Talk:English possessive

Usage question
Reading a paper I noticed the posessive form of the company name "Simmetrix" written as "Simmetrix'". Since the company name ends in an "-ics" sound, this makes phonetic sense, but I haven't seen it elsewhere. Is that legit?
 * It's non-standard if thats what you mean. The only time one uses s' is in regular plurals. For singular nouns (proper or common) ending in s one uses 's (the bus's driver (but the buses' driver)) (the lace's maker) (Asterix's magic potion) But, its your language, not theirs (nor even their's). Use it how you like. Zeimusu | Talk page 13:53, 2005 September 1 (UTC)
 * I was always taught back in grammar school that you were not to use an apostrophe to indicate possession if the word ended with an s, not only if it ended with an S and were plural... this seems incorrect, as we also do not pronounce the second s... could this be purely a British construction? I am American, so I would not know. Ameise -- chat 22:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No.I don't entirely know what you are asking, but there is no difference between the British and American constructions of the posessive. If the word is posessive and singular, regardless of the ending, add 's. If the word is plural, ending in S, AND posessive, add just . If the word is plural, NOT ending in S, and posessive, add 's'. This will sometimes lead to weird-looking words, (i.e. "Stress's affects on the body are bad.") But it's the way English works.''. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.100.184 (talk • contribs) 18:49, September 11, 2006
 * I'm Sorry, this is just incorrect. Brits do it differently.  Read any British style guide, and compare it with Strunk and White.  Supposedly the British way is a holdover from the golden age of newspapers when omitting a letter or two saved space for more text.--127.0.0.1] | Talk page 00:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.89.183 (talk)
 * Thank you. It seems Americans (or English-speakers, more generally) are abusing apostrophes more and more each day, and so much widespread exposure (mostly on the Internet) to improper use of apostrophes makes it seem acceptable to throw them indifferently in the general direction of where one is guessed to go rather than to take an extra moment to think where (and if) one is actually needed.  I wholeheartedly agree with everything from the paragraph above as the standard formula for English usage of apostrophes for possession.  Of the only "optional" exceptions, (note that "optional" here means that strictly following formal English rules the aforementioned usage should be followed without exception, but many English teachers and the like accept certain cuts and variations to be OK in standard English) I can only think of dropping the final "s" after the apostrophe of a singular noun that already ends in "s." (In that case, names like "James" which are deemed too silly-looking or space-consuming in the correct form "James's" are rendered simply as "James'," although that usage seems to imply that James  has multiple personalities  is plural ~_^ ) And so far as Simmetrix is concerned, it is the phonetic equivalent of "Simmetrics" (singular, as a company name).  If their supposed possessive form already sounds like that ("Simmetric's"), that would make the implied company without the ending "Simmetric" to an unknowing listener.  Okay, so Steve went and dropped the article for iPod and iPhone to make them like names and thus more "personal" and somehow more appealing to the subconscious, which is a bit weird but within reason; this is just plain dumb.  (Okay, to be fair, at least grammatically illogical.)  Why bother trying to explain your company's "innovative" universal use of the letter "x" (or rather, disregard for obvious convention, assuming they were aware of the rules they were breaking and did in fact explain that), when you could spend that time...I don't know, making products or whatever they do? o_O;   – Cartoonmaster (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fowler agrees with the above - my edition from the 1920s insists that writing 'in James' book' is old-fashioned but permissible in formal contexts - that it is still common now is possibly due to overzealous schoolteachers. He recommends the omission of the second -s only in the case of regular plurals, and certain constructions involving 'sake', like 'for goodness' sake', though here he says the apostrophe may also be omitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.138.250 (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether to drop the s following the apostrophe for singular nouns is (unlike with plural nouns) not really a matter of grammatical function of any kind, but is rather is a matter of asthetics and/or pronunciation. Asthetics in that s's might look inherently disagreeable to some, and regarding pronunciation, in that dropping the final s should NEVER be done when the possessive and nonpossesive forms are differentiated by their pronunciation when spoken aloud (i.e., bus and bus's never sound the same in spoken speech, therefore bus' would never be acceptable under any circumstances; incedentally, bus's when spoken sounds exactly the same as buses). In the case of a name like Simmetrix, I don't necessarily think that usage of Simmetrix' would be an unquestionably improper and unacceptable usage, but it is most certainly not standard either. Firejuggler86 (talk) 09:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It's
Is "it's" both a possessive of a thing & a conjuction of "it is", or only a conjunction of "it is" with "it's" as a possessive being incorrect? (I've been told to use "its" when it is possessive to not confuse it with the conjunction, but I don't know if this is proper). 67.5.158.54 00:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's is a contraction for it is and nothing else. The posessive is its and should under no circumstances be written with an apostrophe. Example: It's not true that the dog bit its owner. Note also that in careful writing the contraction it's should not be used, it should be spelled out, so: It is not true that the dog bit its owner. Stefán Ingi 09:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Careful. It's is also a contraction for it has though strangely (to me) not for it was. --Henrygb 14:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because then you get to use 'twas, and who could pass up a chance at that? (insert Monty Python reference here) --Xyzzyva 13:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not strange at all: the h of unstressed words or syllables was historically unstable or even regularly mute (see H-dropping), so it is and it has both yield the same sequence /ɪts/ once the unstressed vowel /ɪ/ or /ə/ respectively is dropped. In contrast, /w/ cannot simply be dropped. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

