Forum: Author Hangout

Alternatively, Ross's quote from New Hart's Guide:

An apostrophe is used in a similar way when the length of a period of
time is specified:
~ a few days' holiday
~ three weeks' time
but notice that an apostrophe is not used in adjectival constructions such as three months pregnant.

AJ

Alternatively, Ross's quote from New Hart's Guide:

An apostrophe is used in a similar way when the length of a period of
time is specified:
~ a few days' holiday
~ three weeks' time
but notice that an apostrophe is not used in adjectival constructions such as three months pregnant.

Meaning, you WOULD use the apostrophe for "a few days" (in whichever form) but WOULDN'T when using it as a qualifier. THAT answers my question, which means the only question remaining is whether the "'" goes before or after the "s", and they specifically state the ONLY TIME you use apostrophe's when specifying time is when it replaces "OF".

As usual, trying to confirm something I thought I already understood just raises more questions!

After some research I trashed my initial post because I came to the conclusion that the English use of the possessive apostrophe 's' is a convoluted mess.

Not really. Since "day's" ISN'T possessive, merely a contraction, it REINFORCES that you DON'T apply possessives with dates. Now that I know how everything applies, it's all consistent.

Not really. Since "day's" ISN'T possessive, merely a contraction, it REINFORCES that you DON'T apply possessives with dates.

"Day's" is not a contraction. It's a possessive. Read Grammar Girl's article.

It is not a real possessive, but it looks exactly like one.

I suspect that's why they chose "day's" instead of "days'", so it wouldn't be as likely to be confused, but I think I'll have to include a footnote, explaining it's a contraction and NOT a possessive, if I use it in a story. I suspect Ernest's solution is the best, simply find another way of saying the same thing.

simply find another way of saying the same thing.

Simple, don't drop 'of'.

Simple, don't drop 'of'.

'Cept "two days of time" sounds STUPID!!!

But I agree with both you and REP, "days' time" is a duration of time having nothing to do with a possessive case. Unless I see an explicit reference to a day "owning" a length of time, I'll stick to the contraction theory.

'Cept "two days of time" sounds STUPID!!!

I agree, although it does permit comparison with eg "two pounds of flour", which never gets contracted or whatever to "two pounds' flour".

AJ

"Day's" is not a contraction. It's a possessive. Read Grammar Girl's article.

I read the article. It ran me around in circles about how people changed things. But I never saw anything about why 'days' in the phrase "...in a few days of time" is possessive. In that phrase, 'Days' is being used to modify time by indicating a duration of time. It has nothing to do with the possessive case.

What I would do, right or wrong, is create a contraction by just dropping 'of' without adding an apostrophe. If I were going to add the apostrophe, I would put it after the 's', because that is where the missing characters where; but, I wouldn't do that as it creates confusion. Confusion like what we are seeing in this thread with everyone assuming the presence of an apostrophe means the possessive case.

But I never saw anything about why 'days' in the phrase "...in a few days of time" is possessive.

Unfortunately, this last name change had a side effect. The genitive case in Latin had several functions, only one of which was to show possession

and

But the clear relationship between the adjective "possessive" and the verb "possess" led various grammarians over the years to believe that any noun in the possessive case must refer to something capable of possessing.

were the keys to me.

"Days" can't possess. But "Possessives Do More Than Just Show Possession." "A few days' time" is one of the other functions of genitive (which is now called possessive).

the English use of the possessive apostrophe 's' is a convoluted mess.

In my rather long post (8/21 2:43), Wikipedia states " 's " is not indicating the possessive case in a statement like "day's time". Wikipedia indicates that the English language does not have a dedicated method of indicating the genitive case, so it uses " 's " to indicate the associated word is modifying another word - typically two nouns.

I guess.

I know. The genitive case as presented by Wikipedia doesn't seem to match up with what other articles are saying. However, the writers of those other articles don't bother to explain what the genitive case is, but Wikipedia provides a logical explanation. Now all I have to do is decide if they are right.

Now all I have to do is decide if they are right.

What you have to accept is that "possessive" (in the genitive case context) does not always mean "ownership" even when it has an 's.

