Showing possession for two nouns owning one item

Thank you for the research, dupre. I thought the solution to this non-problem was so simple and obvious, I didn't even bother to look it up.

0 Replies

You are probably right, and I am making much ado about nothing. The simple answer must be "his," yet the explanation cannot be simple.

Suppose changing the noun to a pronoun breaks the definition of "closely linked" nouns, and therefore, possession is indicated in the first pronoun, what would happen if the sentence is reversed?

"I'm going to Megan's and his room."

It would follow that if the nouns are no longer closely linked, then the first noun would also require the possessive inflection.

And, if my friend is right, and the answer is that the first noun is indeed in a state of uninflected possession and therefore the pronoun should be expressed in the possessive, why not have the pronoun also be expressed in the uninflected possessive--whatever that might be?

I like, "I'm going to he and Megan's room," somewhat. But I do not like, "I'm going to I and Megan's room."

I like, "I'm going to me and Megan's room," somewhat. But I do not like, "I'm going to him and Megan's room."

I'm looking forward to the explanation . . . as much as the answer.

Thanks for your kind words on what should be a simple question.

0 Replies

Recast. Megan and I have a room together. I'm going there now.

I know, that begs the question. Use whatever pronoun would be correct if Megan weren't even in the picture: "Finn is going to his room." "Finn is going to his and Megan's room."

Finn's pronoun shouldn't change just because someone else is mentioned as well.

0 Replies

Hello, Wy. Thanks for your thoughts. Of course, "Finn's" noun shouldn't change because a second noun is mentioned in ownership, yet, according to the Chicago Manual--and all others that I've read--it does.

Yep, I would've at least have said, "Finn wanted to go to Megan and his room." Then, the possession expressed in "his" would carry over to the first noun mentioned, and there is no problem as to which case to put the pronoun in.

Anyway, that's the polite thing, too. Mention the lady--or whoever--first before referring back to the subject.

Thanks for your input. I appreciate it.

0 Replies

You should always use the possessive case for any noun or pronoun which acts an an adjective. That would be one which implicitly or explicitly modifies another element in the sentence.

Due to the oddity of eliminating the possessive form from all but the last proper nouns when two or more are used to show ownership of one thing, I understand (sort of) that you may see the nominative pronoun as one which would thus be equal to a name in a non-possessive mode. However, it would be absolutely incorrect to use anything but the possessive pronoun in the sentence you've provided.

Certainly the best choice of all your options is Megan's and my room.

0 Replies

Frankly, when I first started reading, I thought the answer was simple and obvious. Now my eyeballs are spinning around in my head like lemons in a slot machine.

Dupre, I eagerly await the response from CMS.

0 Replies

Roberta, thanks for saying that. I am beginning to feel like a dope for asking such an obvious question. My friend assures me that whenever there is an exception to the rule, a question is not out of line.

I, too, anxiously await their answer . . . and their explanation.

Thanks.

0 Replies

Piffka, thanks for your thoughts.

See how difficult it is? According to the Chicago Manual there would be no question as to how to express "Megan and my room" as opposed to the phrase you suggested: "Megan's and my room."

It's not as easy as it looks.

Thanks for your contribution. And I do agree with you in that putting the pronoun last does solve the issue entirely.

0 Replies

You're right. It is not as simple as it might appear. I will be as interested as you to read the definitive answer. My solution for things like this is to change the entire paragraph so that I can avoid the issue.

0 Replies

Quote:

Compound Possessives
When you are showing possession with compounded nouns, the apostrophe's placement depends on whether the nouns are acting separately or together.

Miguel's and Cecilia's new cars are in the parking lot.
This means that each of them has at least one new car and that their ownership is a separate matter.
Miguel and Cecilia's new cars are in the parking lot.
This means that Miguel and Cecilia share ownership of these cars. The possessive (indicated by 's) belongs to the entire phrase, not just to Cecilia.
Another example:

Lewis and Clark's expectations were very much the same.
The means that the two gentlemen held one set of expectations in common.
Lewis's and Clark's expectations were altogether different.
This means that the expectations of the two men were different (rather obvious from what the sentence says, too), and that we signify separate ownership by writing both of the compounded proper nouns in the possessive form.
When one of the possessors in a compound possessive is a personal pronoun, we have to put both possessors in the possessive form or we end up with something silly: "Bill and my car had to be towed last night."

Bill's and my car had to be towed last night.
Giorgio's and her father was not around much during their childhood.
If this second sentence seems unsatisfactory, you might have to do some rewriting so you end up talking about their father, instead, or revert to using both names: "Giorgio and Isabel's father wasn't around much . . . ." (and then "Giorgio" will lose the apostrophe +s).

Source to follow.