References?

 * Do we need the " " complaint? The matter described in this article is common knowledge to most native English speakers. Anthony Appleyard 05:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually some of it covers technical aspects of the english language, and thus should be referenced as proof. unreferenced template replaced. --165.230.46.148 22:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Some suggestions on where to look:
 * Style guide
 * The Elements of Style --165.230.46.148 22:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Manual_of_Style
 * 
 * Looks like the difference is just singular vs. plural, so names like "James" would be "James's" --165.230.46.148 18:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't really cite any references for this subject.... Such would be like questioning a cop when he pulls you over because he doesn't have any verification that going 50 miles per hour over the designated speed limit is illegal.

My opinion is that the only aspects of language that can have any study--and thus, cited references-- are speech and its effects on words in order (something to the effect of the use of contractions in English). The rest in nothing but an untaken census of English speakers. --Dragonspight 10:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason no references are cited is that the article is largely inaccurate — grossly so in the introductory section. I've started removing/correcting the grosser errors. By the time I've finished the entry will, quite rightly, appear somewhat pointless.DavidCrosbie (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Names
I learned that depending on the number of syllables in a name, there's a difference whether there is a "'s" or just "'". For example: Camus', not Camus's and James's not James'. Anyone know what is correct? And please find a source for it too. --165.230.46.148 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

X his Y?

 * Neal Stephenson, affecting archaic language in his book The System of the World, sometimes say "X his Y", and implies that the  's began as a contraction of this. Is there any validity to this, or did Stephenson simply get it wrong or make it up? Thanks! David McCabe 21:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "X his Y" is a false etymology of "X's Y" which for a while was fashionable as a spelling. Anthony Appleyard 21:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Additions
I have brought three sections from the article on the Apostrophe, which was bloated. FilipeS 15:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I am against the proposed merger of the possesive genetive into here. When someone changed my Troilus' to Troilus's, the apostrophe article was the first place I thought to look. This article does not have an obvious name for modern English usage.--Peter cohen 10:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Saxon genitive" is a pretty obscure term I think. Even the article itself says that it's "infrequently used". Almost everybody calls it the "apostrophe s" in my experience. I suppose if there is very obvious link from the apostrophe article to here then people would be able to find it, but even so I'm not sure it's such a great idea... Matt 03:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * I agree. The genitive case is largely unused in the English language.  Unlike the Old English genitive, and the modern German genitive, the ending of the adjectives or nouns is not changed directly.  To me, the apostrophe article makes more sense on its own, rather than as a part of the Saxon Genitive. (I know that I have rarely discussed the saxon genitive with colleagues, although I have discussed apostrophes) Aericanwizard 20:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Leave it here. This is where most people will be looking for advice on using a possessive apostrophe. I certainly did ;) Spuddddddd 13Oct07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.90.97 (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)  [That anonymous user, having merely followed a link, most likely meant "at Apostrophe" by "here".–&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 06:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)]


