the genetive clitic

rich7   Thursday, March 17, 2005, 08:01 GMT
First off, if the word clitic refers to the following:

pronounced as part of another word: used to describe a word that cannot be stressed and is pronounced as part of the word that follows or precedes it, for example, in “ve” in “I’ve”

According to this, I take it that "I`ve" is the clitic of "I have", Am I right?
so what does the genitive clitive " 's " stands for?

On the other hand, what's the difference when we, for instance say:

"the room door" or "the room's door" even this: "the door of the room"

"men of Rome" or "Rome's men"

How can I know when to use which?
Brennus   Thursday, March 17, 2005, 08:26 GMT
There is no hard and fast rule for which form to use. It is largely a question of stylistics and personal preference with usually both forms being acceptable.

There is something in linguistics called "Sprachgefuhl" which is a native speaker's intuition as to whether a certain word or expression sounds right or not. Sometimes that is all you have to go by. To me, as a native speaker, "The room door" and "The room's door" both sound a little awkward. You would more likely hear native speakers of English say "The door of the room", "The door to the room" or just plain "The door" instead. But only a minority of word pairs are like this. Usually either the phrase with the clitic or the phrase with the preposition 'of' are both okay.
rich7   Thursday, March 17, 2005, 08:31 GMT
Thanks for your comment good to know, let's wait to hear what others have to say.
hello   Thursday, March 17, 2005, 09:45 GMT
"Room door" sounds weird because it sounds too general where "door" alone can be used, otherwise you'd specify "the door of THE room". "Kitchen door" and "bathroom door" sound good because like "the door of the room", it is clear exactly what's being identified.
rich7   Thursday, March 17, 2005, 09:48 GMT
Ok then, why not "the kitchen's door" and "the bathroom's door"
hello   Thursday, March 17, 2005, 10:38 GMT
Because kitchen and bathroom are lifeless things, is my guess. Harry's watch, the groom's suit, the girl's hair, the dog's kenel, our bird's cage, etc...

Note: the "dog kenel" doesn't refer to any particular dog's kenel. Our "bird cage" doesn't necessarily refer to the cage belonging to our bird; just some cage we happen to own.
hello   Thursday, March 17, 2005, 10:43 GMT
After checking my dictionary, "kenel" should be kennel and birdcage for "bird cage". I don't own pets so that's my excuse for not seeing it written correctly.
person   Thursday, March 17, 2005, 13:42 GMT
"so what does the genitive clitive " 's " stands for? "

"'s" isn't short for anything, it simply denotes possession, all on its own.

note the speical case "its" which does not take the apostrophe, to avoid confusion with "it's", which is an abbreviation of "it is".
Travis   Thursday, March 17, 2005, 13:50 GMT
"'s" isn't a clitic that is really a reduction of some independent word in the first place. Note that "its" is not "it" + "'s", but rather is a possessive determiner unto itself, like "my", "your", "their", and so on, which functions differently at a technical level from a noun phrase plus the genitive clitic.
ric7   Thursday, March 17, 2005, 20:43 GMT
Hello hello, that's your guess, ok then but can anybody assure that, as a rule?
Tiffany   Thursday, March 17, 2005, 21:41 GMT
Hello sounded pretty convincing to me... There's no rule I know of though.
Travis   Thursday, March 17, 2005, 21:45 GMT
I'd say that you can say both "the bathroom's door" and "the door of the bathroom" equally, with the real difference between the two just being stylstic. The only cases in which "of" is really mandatory is if one's trying to also use another determiner or like with the word being possessed. You can say "my friend" and "a friend of mine" but not "a my friend" or "my a friend", so hence if one wants to use the indefinite article with "my friend", you have to reconfigure it to use "of" (but also one will probably still use the genitive case for the pronoun after "of", that is, "mine" rather than "me).
rich7   Thursday, March 17, 2005, 22:22 GMT
Ok. two is better than one, "stylstic" a typo maybe?
hello   Friday, March 18, 2005, 08:15 GMT
I've only ever heard "the bathroom door" or "the door of the bathroom". Even though it's correct, "the bathroom's door" sounds like something a foreigner might say, unless you can somehow breathe life into a bathroom, according to my little rule above. It's not something that would occur in everyday speech but it might in a narrative: "The bathroom's role in our society is..." or "A bathroom's cleanliness is important for..."
greg   Saturday, March 19, 2005, 18:23 GMT
It seems that some English syntactic constructions using <of> can be phenotypically identical while semantically divergent :
1 <That friend of his> : extractive determination, <of> meaning ‘among’
2 <That nose of his> : modalised determination, <of> rendering the speaker’s appreciation of the said nose – unless the person who is spoken of is provided with two noses or more (then it could be either 1 or 2).