Besides that, marriage is usually a case of shared ownership and possession

Until the divorce. :)

What you have to accept

I accepted it. Now I am looking at the non-possessive use of " 's '. According to Wikipedia, 's is a clitic. The clitic signifies the word it is associated with is modifying another word. Another was of saying it would be the clitic is used to signify a noun is being used as an adjective.

What's the contraction of "a few days of time"? "A few days' time". All your references are wrong when they claim the possessive of a plural ending in 's' is formed by putting the apostrophe in front of the 's'.

I'll let Ross answer the question. The source he quoted last time sounded quite reasonable.

But alas, that is contradicted by my sources, who insist that "a few day's time" is correct, because it stand in for "a few day OF time" and thus you specify "day's time". (The source is an English for foreigner's website, explaining WHEN to use punctuation when discussing time.)

The first question to ask is, Can a day own time?

If not, then you can't use an apostrophe to indicate possession.

Personally, I can't see a day owning time. So, no apostrophe unless you are using it to indicate a contraction.

My source indicates it IS a contraction, but an unusual one, contracting "days of time" into "day's time". Thus you're NOT using a possessive with time, instead you're using the apostrophe to remove the "of". (Confusing, I know.)

Thus you're NOT using a possessive with time, instead you're using the apostrophe to remove the "of". (Confusing, I know.)

I agree. As I indicated in my post, I do not believe the apostrophe is inserted to indicate possession. I believe it is being used to indicate the omission of the word 'of'.

However, the title of the thread is about a 'Possessive Apostrophe' and almost all of the posts are addressing the use of the apostrophe to indicate possession.

I don't know the rules for the use of an apostrophe to create a contraction, but it seems logical to place the apostrophe where the omitted characters would have been located. If that is true, then it should be days', instead of day's.

However, the title of the thread is about a 'Possessive Apostrophe' and almost all of the posts are addressing the use of the apostrophe to indicate possession.

That's because, when I first posted the question, I couldn't understand why I was getting contradictory information from different sights. After examining the information and getting feedback, I now see that everything confirms the guidelines I've been following. Thus my 'confusion' has lifted.

I don't know the rules for the use of an apostrophe to create a contraction, but it seems logical to place the apostrophe where the omitted characters would have been located. If that is true, then it should be days', instead of day's.

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it's to avoid confusion by listing it as "days'" (where you wouldn't know whether it's the correct for of possessive or a contraction).

Prepare to have your gob smacked ;)

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=a+few+days+time+apostrophe

The only time it's valid to place the apostrophe before the 's' is when it's a single unit eg "a day's time".

AJ

Crumbly, I'm curious. Which references did you use. The ones I checked a few days ago said differently! If you use that apostrophe, you are simply eliminating the words "of". The apostrophe is with the word "days" so "...in a few of days time" makes no sense at all.

The reference is for GrammarMonster. Check towards the bottom, where it says "Beware:" (though it also says, it using the "of" doesn't make sense, don't use the apostrophe).

The question is "two day's time" possessive or not. "Two days" in regards to time is a duration, NOT a possessive. Since it's a time reference, you DO NOT use the possessive form (from what I understand from everything that's been said so far).

But it looks like we can argue about that distinction, as it's not so black and white.

Ahh, Ross arrived at the same distinction, which uses the exact case of "xx day's time" (again, it's not "days'" because it's NOT a possessive). The time isn't the possession of two days, it's simply a contraction, where there's some confusion over whether the placement of the ampersand might cause confusion.

I've changed my opinion during this exchange.
My gut instinct was for "a few day's time".
I was not prepared to accept the quote from New Harts Rules which states it should be "a few days' time". I thought that was some weird British thing.
But CMOS says the same and it explicitly explained they look like genitives even though they are a contraction of 'of'.
I am now happy to use "a few days' time".

Sigh! OK. I'll concede too, as the almost universal agreement is that it should be "days'", whatever the reason. Also, my source gave NO explicit reason WHY they chose "day's", which makes their decision questionable, at best. (Though I still think I'll need to post a footnote with the story explaining the contraction usage instead of the possessive!)