 * I strongly oppose merging anything from Apostrophe into this article. Questions concerning the application of the possessive apostrophe logically follow the formation and marking of the possessive case in spoken English. That's my view, anyway: but it is not widely accepted. I wish the fact could be solidly recognised at Apostrophe, but I doubt that it ever will be. For all practical purposes, we should assume that users enquiring about the possessive (for all nouns, and all but very few of the possessive pronouns and adjectives) will think first of apostrophes.–&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 06:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The apostrophe article is bloated and too centered on English. The apostrophe is a punctuation mark or diacritic used in many languages, yet most of the article is spent discussing rules that apply to English only, and have to do with the possessive 's (or Saxon genitive). Not everyone who searches for "apostrophe" will be interested in this. This is the right article to discuss the linguistics and the spelling of the English possessive. FilipeS (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Filipe, Apostrophe is not bloated. There is a lot to be said on the topic, and it is said in a very orderly and informative way. As for its being biased towards English, that is simply not so. If it dwells more on English than on other languages, there are good reasons for this: it is part of English Wikipedia, for a start; and after all the apostrophe is used more flexibly and interestingly in English than in many other languages. But in any case, look at the range of languages it does touch on! Finally, how can it be both bloated and too restricted in the way you suggest?
 * I put it to you that Apostrophe is the most useful and complete readily available article on the workings of the apostrophe. I challenge you to find a better one, anywhere.
 * As I have suggested above, your merge proposal is unworkable for practical reasons. As I and others have pointed out, people quite naturally search on the term apostrophe when they are wondering about the genitive or possessive in English. Practically all style guides, and grammars addressed to the general reader, work quite seamlessly to accommodate this fact, because that way they inform more and confuse less. I have removed the merge-proposal tag at Apostrophe, as someone else also did recently. It's had a good run; but leaving it there now would simply be disruptive.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 22:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what those practical reasons you speak of are. If there are many users interested in the Saxon genitive who search for the word apostrophe instead, a simple solution is to include a prominent link to Saxon genitive in this article. As a matter of fact, there is already one. Saxon genitive is the most specific article for discussing the spelling of the English possessive -- or you could always rename it "Possessive apostrophe use in English", if it comes to that. After all, even in English, the apostrophe is used for more things than indicating the possessive. FilipeS (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The practical reasons are made abundantly clear, above. Just about all users interested in the English possessive (or the English genitive) know that an apostrophe is normally involved; but most users enquiring about the apostrophe have no idea what the phrase "Saxon genitive" means. As you point out, it is a good idea to have a link to Saxon genitive at Apostrophe. But as you also point out, there is one already! If you insist that you are unhappy with these arrangements, and insist on maintaining that tag suggesting a merger that would cut the essential core out of Apostrophe, I for one will leave the tag there for now. I have no desire to edit-war on this issue. Others may want to remove it, but as far as I'm concerned it can stay for seven days. Let's see if there will be more discussion than the last three months have yielded – and more support for this disruptive and ill-advised proposal, apart from what you yourself originate.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 03:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Noetica's arguments; I see no strong reason to merge. Tony   (talk)  02:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now removed the merge-proposal tag, since more than week has passed and there has been no new support at all, and barely any discussion other than well-argued dissent. Please accept this, now. The proposal has been aired for months, and has failed.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 21:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

King of Spain's hat
This is just an observation, but couldn't one just as easily say "Spain's King's hat", without attaching the 's to "Spain"? Se Cyning 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anybody explain this? How can people who fuss about the minutiae of apostrophe use take seriously the idea of writing Spain without a capital? And are we supposed to take seriously the possible existence of a kingdom called spain's hat? Is this some schoolroom joke? Surely no spelling is acceptable but the King of Spain's hat and no interpretation is feasible but 'the hat of the King of Spain'. If I've missed something, I would guess that the average reader will also miss it.DavidCrosbie (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, technically there is a source ([16]) that backs up the notion that the possessive 's is not a case ending because it does not attach to the head noun, but looking closer, I don't even think that is an issue here at all. As a native speaker, I see three ways to say either example given (on this page or the one linking to it):