0 Replies

http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/possessives.htm#double_possessives

We might not hear back from the Chicago Manual of Style web site. Upon visiting there again I noted their statement that they cannot respond to every question.

I discovered Charles Darling's web site a while back. He offers a Q & A form and detailed explanations to many aspects of grammar I thought I already knew.

Thanks for your help and thoughts on this.

0 Replies

Great work, dupre! The quote, however, addresses only the problem of possessive nouns. I still wonder what the experts say about possessive pronouns.

0 Replies

Quote:

When one of the possessors in a compound possessive is a personal pronoun, we have to put both possessors in the possessive form or we end up with something silly:

"Bill and my car had to be towed last night."

Bill's and my car had to be towed last night.

Giorgio's and her father was not around much during their childhood.

If this second sentence seems unsatisfactory, you might have to do some rewriting so you end up talking about their father, instead, or revert to using both names:

"Giorgio and Isabel's father wasn't around much . . . ." (and then "Giorgio" will lose the apostrophe +s).

I still want to know why, other than it sounds "silly."

So much for the it-just-sounds-silly test!

If we didn't use the possessive form in a sentence like

"I'm going up to Robert and my room," the meaning is actually altered.

It could be read that "I'm going up to Robert and (I'm going up to) my room," not a co-owned room.

0 Replies

Dupre, Thanks for getting back to us with the explanation. My eyes have stopped spinning.

0 Replies

You passed it on, Roberta. Mine just started to revolve.

0 Replies

Sorry, Andy. I had no idea it was contagious.

0 Replies

dupre wrote:

Quote:
I still want to know why, other than it sounds "silly."

Remember the rule I quoted? Use the possessive pronoun when it is used as an adjective modifying a noun.

"my room" -- "my dog" -- You'd never say "me dog" unless you were writing in a vernacular, I think that example would be cockney British.

As to switching around the name & pronoun... putting the other person first is, to me, a matter of etiquette. You could also say my and Robert's room, but my mom always said to put myself last.

0 Replies

Quote:

You should always use the possessive case for any noun or pronoun which acts an an adjective. That would be one which implicitly or explicitly modifies another element in the sentence.

Quote=Piffka's

Good idea, and yet, even here, there are exceptions which I only recently learned.

Consider these two sentences:

"Jim was proud of Carlos's making the dean's list."

"Making" is a gerund modified by "Carlos"; hence "Carlos" is in the possessive.

vs.

"Jim was pround of Carlos, his oldest son, making the dean's list."

When the noun modifying the gerund is also modified--"his oldest son"--the possessive is not inflected.

I was surprised by this one!

Thanks for your comments.

0 Replies

Dupre -- I want to comment, but I hardly know what to say. (I do like these conundrums, though. Very Happy

)

I avoid using gerund phrases because I think they're awkward. Often you can use a non-possessive noun or pronoun and have the "-ing" word be a participle instead of a gerund. It changes the meaning slightly, emphasizing the object rather than the action. For example, if I were Carlos, I might prefer that my father be proud of me... not my good grades.

In the fragment "Carlos, his oldest son," -- his oldest son is an appositive which I think is parsed as an equal part of speech, not a modifier. I am dumbfounded that it is as you say, though, I can't see it being any other way. Maybe this is a case of forcing the gerund to be a participle through emphasizing the object?

Where on earth did you find these rules!

0 Replies

www.webster.comment.edu/grammar/gerunds.htm#possessive

Quote:

When the noun preceding the gerund is modified by other words, use the common form of that noun, not the possessive.

"Federico was pleased by Carlos's making the Dean's List for the first time."

but

"Federico was pleased by Carlos, his oldest son, making the Dean's List for the first time."

When the noun preceding the gerund is plural, collective, or abstract, use the common form of that noun, not the possessive.

"Professor Villa was amazed by her students working as hard as they did."

"The class working collaboratively was somebody else's idea."

"It was a case of old age getting the better of them."

There are certain situations in which the possessive and the gerund create an awkward combination. This seems to be particularly true when indefinite pronouns are involved.

"I was shocked by somebody's making that remark."

This would be greatly improved by saying, instead . . .

"I was shocked that somebody would make that remark."

This is also true when the "owner" of the gerund comes wrapped in a noun phrase:

"I was thankful for the guy next door shoveling snow from my driveway"

Yea, I thought about that actually being an appositive and even if the phrase modifies "Carlos," it's an adjectival phrase, right? Not an adverbial phrase, and adjectival phrases modify nouns, not adjectives, which would make "Carlos" a noun, in the second sentence, not an adjective.

English is a funny language, and really does have exceptions which don't fit into any category. <sigh>

0 Replies

Showing possession for two nouns owning one item

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know