It's "a few days' time", or "one day's time".

There are two parts to my conclusion here. The first part has nothing to do with case; it's just a question of number. "A few day's" is always wrong. "Day's" is singular, and "a few" indicates plural. You would (or at least should) never say, "a few day", because there's an obvious number mismatch. Changing the case doesn't change that.

I already stated that I changed my mind (again). I now agree with "two days' time", and even "one day of time" makes sense, so the contraction theory holds up in either case.

What do you believe an ampersand to be?

Go back over the thread. We've already covered this repeatedly, with a few references to back it up. Since "xx days' time" is a duration, there is NOTHING to possess, so there's NO reason to believe it's a possessive, while the contraction makes perfect sense and explains ever case of it's use.

It is not a contraction of "days of". It is simply a place where the genitive case is used. As Switch Blayde cites up above, while the genitive is commonly called the "possessive" these days, indicating possession is not all that it does.

I understand Switch's point, but he never detailed WHY "two days' time" IS a possessive and NOT a duration of time. He only stated that the transition from Latin to English caused some confusion in the terms. Until I see some reference to the possessive form INCLUDING durations of time, I'll stick to the more logical explanation that it's a contraction of "days of time".

I'm NOT arguing that the case exists, only that no one here has ever SEEN an explanation for WHY it would be a possessive form. (Switch said he never made it through the entire article, since it was unduly long.)

In either case, we ALL agree on the proper form, now we're just arguing semantics out of spite. In which case, there's really nothing left to discuss. Unless, of course, someone has a few puns left over. 'D

while the genitive is commonly called the "possessive" these days, indicating possession is not all that it does.

To me, possessive case only indicates possession or ownership. So, perhaps you should explain what else the genitive case does besides indicating possession.

To me, possessive case only indicates possession or ownership. So, perhaps you should explain what else the genitive case does besides indicating possession.

From wikipedia

- genitive marks a noun as modifying another noun

- It often marks a noun as being the possessor of another noun

- However, it can also indicate various relationships other than possession

"a few days' time" falls into the last one. It's showing the relationship between "days" and "time" without days possessing time.

The parts I quoted from Grammar Girl explained why the confusion exists. By rewording "genitive" to "possessive" is misleading, making people think it only applies to possessions.

@Crumbly

I did read the entire article. The part about "whose" was at the end. What I said was at the time of my post, I hadn't finished it yet.

It's showing the relationship between "days" and "time" without days possessing time.

Perhaps that is the problem SB.

It sounds to me as though the definition of 'other than possessive' is so ill-defined that it can be applied to any relationship.

So far I have not seen a definition of that category. The only thing people are doing is providing examples and vaguely worded descriptions.

For example, consider your Wikipedia quote:

However, it can also indicate various relationships other than possession

It (the genitive) may indicate 'relationships other than possession', but what guideline or rules are being applied to determine if a relationship is one of those 'various non-possessive relationships'.

If a grammatical source does not provide the criteria being used to determine if a relationship should or should not be one of those other Genitive non-possessive relationships, then we should question the validity of the source's determinations. So until I understand 'Why' the relationship between 'days' and 'time' fits into the niche of a Genitive relationship, when other relationships don't qualify, I will question the validity of their determination.

So far I have not seen a definition of that category.

Up until this discussion, I never heard the term genitive so that's how much I know about the subject. I've been using Google. I just found a site that is relatively clear (and short). It looks to be a German site (ends in .de) for learning English. https://www.learnenglish.de/grammar/casepossgen.html

The biggest issue English learners have with the "genetive case" is that it's not always used to show possession. It can be used to show a relationship between things.

As with possessives generally, the term 'genitive' should not be identified too closely with ideas of ownership or actual possession or belonging. The genitive case signals a structural grammatical relationship between a noun and a noun phrase, and the actual relationship between the things referred to by the nouns may simply be some kind of loose association." (James R. Hurford, Grammar: A Student's Guide. Cambridge University Press, 1994)

I assume we all know what possessive is, so I'll skip that. For genitive, it says:

You should still use the "of" form of the possessive / genitive case when talking about things that belong to other things.