 * 1.) The daughter of the king of Spain /The horse of the king of England
 * 2.) Spain's King's daughter /England's King's horse
 * 3.) The King of Spain's daughter / The King of England's horse


 * Number 1 seems formal and bookish, 2 has an awkward sound to it, though perfectly meaningful and productive syntax. Finally 3 seems to be the most ideal. But can we say that this is only a question of the possessive 's? Consider:


 * 1.) The house of the uncle of John
 * 2.) John's uncle's house
 * 3.) The uncle of John's house


 * Now looking at the usage, 1 still seems not only formal, but beyond into the realm of unnatural language. 2 sounds meaningful and natural and 3 is ludicrous (leaving out any Disneyesque anthropomorphization of the house, whereby a house could have an uncle), the real problem is that it is not John's house. The order in 3 implies that it is John's house.


 * I've just spent 20 minutes trying to come up with examples leaving humans out of the equation and in every example I thought up, the format in the number 2 style of syntax (X's Y's Z) would never have both possessive 's and still sound natural. Examples:


 * the building's east wing plumbing (and not *building's east wing's plumbing)
 * the table leg's rust patches (and not *the table's leg's rust patches)


 * Just the same, you could never say "John uncle's house or John's uncle house (except the second sounds right for AAVE, where syntax denotes possession).


 * So my conclusion is this: ignoring the spaces between the three words, perhaps the real question is how we are analyzing "King of England" or "King of Spain" as anything other than a single unit of meaning with a unique, inseparable referent. What about other titles of so-and-so of X? The dean of Dartmouth college's daughter, the CEO of Nike's horse, the Imperial Wizard of the KKK's golden staff...is my point being made? If they are all named John wouldn't we just say John's daughter, John's horse, etc. in all those cases? This is not a question of whether or not the apostrophe s is a clitic or genitive, this is a case of words coming together in a sequence to form a unique, inseparable noun (there can only be one king of a country, dean of a college or head of a company or other organization). 64.134.179.205 (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Tom in Florida
 * That is pretty much how I see it — an inseparable unit. In situations like "King of Spain", "King of Spain" is more like a single word; in some other languages, found as a concatenated nominal in a manner like "Spainking" (meaning the/a 'king of Spain'). English spelling has decided to be pedantic and keep the units discrete, but in reality, it is taken as a single word ("kingofspain"). It is odd that many grammaticians are still being confused by a convention of spelling when they often see past this in other situations. In other Germanic languages, you don't see "Johan's son" (or even "Johans son") when it falls into a similar grammatical situation, rather, you see "Johansson" which should be flag to every grammatician that the English equivalent needs further analysis. — al-Shimoni  (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Further, even in the normal possessive grammatical situation in other Germanic languages where there isn't a concatenation, an apostrophe is not used. Continuing the previous example: Johans son, Johan sonn, Johans Sohn, etc. Other related languages' behavior should be considered, and where there are differences, there should be further analysis as to why, and whether peculiar spelling conventions are obscuring a behavior that is still being shared.
 * — al-Shimoni  (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Use with / don't use with (expand and correct)
Please everyone:

Check the following for accuracy with your usage:

Rule #1: Do Use Saxon Genetive with Humans
For Example: a) John's hat b) My brother's car c) The King of Spain's hat

Rule #2: Don't use the Saxon Genetive with inanimate objects
Examples:

a.) The air conditioner (of) my car (NOT "my car's air conditioner").

b.) the back of the car (NOT "my car's back")

c.) The best of the batch (NOT "the batch's best")

d.) The skin of an apple (NOT "the apple's skin")