Here is a set of 4 English sentences for which I would appreciate comments by native or seasoned English speakers :
1 <My mother’s portrait was hung beside my father’s>
2 <My mother’s portrait was hung beside my that of my father>
3 <The portrait of my mother was hung beside my father’s>
4 <The portrait of my mother was hung beside that of my father>.
Question 1 : do you think all 4 are English ?
Question 2 : if so, do you think all 4 are semantically equivalent ?
Question 3 : does <my mother’s portrait> unambiguously indicate either a painted portrait that belongs to my mother or a painting representing the face of my mother and belonging to someone else or both simultaneously ?


Take <John’s car> and <the car of John>. Call A the determinee – <car> – and B the determiner – <John>. Then consider constructions available in English : <B’s A> and <A of B>.
I’ve read in an English Grammar written in French that <A of B> is mandatory in the following cases :
1 When B is a substantival adjective. <The favourite pastime of the British is disparaging the EU> is deemed correct whereas *<British’s favourite pastime is disparaging the EU> is not.
2 When B refers to any inanimate object. Correct : <the door of the room>, <the roof of the house>. Incorrect : *<the room’s door>, *<the house’s roof>. However, they add that any inanimate object explicitly referred to as in relation to a human activity may waive the <A of B> form and follow the <B’s A> rule: <after reading two chapters, the book’s value finally appeared> is correct even if a book is an inanimate object since the book mentioned is referred to as being – or having been – read by someone.
Question 1 : do you confirm those rules ?
Question 2 : if so, do you agree with what Travis mentioned ? – that <the room’s door> and <the house’s roof> would be acceptable only if both phrases were considered semantically more expanded than <the door of the room> and <the roof of the house> due to stylistic variation ?


1 <A man of twenty>
2 <A man of twenty years>
3 <A man of twenty years old>
4 <A twenty-year-old man>
5 <A twenty-years-old man>
6 <A man twenty years old>
Question 1 : do you think all 5 are English ?
Question 2 : do you think that <of…> in 1, 2 and 3 are adjectival periphrases ?
Question 3 : do you think <twenty…> in 6 is an elliptic relative clause ?
Question 4 : do you think <twenty-year(s)-old> in 4 and 5 are adjectival relative clauses ?


My guess is that En <of> may grossly fall into two semantical categories :
1 Extraction : <a friend of my brother’s> = one among my brother’s friends
2 Possession : <a man of twenty’s car> = the car belonging to a man of twenty.
My first bet is that extractive <of> is closer to <off> than possessive <of> is : distance : <keep off>, departure : <off we go>, separation : <he had his beard shaved off>, interruption <switch off the light>, completion <pay off your debts>, (metaphorical) dismemberment <he yawned his head off> etc.
My second bet (well actually it’s somebody else’s bet) is that possessive <of>, as in <A of B>, is a syntactical calque from French <A de B> now competing with Old English <B’s A>. Example : Old English <aennes cynges sunu> (one form only), Modern English <a king’s son> and <the son of a king> (two forms, the latter deriving from <le fils d’un roi>).
Do you confirm ?