The good news is that the genitive case "of" is used less and less in English today. Hooray!

It looks like sometimes you must keep the "of" (House of Lords)

Sometimes you use an 's (The top speed of the car is 1000 km/hr. You might also hear, "the car's top speed")

And sometimes you don't even need the 's (The door of the car. You can also say, "the car door")

And then sometimes you hear both ("The father of the bride," but it could equally be; "The bride's father.")

But although the 's is used instead of the "of" version, it is not a contraction.

I hope this helps. As a native English speaker, I think most of it comes natural.

But although the 's is used instead of the "of" version, it is not a contraction.

English used to stick 'es' on the end of a word to indicate possession (so Fred Flintstone would say 'the cares top speed'), then the 'e' got removed and replaced by the apostrophe. Isn't that a contraction?

AJ

then the 'e' got removed and replaced by the apostrophe. Isn't that a contraction?

Crumbly called it a contraction because it replaced the "of."

In your case, technically yes, but who would even know the apostrophe is replacing an "e"?

English used to stick 'es' on the end of a word to indicate possession (so Fred Flintstone would say 'the cares top speed'), then the 'e' got removed and replaced by the apostrophe. Isn't that a contraction?

Been thinking about this over lunch. No, it's not a contraction.

A contraction is a combination of two words with the apostrophe replacing part of one of the words. So:

"don't" can be written as "do not."

But you can't write "car's" as "car es."

In fact, it's not combining two words at all.

The apostrophe denotes anything which is omitted, words or letters.

The "'n" in "rock 'n roll" is not a contraction.
Cannot is not a contraction.

The issue isn't the apostrophe. It's whether "days'" is a contraction.

So "days'" in "a few days' time" is not a contraction.

'n is a contraction of and

I don't get that. The definition of contraction is

A contraction is a word made by shortening and combining two words.

from https://www.gcflearnfree.org/grammar/contractions/1/

"and combining two words."

And wikipedia says:

Contraction is also distinguished from clipping, where beginnings and endings are omitted.

'n seems to be a clipping.

And from: http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/style-and-usage/using-contractions.html

Since the word contract means to squeeze together, it seems only logical that a contraction is two words made shorter by placing an apostrophe where letters have been omitted.

"Bus" used to be written as "'bus", being a contraction of omnibus.

(Did I use 'contraction' correctly this time, or did I flunk yet again?)

AJ

To win the auction to play a hand of bridge ;)

AJ

a contraction is one or more words made shorter

Yes, I saw that in the definitions but none gave an example of a word that was contracted so I left the single word part out. My mistake.

Been thinking about this over lunch. No, it's not a contraction.

Drat, we've had this before and I'm still getting it wrong :(

AJ

I hope this helps. As a native English speaker, I think most of it comes natural.

Not really, but thanks. I think it only come naturally if you understand the reasoning behind it.

In your example, "the car's top speed" car's is possessive because the top speed is a characteristic of the car. So it doesn't fit the non-possessive grouping. I would say the same thing of bride's father in that the family relationship gives ownership. He is her father.

So far there hasn't been a rationale what there is about the relationship between 2 words that makes the relationship a non-possessive genitive relationship.

I don't know if the following helps or confuses things. It does seem to shed a bit of light on what non-possessive genitive means:

In grammar, genitive ... is the grammatical case that marks a noun as modifying another noun. It often marks a noun as being the possessor of another noun.[2] However, it can also indicate various relationships other than possession: certain verbs may take arguments in the genitive case, and it may have adverbial uses (see Adverbial genitive).

Placing the modifying noun in the genitive case is one way to indicate that two nouns are related in a genitive construction. Modern English typically does not morphologically mark nouns for a genitive case in order to indicate a genitive construction; instead, it uses either the 's clitic or a preposition (usually of). However, the personal pronouns do have distinct possessive forms. There are various other ways to indicate a genitive construction, as well. For example, many Afroasiatic languages place the head noun (rather than the modifying noun) in the construct state.