 * I wouldn't likely say "The headlights of my car", I would say "my car's headlights", for example. And "the computer's hard drive". I would say "the back of the car" and not "the car's back". So I don't think this is a very good rule - there may be some constructions that it applies to, but it's not a hard rule based just on animate or inanimate. Further investigation is needed. Chrisrus (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Chrisrus, this is because of the semantic meanings of the word "back" where one is frequently used as a thing (infrequently with an "of" construction) and another is a location (frequently with an "of" construction). Choosing words with less strongly tied contextual meanings, you find it works fine: "The car's tail." "The car's rear." But "The car's trunk," does not work the same since 'trunk' has a more fixed meaning, and can just as likely be the front of the car, such as in some VW brand vehicles, or to the top on vehicles with a built-in carry-top storage. Further, you can say, "The car's back side," since you have clarified the word 'back'. Compare, "The cat's back is dirty," with "The cat's back side is dirty." However, if you say "There is a stripe on the car's back," there is the ambiguity of whether it is the rear end (back side) or along the top of the car (the back). The same ambiguity can be seen for the OP's preferred version: "The pole fell and cracked against the back of the car." The sentence could be referring to the roof being struck, or the tail end.
 * As for the OP's other examples... a) I almost always hear "my car's air conditioner" instead of the OP's preferred phrase.c) Both get used frequently. d) The apostrophe version does get used a lot, though a compound noun is usually preferred ("The apple skin is red").
 * — al-Shimoni  (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Rule #3: Do Use with Groups of Humans
The group's thing (NOT "the thing of the group") The team's record (NOT "the record of the team") The commitee's records (NOT "the records of the commitee") The government's decision (NOT "the decision of the government")


 * This rule is bad. The rule should be EITHER form with groups of humans. No work is necessary, as it's impossible to make a mistake, "the record of the team" is always interchangable with "the team's record".  Chrisrus (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Rule #4: Do Use with Animals
My dog's dish (NOT "the dish of my dog")

That squirrel's tail (NOT "the tail of the squirel.)


 * This rule is bad. The rule should be EITHER form.  It should be expanded to explain that the animal might be being anthropomorphized or objectified.
 * No. While either option is not necessarily unacceptable for the second example, "the tail of the squirrel" sounds extremely formal; use of that kind of language is never heard outside of science labs and similar such settings. But "the dish of my dog" and like should never, ever be used. That example is a true possesive case. the this of that form should never be used if the thing being described is an actual possession of the other thing. compare 'i borrowed the bicycle of the boy' with 'i borrowed the boy's bicycle.' the first is an extreme example of unnatural language, the second sounds completely natural and coherent. Firejuggler86 (talk) 10:08, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, "the dish of my dog" could probably mean a dish made of my dog (cooked, fried, whatever), no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.213.41.2 (talk) 10:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Rule #5: Use with time nouns:
Today's paper (NOT "the paper of today") Yesterday's meeting (NOT "the meeting of yesterday") Sunday's weather (NOT "the weather of Sunday")


 * This Rule is good, and there might be an understandable reason for this. To say "tommorrow's meeting" is linguistically economical, whereas "the meeting of tomorrow" is more economically said by dropping the preposition and using the word "tomorrow" as an adverb instead of a noun.
 * "The world of tomorrow brought to you today!" (a statement that was so overused at one point that it is cliché now) - "The last meeting of Monday was horrible." - "The weather of last year was splendid, but this year it sucks." - "The newspaper of today and Sunday will have coupons." — al-Shimoni  (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok so, why is it "today's paper" and not "the paper of today", but either "the world of tomorrow" or "tomorrow's world"? Chrisrus (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * In the case of "the world of tomorrow", 'tomorrow' is being used in a metaphorical sense to mean 'the future'. You would never use that constructipn when literally talking about tomorrow. example, always "tomorrow's meeting"; "the meeting of tomorrow" sounds like something that would have been a demonstration at some kind of futuristic world economic fair in the 1950s XD. (note: when it's a particular day being referenced, the word 'on' can be used as an alternative to the possessive. never 'of', however.) Firejuggler86 (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Rule #6: Do use with the words "life" and "death"
At death's door (NOT "the door of death") Life's little lessons (NOT "the little lessons of life")


