Difference between two forms

Another Guest   Fri May 07, 2010 12:41 am GMT
<<So peolpe would be happy with something like

'Meet me at the road's end' instead of 'Meet me at the end of the road'?

They are NOT interchangeable all the ime. >>
Certainly, "A of B" is not always interchangeable with "B's A". "Man of the Year" is not the same as "The year's man". "Bottom of the barrel" is not the same as "Barrel's bottom". But that is become "of" can denote senses other than possession, not because some nouns can't take possessive 's.
Leasnam   Fri May 07, 2010 3:28 pm GMT
Judging from some of the posts made here, it is painfully obvious that some who are trying to lay down the law are not even native English speakers. They are English learners, and they just learned this "rule".

'Meet me at the road's end' instead of 'Meet me at the end of the road'?
These two options are both 100% correct, and 100% meaning the same thing. The only difference is usage and style.

Possessive s is slowly gaining ground over the older style of using 'of'. That is a fact.
Student   Fri May 07, 2010 6:00 pm GMT
To a non-native speaker like me, "the title of the article" as opposed to "the article's title" or anything similar (at the end of the road sounds more "correct" to me, but that's an exception) sounds terribly redundant and unnecessarily complex. It just get ridiculous when you consider the plethora of exceptions to the rule (cars, companies etc.)
H   Fri May 07, 2010 8:33 pm GMT
M. Swan is not a non-native learner, Leasnam. Nor is he a prescriptivist.
Leasnam   Fri May 07, 2010 9:50 pm GMT
Well, then he is alone in his rule. I have never heard of these restrictions on the use of 's before. Where did he get them? Did he just make them up? --to his own liking?

Maybe his rule correlates closely to how 's is actually used, but you cannot take observation and impose it as a rule, unless you have an alterior motive.

Do you suppose that he might?

I know lots of people who are not fans of the dreaded "Saxon Genitive"--Oooooh
Leasnam   Fri May 07, 2010 9:52 pm GMT
' you know that's suppsed to be ulterior


time to go nite nite
Gordon   Fri May 07, 2010 10:38 pm GMT
<<To a non-native speaker like me, "the title of the article" as opposed to "the article's title" or anything similar (at the end of the road sounds more "correct" to me, but that's an exception) sounds terribly redundant and unnecessarily complex. It just get ridiculous when you consider the plethora of exceptions to the rule (cars, companies etc.) >>


Well, as a non-native speaker you don't have a say. You learn whatever the fuck we tell you to learn, got it?

As a native speaker, I find these non-natives who think they know about English to be terribly redundant and bordering on ridiculous.
Johnny P   Sat May 08, 2010 2:06 am GMT
Wow, that was overly harsh.

But, to me, as a native English speaker, both of those usages sound correct, although I would be more inclined toward "the title of the article." I think it has to do with the slight awkwardness involved with combining an L and S sound. "The mail's contents" also doesn't seem to flow well (for me at least).
Trimac20   Sat May 08, 2010 9:43 am GMT
Nothing wrong with the second at all. Your English teacher should be sacked, 'Student.' Neither is better than the other it's purely stylistic and to do with order.
lol   Sat May 08, 2010 10:23 am GMT
Leasnam

Would you really be inclined to say 'Meet me at the road's end' as opposed to 'Meet me at the end of the road'?

I find it hard to believe, even if you are American. It just sounds plain off. And yes, I am a native BrE speaker.

I can more easily imagine it being used in a poetic of literary way, but in everyday speech, no.
lol   Sat May 08, 2010 10:26 am GMT
>>a poetic of literary way<<

Sorry, should be 'poetic OR literary way'
Student   Sat May 08, 2010 2:48 pm GMT
>>>"Well, as a non-native speaker you don't have a say. You learn whatever the fuck we tell you to learn, got it?"

Uhm, really? So if you were studying a foreign language, you'd just swallow up whatever completely self-contradictory, ridiculous rule which relies on a purely prescriptivist point of view you encounter?

That's not being smart, that's being a fucking pussy.

Your opinion of a native speaker is no more relevant than the opinion of an educated non-native one.

>>>"As a native speaker, I find these non-natives who think they know about English to be terribly redundant and bordering on ridiculous."

You do realize that without non-native speakers finding some English things to be terribly redundant (not because of the difference from their native language but from the difference of other similar English forms), today there would be no such thing as American English, right?


--I don't see what's the point in respecting this "rule". You can't have a rule which says that you can't use an 's after an inanimate object and then add as many exceptions as you can. Give me a reason why you should respect this rule.

I do agree that in some cases it sounds awkward. "The road's end" is a no even for me. But that feeling of awkwardness is probably from learned usage that from the way it sounds.

In any case, it would be better to reverse the situation, and have a few, SPECIFIC exceptions that RESPECT the rule instead of just adding whole categories that don't.
lol   Sat May 08, 2010 8:49 pm GMT
Student

I think the point is non-native speakers cannot dictate what is right or wrong in English. It is simply what it is, spoken as it is spoken by native speakers regardless of whether it seems to make sense or not.

You cannot use American English as an example of non-native speakers changing a language. American English is a dialect of English that has developed and now exists in its own right. Maybe one day there will be an accepted consistent global version of English, which has arisen from various non-native speakers having their own take on the language, but that hasn't happened yet. Non-native speakers do not have the right to speak a version of English that doesn't comply with any of the current dialects of English, and insist that it is right, just because they fell it makes more sense!
Student   Sat May 08, 2010 9:16 pm GMT
I would agree if it was a universal English rule, but it's not. There native speakers who are pro and against this rule, therefore I think I can support one of those groups, can't I?
H   Sat May 08, 2010 9:22 pm GMT
<Non-native speakers do not have the right to speak a version of English that doesn't comply with any of the current dialects of English, and insist that it is right, just because they fell it makes more sense! >
Who does? 'ave never seen nobody.
All learners rely on renowned linguists, and M.Swan is one of the most popular.