... English does not have a proper genitive case, but a possessive ending, -'s, although some pronouns have irregular possessive forms which may more commonly be described as genitives; see English possessive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive_case

The first paragraph of the quote seems to be saying that the genitive case marks a noun as being used as a modifier of a second noun. It appears genitive is about a noun being identified as a modifier. Now combine that with the third paragraph which says - English does not have a proper genitive case, but a possessive ending, -'s.

The second paragraph is addressing the use of a clitic. Evidently a clitic is a symbol used to indicate the omission of something. In English, 's is a commonly used clitic, but there are others as indicated by the following quote. The second paragraph of the quote is of special interest for it says, we use clitics to form contractions. So in the phrase 'days of time', if we drop 'of', then we need to replace it with the a clitic ('s). That means 'day's time' is the proper format.

In morphology and syntax, a clitic ... is a morpheme that has syntactic characteristics of a word, but depends phonologically on another word or phrase. In this sense, it is syntactically independent but phonologically dependent, always attached to a host.[1] ... A clitic is pronounced like an affix, but plays a syntactic role at the phrase level. In other words, clitics have the form of affixes, but the distribution of function words. For example, the contracted forms of the auxiliary verbs in I'm and we've are clitics.

Clitics can belong to any grammatical category, although they are commonly pronouns, determiners, or adpositions. Note that orthography is not always a good guide for distinguishing clitics from affixes: clitics may be written as separate words, but sometimes they are joined to the word on which they depend (like the Latin clitic -que, meaning "and"), or separated by special characters such as hyphens or apostrophes (like the English clitic 's in "it's" for "it has" or "it is").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitic

I am going to have to think about this for a couple of days before I put it all together.

I would say the same thing of bride's father in that the family relationship gives ownership

She doesn't own her father so it's not possessive. It's one of the other relationships between nouns.

ETA: The following is from Ross's post:

The genitive case denotes
(1) ownership, possession, or occupancy [the architect's drawing board, Arnie's room];
(2) a relationship [the philanthropist's secretary];
(3) agency [the company's representative];
(4) description [a summer's day];
(5) the role of a subject [the boy's application (the boy applied)];
(6) the role of an object [the prisoner's release (someone released the prisoner)]; or
(7) an idiomatic shorthand form of an of-phrase (e.g., one hour's delay is equal to a delay of one hour).

So "the bride's father" would be #2.

If it were #1 (possession/ownership), her father would be her slave.

her father would be her slave.

We parents seem to be our kids' slaves from their birth to our death.

Perhaps someone will invent a new word for this purpose, but as of now we're stuck with 'whose.' "

Who's whose are those whose?

Who's whose are those whose?

They belong to owl number 3 in the big barn.

They belong to owl number 3 in the big barn.

Whose barn owl in whose barn? Is it Who's barn owl? Is the barn owl's name "Who" (after all, that's what all the other owls call him)? In that case, it would be "Whose barn owl is whose? Why it's Who's, that's whose!"

Damn, I should quit writing novels and switch to Children's stories. It certainly pays better and takes a LOT less time and effort!

Damn, I should quit writing novels and switch to Children's stories. It certainly pays better and takes a LOT less time and effort!

You could go into religious texts, but then you have to be careful to write the right rite for Mr Wright who publishes them.

Sorry, Ross, but you aren't likely to find many people married to the CMoS's guidelines, since few of us publish with any specific publishing house's requiring their adherence.

Instead, most of us are 'independent publishers', or we've NEVER published anything, meaning we pick and chose our own personal Style Guides, based largely on what's the most used, frequently cited and makes the most sense. CMoS might fit that definition sometimes, but hardly ALL the time.

Generally, we need a better justification than "CMoS says".

I don't feel the need to justify or prove anything!
I say what reference I am quoting from - others can make up their own minds what to make of the information.
If you don't like the references people quote - DON'T WHINGE - find another reference and quote that!

If this post sounded like "CMOS proves it", that was because Grammar Girl and New Harts Rules had already been quoted saying the same thing.