 * This rule is RECOMENDED and should be filed under umbrella rule "ANTHROPOMORPHISMS"
 * What is the issue of "lesson of life"? Both life examples are used profusely. Also, "the book of life" "the end of life" "aspect of life" "the effect of life on the planet"... Both "death's door" and "the door of death" are metaphorical, and both are equally valid ("And now, I stand before death's door," and "The door of death has opened to welcome me," and "The hand of Death, himself, was set against the soldiers."). — al-Shimoni  (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Rule #7 Do Use with some natural phenomena
The sun's rays (NOT "the rays of the sun.") The moon's glow (NOT "the glow of the moon.") Nature's bounty (NOT "the bounty of nature.")


 * This rule is BAD and should be re-written as EITHER. It MAY be ANTHOPOMORPHIC. Chrisrus (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion
Rules can be consolidated:


 * Rule #1: Persons/anthropomorphisms vs. inanimate objects
 * Rule #2: Time Nouns


 * It's complicated and hard to come up with rules. e.g.
 * John's finger ("The finger of John" sounds strange)
 * John's mother ("The mother of John" sounds a bit strange)
 * My friend's mother ("The mother of my friend" sounds fine)
 * Benwing (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

German?
Seeing as the Saxons were actually GERMAN, why doesn't the article reference the modern day use of the Saxon Genitive in the German language? Retailmonica (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Because it's wrong. In German, the correct use of the apostrophe always indicates an omission (eg "Hier ist's warm" in lieu of "Hier ist es warm"). If you talk about "Maria's Haus", for example, the usage is incorrect, because there is no vowel which has been dropped from Maria. Brainless imitation of the English feature is becoming widespread, yet still wrong. There is a reason why it's called the "Deppenapostroph", or "fools' apostrophy" around here. ;-) --Syzygy (talk) 13:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Saxon genitive is not the apostrophe. In principle, the apostrophe in German could often be used with some right. Originally, the genitive was not formed as a simple "s" but as "ens". Heinrichens, Mathilddens, etc, and in the nineteenth century, when the practice changed, an apostrophe was also set (Heinrichens-> Heinrich's-> Heinrichs) The contemporary use (partly even legalised)has other reasons. Aesthetic reasons and influence of the English language. But "Maria's Haus" seems reallly to be "Deppenapostroph", because in the earlier days it was said "Mariens Haus" and not "Mariaens Haus".--Brief und Siegel (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say that the main reason to separate the ending "'s", be it a genitive (prescribed in English, optional on names in German and Dutch) or a plural (proscribed in English, prescribed for some nouns in Dutch), might be this idea/goal: unmistakenly marking the stem of the noun. Universal-Interessierter de (talk (de)) 16:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

What's the pont?
This is a very strange page. It's based on a most peculiar concept the 'Saxon genitive' but fails to give a satisfactory definition — or even a comprehensible description. It seems to be about a spelling convention — the use of apostrophe+s to mark possessive singular case in writing. And yet much of it is about the morphology of English. A spelling is not a morpheme. If the page is to have any justification, it must make clear whether the term applies to the spelling or to the morpheme. It didn't help that it was full of errors and half truths about the history of English morphology. Where does this term come from? Was it ever a coherent term, or was it a muddle from the start?DavidCrosbie (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have tried to introduce a proper distinction between spelling and grammar. This makes the article more accurate, but I still have misgivings as to how useful it is.DavidCrosbie (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * How do the experts describe what I call a "lazy genitive" such as this - "Boris Johnson’s blocking of publication .." that could be better written as "Boris Johnson blocked publication.."? This is a clumsy style, but the genitive links the blocking to Johnson, as it is his blocking, but it could just as well be "The blocking by Boris Johnson.." Any expert? Why is this not in the article?78.17.4.98 (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This is the point
This must be the only page on Wikipedia where the talk page is more informative than the article. I am looking for clear rules to give to a colleague on where to use the Saxon Genitive and where to use the Latin Genitive when writing an academic paper. Its all here but on the talk page! ClemRutter (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Some linguists?
As far as I know, the possessive 's being a clitic is a pretty standard linguistic analysis. I recently received my BA in linguistics, and I was taught that it was a clitic, and not given the impression that it was a controversial position. It is only in traditional grammar that it is considered a suffix. I'm changing it to reflect this.

