|
|
possessive
How solid is this "rule"?
"As a rule, nouns referring to inanimate things should not be in the possessive. Use an “of” phrase instead." http://blog.instructionalsolut...me-or-two-days-time/
"How solid is this 'rule'?"
As solid as GM's finances or a sub-prime mortgage, my friend!
<<How solid is this "rule"?
"As a rule, nouns referring to inanimate things should not be in the possessive. Use an “of” phrase instead." >> You tell me The book's cover has been torn. The sun's energy is a longterm sustainable fuel source. Heaven's gates are open wide. The Earth's circumference is 40,075.02 km.
It's not a common 'rule,' at least in every day speech. This seems more like a guide line on writing style. In that case, I would assume it's pretty regular.
Apologies. Here is the link:
http://blog.instructionalsolutions.com/2008/11/05/inanimate-possessives-two-days-time-or-two-days-time/
There simply isn’t any evidence that there is or ever was a rule of English saying that inanimate objects cannot take an ’s possessive.
<<The Gregg Reference Manual (which I highly recommend) explains:
As a rule, nouns referring to inanimate things should not be in the possessive. Use an “of” phrase instead. - the bottom of the barrel (NOT: the barrels’ bottom) - the wording of the agreement (NOT: the agreement’s wording - the lower level of the terminal (NOT: the terminal’s lower level) >> Author: William E. Sabin One thing I would like to point out: <<- the bottom of the barrel (NOT: the barrels’ bottom)>> Here, it shows an s-apostrophe on barrel as the "NOT:", which though not an incorrect form does conflict with the "recommended" "of the barrel" and is incorrect. It should read: the barrel's bottom Clearly this author hasn't the slightest clue as to the workings of the English language, and is making up rules to satisfy his own opinions and viewpoints. My advice to you: Disregard it
I agree inanimate possessives are peculiar, but I would follow the rule expressed the Gregg Reference Manual for serious business (contracts, especially) and academic writing. The Gregg Reference Manual, and its author, William Sabin, are highly respected and safe to consider a definitive guide. Fowler's Modern English also recommends that inanimate possessive be treated following the rule originally stated.
Gregg also clarifies the exceptions, some of which Leasnan correctly identified in the post above (other examples Leasnan cited are colloquial, so fine for narrative writing, but not professional): "In many common expressions that refer to time and measurements, however, and in phrases implying personification, the possessive form has come to be accepted usage: the company's assets an hour's work two cents' worth this morning's news the earth's atmosphere
<<"In many common expressions that refer to time and measurements, however, and in phrases implying personification, the possessive form has come to be accepted usage:
>> I have a slight problem with this quote-- It implies, at least to me, that the inanimate possessive is a newer feature or aspect, and that we are coming from a non-inanimate possessive position in English to a newly-accepted inanimate-possessive, where they are making some allowances for certain cases. This is outrageous. There was a time in English where the possessive case was the only selection for these types of constructions for both animate and inamimates. Therefore, the possessive case is the 'default' construction. Allowances to use the "of" construct should be thought of as acceptable or permissible not the other way around.
<Therefore, the possessive case is the 'default' construction. >
Can we say "was" and not "is" there?
<<<Therefore, the possessive case is the 'default' construction. >
Can we say "was" and not "is" there? >> Well, no because it still is. The rule put forth by Sabin is bogus and not true. I do not know where he got this, or how he came to his arbitrary conclusion as to the possessive in English. He must have simply made it up. The possessive can be used all the time and be 100% correct. There is no rule.
Agreed completely - the genitive can be used to express possession in English in all cases, and the supposed rule that it can only be used in certain cases is completely fictional in reality.
The two forms can have different meanings. For instance, "the bottom of the barrel" refers to inside the barrel, at the bottom, while "the barrel's bottom" refers to the outside of the barrel.
<<The Gregg Reference Manual, and its author, William Sabin, are highly respected and safe to consider a definitive guide.>>
Respected by whom? His rule is patent nonsense. |