In that case, you should have said: "CMoS also says the same thing". Instead you simply listed what CMoS said on the matter, as if that defined the entire argument.

A few people have commented that you seem to have a CMOS addiction, as it's typically your FIRST reference to check. My argument, is that few of us here care, one way or another, what the frig CMOS says. We want to hear the logic behind it, rather than a dictum from on high. None of use has been terribly inspired by CMOS's position, since we each despise their advice in multiple instances. We'll accept CMOS as an additional reference, but otherwise, it's inclusion adds little to the argument.

But as I said, we've ALL settled this case a LONG time ago. The only argument remaining is whether "two day's time" is possessive or a contraction, and frankly, the answer doesn't change a thing, as we'll STILL use the same wording.

But I apologize, I said I was quitting the thread and I mistakenly clicked the first 'unread' thread I saw, forgetting to mark it as "Done!" I won't make that mistake a second time. We're all arguing for no purpose other than to snipe at each other over definitions at this point.

Sorry, Ross, but you aren't likely to find many people married to the CMoS's guidelines, since few of us publish with any specific publishing house's requiring their adherence.

The major publishing houses all have their own style manuals. It's possible the majority are based on CMoS, but I get the impression they use it mainly for headings and page layouts etc rather than for grammar rules. Even if I'm wrong, the grammar rules are very poorly enforced, as you'd expect in the fiction market. For example, a recently published novel is in stream of consciousness style and is devoid of punctuation (according to a newspaper review).

AJ

I meant the language someone with expertise would use when explaining something to the general population.

Heh! Experts use the most impenetrable jargon possible as a form of self-aggrandisement ;)

AJ

I've met this one before. The problem is the multiple interpretations of 'this': the closest in the past, the overall closest, or the closest in the future. From there, last is the one before and next is the one after.

It's safest to be explicit.

AJ

Ross was rude to AJ in a post on the 18th ult.

The scoundrel, I'll have him horsewhipped! ;)

AJ

What is explicit for closest in the past/future?

There are probably lots of options but 'two days ago' and 'three days henceforth' spring to mind.

Interestingly I didn't feel any inclination to utilise apostrophes. Should I be worried?

AJ

I'll have him horsewhipped! ;)

First of all you need someone strong enough to swing the horse. :)

That's why I didn't say, "I'll horsewhip him." :(

My verbal skills have just disappeared down the toilet. When I try to write things like 'the paramedics deambulanced' and 'they returned with a heavily bebandaged patient', it's probably a sign I should give up writing for the day :(

AJ

deambulanced'

'deambulanced' I could accept for it parallels deplaned, but bebandage should be bandaged, so you are probably right. Take 2 days if needed. :)

I was just in a discussion on Twitter about the proper use of "last", "this" and "next" when referring to units of time.

The meaning and use of these words varies with the culture of the country. In some countries saying something like 'This Tuesday' means the Tuesday still to occur that's closest to the day you're experiencing when you say it, while in some other countries they would refer to the same Tuesday as Next Tuesday because it's the next one to arrive. Last Tuesday would be the one previous to the current day closest to it, and that seems to be constant from what I've seen used. And some use 'Next Tuesday' to be the one after the Tuesday closest to you in future time. However, I've never heard of the words 'next' or 'this' being related to a time period in the past, unless qualified in some way like - 'This last June,' or 'June of this year.'

However, the only time I've seen someone use the word 'this' when speaking of time they usually mean it to refer to the time period they're currently in, or they add the word 'past' or 'coming' to indicate which one. Some examples would be about something happening in 'this hour' or 'the next hour' or 'the last hour' or 'the past hour' - in theses cases they mean the current hour and the one either just before or just after it; same usage for other time terms in the place of hour.

Does anyone have ideas about what we should do to avoid using these expressions in our stories?

I try to resolve this issue by being more specific, and avoid the confusion.

I'd probably use "coming" and "past."

This coming Tuesday.
This past Tuesday.

This coming Tuesday.
This past Tuesday.

'This cumming Tuesday' is very apt for a sex story site. Can we think of something more appropriate instead of past? ;)

AJ