'That's a most peculiar use of the term 'clitic'! It COULD be used of the mythical 'his' once mistaught as the source of 's. It's a common or garden ('bog standard' we say in Britain) inflexional suffix.DavidCrosbie (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

What does (UTC) mean?DavidCrosbie (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There’s an article for that: UTC! Torzsmokus (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

In any case, it's not the spelling  's that's the suffix or clitic or whatever we call it. That spelling represents the suffix/clitic and disambiguates the speech form /s/ it in writing — even when there is no grounds for disambiguation.DavidCrosbie (talk) 20:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've found an argument that it's NOT a clitic, and I've inserted a reference.DavidCrosbie (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've now re-written the 'Grammatical statue' section. I tried not to distort anybody's arguments. I hope I succeeded.DavidCrosbie (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the analysis of 's as a clitic is completely standard. The objections to it being a clitic seem to be coming from traditional grammarians who do not really understand the difference between a clitic and a suffix, and have been taught that it's a case ending by other prescriptivist grammarians who think that English "ought" to work like Latin. Benwing (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Learn Old English! The 's is in fact one of many old genitive inflection endings that was later generalized. The genitive-s is a common Germanic phenomenom, and it is also common that languages which lost most of their inflection generalized it. Using a case system is original English by its core and has nothing to do with attempts to latinize the language. 2A0A:A540:FCE7:0:5CFB:1310:4A65:48E0 (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * BTW I looked at Payne and Huddleston's analysis and it's extremely weak. Most of their analysis is dedicated to "my" and "your", what they term the "head genitive".  They argue that "phrasal genitives" must actually involve inflection of the noun to which the 's attaches, even when it's a preposition etc.  Their only argument has to do with the following:

Both of these sound awkward to me, but in any case this seems way too weak an argument. It shows that 's is sensitive to the morphology it's added to. (In fact we already know that from e.g. "the students' work" vs. "the princess's work".) But nothing forbids clitics from having this sensitivity, and anyway it's quite marginal. Benwing (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * one of my students' assignment (not "*students's")
 * one of my mice's tail (not "*mice'")
 * It's a particularly weak argument because these usually aren't analysed as phrasal genitives but as partitive constructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.147.138 (talk) 05:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Why "Saxon genitive"?
Are there any sources which explain the origin of the term "Saxon genitive"? I suppose it was coined with the of genitive in mind, as it parallels the usual Romance formation (but not the Latin one, which is analogous to the "Saxon genitive"). (A parallel case is the analytic Romance-type comparation with more and most, which can be contrasted with the inherited synthetic comparation.) The "Saxon genitive" must have been recognised as the inherited formation to express the possessive (semantic) relation (in nouns) early on, and "Saxon" seems to simply stand for "(West) Germanic" (or some unspecified earlier stage, approximately the way historical linguists use "Old Germanic") here, referring to the palpable link that the ethnonym "Saxon" provides of Old English or Anglo-Saxon culture with the continent: the "Saxons" were presumably conceptualised as the not-yet-Romance-influenced ancestors of the English, who still faithfully preserved the ancient Germanic language and culture ("ways") of the continent (and thus, "Saxon" can of course simply be seen as an abbreviation of "Anglo-Saxon", but consciously selecting the part that provided an obvious link to the continent, as the Saxon ethnonym kept its prominence there). Hence, "Saxon genitive" seems to stand for "possessive formation of the (Old) Germanic type", as it would be expressed in more modern parlance. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a misnormer, it isn't Saxon and it definitely isn't genitive. It is North Germanic possessive, but is commonly refered to with the misnormer Saxon Genitive, so WP can't really fix the misuse.Carewolf (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Where do your wisdoms come from? In every Germanic language with a complete case system (German, Icelandic, medieval germanic languages) the possessive function is expressed by the genitive case. So, in this sense (and also clearly etymologically), the possessive forms of Modern English and North Germanic are remnants of the Germanic genitive. Further the "-s" is a common inflection ending in those languages, although it was originally only used in the genitive singular form of strong masculine and neuter nouns. I think that this ending survived and was generalized because it is the most remarkable one. Even in German can be found a form of this generalized ending, which only appears on names that are used without determiners or adjectives, mainly names of persons. -- Universal-Interessierter de (talk (de)) 11:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The north germanic possesive is believe to be a remnant of genitive but not of the case, but of the article. It comes form north germanic languages putting the article after the noun: "king the(n)", so "king the(n)'s" to "kingen's. It is a different story than what is told for english linguistic, but the resulting mechanic is the exact same. In any case north germanic possive isn't genitive because it isn't a case and acts nothing like a case any more. Carewolf (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

