Reply
Tue 23 Apr, 2013 09:48 am
I read grammar books every now and then. Most grammar books say objects cannot possess other objects, so the possessive should not be used for objects unless the object is personified, like cars and ships. However, I am reading a grammar book right now that gives me the following example in the chapter about possessive pronouns: "Enemy ships were all around, and the periscope's lenses were blurry."
So, how do you feel about this? May objects possess other objects? Thanks.
Of course objects can possess parts or other objects - the ship's mast, the car's wheels, the table's legs. You do not say what "grammar books" you have read that told you otherwise, but either they are worthless or you have misread them.
@Doubtful,
Quote:Most grammar books say objects cannot possess other objects
Doubt, Con is quite right. Can you supply a link to your assertion
Some writers consider it bad form to use apostrophe -s possessives with pieces of furniture and buildings or inanimate objects in general. This rule (if, in fact, it is one) is no longer universally endorsed. We would not say "the radio of that car" instead of "that car's radio" and we would not write "the desire of my heart" instead of "my heart's desire."
However, if you wish to live by the rule, you are perfectly entitled to do so, and you would re-write that example as ""Enemy ships were all around, and the lenses of the periscope were blurry."
@dalehileman,
Not really because they were paper books and some I don't have anymore. I believe one of the books that states that is Murphy's Grammar in Use.
If you google the three words "possessive inanimate object" without quotes you will find plenty of sites that recommend not using
's for objects, save for a few exceptions. Here is one:
http://www.wvup.edu/jcc/pam/apostrophes.htm
@Doubtful,
I'm glad you posted that, as I think we may have misunderstood the question. That site is clearly showing "objects that possess". Is it possible that your question is more about how to show and punctuate that possesion, and not about whether objects can possess objects?
@Doubtful,
Doubtful wrote:If you google the three words "possessive inanimate object" without quotes you will find plenty of sites that recommend not using 's for objects
Yes, and you will also find plenty of sites that say that the "rule" is neither universally supported by scholars, nor unanimously followed by native speakers. You can choose whether to follow it or not. You need to realise that English is like that. Sometimes the use of apostrophe-s possessive will seem awkward - e.g. when the possessing thing ends with an S - sometimes not. The fluent speaker and writer makes choices and does not always blindly follow "rules".
@Doubtful,
Quote:you will find plenty of sites that recommend not using 's for objects
Aha, yes, Doubt now I understand
Forgive pun
@roger,
Quote:Is it possible that your question is more about how to show and punctuate that possession, and not about whether objects can possess objects?
It's about using
apostrophe s on objects: the table's legs, the fan's switch, etc. Yet, saying the "legs of the table" or "the switch of the fan" sounds so clumsy, that's why I was wondering how people felt about this rule. Now it is clear, many authors don't care for it anymore. It's the evolution of language, I suppose.
Thanks everyone for all the input.
@Doubtful,
Stay far far away from the website you quoted, Doubtful,
http://www.wvup.edu/jcc/pam/apostrophes.htm
That professor illustrates very quickly that he or she knows very little about describing the English language.
The clincher, that professor actually recommends
The Elements of Style, which is a god awful piece of **** that should never have been published.
Quote:For some helpful writing hints, check out The Elements of Style, an online style manual for writing.
Quote:April 17, 2009
50 Years of Stupid Grammar Advice
By Geoffrey K. Pullum
April 16 is the 50th anniversary of the publication of a little book that is loved and admired throughout American academe. Celebrations, readings, and toasts are being held, and a commemorative edition has been released.
I won't be celebrating.
The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which it is held by American college graduates. Its advice ranges from limp platitudes to inconsistent nonsense. Its enormous influence has not improved American students' grasp of English grammar; it has significantly degraded it.
The authors won't be hurt by these critical remarks. They are long dead. William Strunk was a professor of English at Cornell about a hundred years ago, and E.B. White, later the much-admired author of Charlotte's Web, took English with him in 1919, purchasing as a required text the first edition, which Strunk had published privately. After Strunk's death, White published a New Yorker article reminiscing about him and was asked by Macmillan to revise and expand Elements for commercial publication. It took off like a rocket (in 1959) and has sold millions.
This was most unfortunate for the field of English grammar, because both authors were grammatical incompetents.
http://chronicle.com/article/50-Years-of-Stupid-Grammar/25497
@Doubtful,
Quote:Most grammar books say objects cannot possess other objects, so the possessive should not be used for objects unless the object is personified, like cars and ships.
You have to understand the difference between a grammar book and a style manual, D. That, above, is not a rule of the English language. It is a prescription, which means that it was a made up rule, a false rule, a nonexistent rule.
Quote:For here are the remarkable facts. Most of the prescriptive rules of the language mavens make no sense on any level. They are bits of folklore that originated for screwball reasons several hundred years ago and have perpetuated themselves ever since. For as long as they have existed, speakers have flouted them, spawning identical plaints about the imminent decline of the language century after century. All the best writers in English have been among the flagrant flouters. The rules conform neither to logic nor tradition, and if they were ever followed they would force writers into fuzzy, clumsy, wordy, ambiguous, incomprehensible prose, in which certain thoughts are not expressible at all. Indeed, most of the "ignorant errors" these rules are supposed to correct display an elegant logic and an acute sensitivity to the grammatical texture of the language, to which the mavens are oblivious.
http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/1994_01_24_thenewrepublic.html
@JTT,
That was very informative JTT, thank you. Occasionally I download grammar books and I read them. Is there a grammar bible for American English? (not for ESL students, for native speakers).
@Doubtful,
Quote:That was very informative JTT, thank you. Occasionally I download grammar books and I read them.
You're welcome, Doubtful.
Quote:Is there a grammar bible for American English? (not for ESL students, for native speakers).
Most US produced books cannot be described as English grammar bibles or even as passable English grammar books. The US is still largely in the grip of the lunacy perpetrated by Strunk & White and those of their kind.
One excellent book is,
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/book.pl?usage.htm
See also at Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877791325/merriamwebster?creative=327641&camp=14573&link_code=as1
where it can be purchased for under $20.00 US, in hardcover. An download would probably be cheaper.
@JTT,
Thanks again, JTT. Added the dictionary to my wish list. It will certainly be in my next purchase. Too bad Amazon does not provide a "look inside" for this book.
@Doubtful,
I'll give you an example if I can find it. Momento, s'il vous plait.
@JTT,
Here are two discussions, with I believe some examples.
If it was good enough for King Alfred the Great...
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003775.html
Don't put up with usage abuse
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001803.html
There may be some other links as you read thru the articles, D.
Good luck. Let me know if you get a copy.
@JTT,
Thanks again JTT. Coincidentally these days I looked up the use of less/fewer. That clarified all my doubts! I also went ahead and added "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language" to my wish list too (mentioned in the second article). Thanks.
@Doubtful,
Quote:I also went ahead and added "The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language" to my wish list too (mentioned in the second article).
I wouldn't recommend that one unless you feel you are at the graduate level plus in grammar and linguistics, D. It is also very expensive tho' you may well be able to get a used copy on Amazon.
@JTT,
Quote:unless you feel you are at the graduate level plus in grammar and linguistics
I'll get there. I love a challenge!
@Doubtful,
You know Doubtful, if you value someone's answer above all others, you can select it as your favorite answer, which will award them a red ribbon. Just saying. . . .
Selected Answer
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace