wrote '*theirs' : the star indicates a wrong form.
Both "their" and "theirs" are correct in English, in different circumstances, but the first is a possessive adjective, and the latter is a genitive case pronoun (do not confuse the two, even though many do, unfortunately). They're analogous to, say, "mein" and "meins" (if the thing being possessed is neuter gender and singular) auf Deutsch, for something to compare such to in another Germanic language (sorry, but I like using German for comparisons with English, just because I actually speak (some) of it). The two differ in usage in that "their" is used to directly qualify a noun, in the place of a determiner or demonstrative pronoun or like, whereas "theirs" stands by itself. Contrast "that is their house", "that house is theirs", and "that is a house of theirs" with *"that is theirs house", *"that house is their", and *"that is a house of their", where the first set is all correct (at least here, even though I would be very surprised if it was not in most other English dialects), and the second set is all incorrect (same disclaimer goes here as well).
As for "the kids raised their hand" versus "the kids raised their hands", both are grammatically correct alright (same disclaimer goes here again), but the first in most circumstances doesn't make that much sense semantically, grammaticality aside. But grammaticality has nothing to do with whether something really semantically makes sense to the reader whatsoever; the classic example "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is very grammatical, yet it makes no sense whatsoever to the average English speaker.
Travis,
You’re right : <theirs> is correct in English. However, the acceptation of *<theirs> I was referring to is not, as shown below :
<They aren’t happy with THEIR working conditions>
*<They aren’t happy with *THEIRS working conditions>.
I’m not too familiar with the English vocabulary related to grammar. I would call this kind of <their> a possessive determiner. In a sentence like <they aren’t happy with THEIR working conditions>, <their> serves the purpose of clarifying the person (third) and number (plural) of the ‘possessor’ (they). However, as a possessive determinant <their> is denied any grammatical agreement with the determinee (conditions) – which also happens to be the ‘possessee’ (<they> ~ <conditions>).
That is not the case in French :
<Ils sont mécontents de LEURS conditions de travail>
*<Ils sont mécontents de *LEUR conditions de travail>.
Grammaticality demands that possessive determiner <leur> agree in number with the determinee (conditions).
When <conditions> is regarded as a ‘possessee’ (<ils> ~ <conditions> or <they> ~ <conditions>) rather than a determinee (<leurs> ~ <conditions> or <their> ~ <conditions>), then French and English work the same :
<Elle est mécontente de SES conditions de travail> (possessive determiner : 3rd person + plural)
<She isn’t happy with HER working conditions> (possessive determiner : 3rd person + lack of number)
<Je suis mécontent de MES conditions de travail> (possessive determiner : 1st person + plural)
<I’m not happy with MY working conditions> (possessive determiner : 1st person + lack of number).
Still, the 4 following phrases remain impossible :
*<Elle est mécontente de *SA conditions de travail> (possessive determiner : 3rd person + *singular = inappropriate number agreement )
*<She isn’t happy with *HERS working conditions> (possessive determiner : 3rd person + *plural = number irrelevant)
*<Je suis mécontent de *MA conditions de travail> (possessive determiner : 1st person + *singular = inappropriate number agreement)
*<I’m not happy with *MYS working conditions> (possessive determiner : 1st person + *plural = number irrelevant).
Now back to <theirs> : <that house is theirs>. I agree with you : for there isn’t anything to determine, <theirs> can’t – grammatically – be called a determiner. Rather, <theirs> seems to function as a pronoun the sole function of which is to add extra meaning (possession) that <that house> is unable to convey by itself.
French equivalent to <that house is theirs> is <cette maison est la leur> (word to word : *<that house is *the theirs>). In French the pronoun function of <leur> is made more apparent than in English because the article <la> is compulsory whereas <the> is forbidden in English. The presence of a determiner like <la> (<the>) shows the true nature of <leur> (<theirs>) : a pronoun, as you mentioned.
Perhaps the absolute, invariable possessive pronoun <theirs> (or genitive-case pronoun) was ‘forged’ after what I’ve known as ‘Saxon genitive’ (Paul’s car, my father’s house) : <that house is theirs> ‘deriving’ from *<that house is their’s> ?
I'm not sure, but I somewhat doubt it, considering that generally pronouns have their own inflected forms for different cases in languages with really any inflection at all, that is, which aren't purely agglutinative or isolating, so hence the "Saxon genitive" would not really apply to such; it would be the same genitive /case/ but it would not be the old -"(e)s" genitive inflection that is the source of the modern -"'s" genitive clitic. It could be similar to the source of "meins" for the neuter singular referent version of the German first person singular genitive pronoun, where the "s" is really just a reduced version of the usual marking for nominative, neuter, singular in origin, rather than being linked to the masculine/neuter singular noun genitive inflection -"s".
I mean, reduced version of the usual *adjective/determiner* marking for nominative, neuter, singular in origin. Oh, and the mention of -"s" at the end should really be -"(e)s".