When do we know...??
As a native speaker who has never studied the finer points of English Grammar, I find it difficult when my students come up with tricky grammar questions. Until today I had never heard the term 'Saxon Genitive'... I appreciate the rules above, and I will pass them on, however my student had another question:

We can say 'the juice of the orange' but also 'orange juice' We can say 'the engine of the car' but also 'car engine' We can say 'the captain of the ship' or 'the ship's captain' but not 'captain ship'

Is there a rule about when we can make a compound noun like the ones above, or is it just a question of vocabulary as I hesitantly told him? Thanks for any help you can give, I hope I've been clear! Holly80 (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We're trying to crowd source the rules, scroll up and participate, as grammar books don't seem to deal with this question. So take the following with a grain of salt: it doesn't seem to be generally used with inanimate objects unless they are being personified, so that explains why it's not "the orange's juice" too often.  "Orange juice" isn't a genative, it's a noun modifier.  We'd say "the juice of one orange" in a recipie because we're not trying to identify the type of juice but to tie the juice to it's origin, or genesis, hence the Latin style "genetive".  I think the same goes with the car.  The reason the ship gets a Saxon genetive at times might be due to the fact that we personify ships, as evidenced by calling them "she" instead of "it", traditionally, so that might explain "the ship's captain."  We're just working it out on the fly, we have no WP:RS so far on when and when it's not used.  If you can Google one up or some such, please do.  Chrisrus (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

My edit to lead
I changed the statement that possessive forms corresponding to nouns and pronouns can correspond to possessive determiners and possessive pronouns to say that they correspond to determiners and pronouns (omitting the word "possessive"). The original only seemed to apply to pronouns even though we want to cover other possessive noun phrases as well. So clearly a possessive noun phrase like "The man's" functions as a determiner. The problem is with saying they can function as pronouns. I think that this is based on claiming that the word "his" in the clause "it is his" is a pronoun standing in for an object like "his one". But you could view it as an adjective, parallel to "It is great". Does anybody have an idea how this should be worded? Count Truthstein (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * To answer my own question, I've noticed the example "mine is large" in the article. This would suggest that "mine" is functioning as a noun. I'll update the article to state this. Count Truthstein (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Status of the possessive as a grammatical case
The section English possessive contained a number of statements that were not supported by sources. The view "...it is better analyzed as a clitic ..." was in direct conflict with the cited source, which argues for treating the construction as inflectional. I have therefore rewritten the section in an attempt to avoid misrepresenting the analysis given in the cited source, but I have also added another reliable source that represents the opposing view. This meant reorganizing the section a bit and adjusting some of the other sections (including the lede). --Boson (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have now added a little of what Payne and Huddleston actually argue (see the cited source).
 * I have also extended the description to include several (sourced) views:
 * analysis as inflection of the head or final word
 * description as an "enclitic postposition"
 * clitic and inflectional as idealized end points on a spectrum
 * clitic or inflectional analysis (but not both) in different examples.
 * --Boson (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Weak form of possessive for organizations
What is the limit between a fully fledged possessive requiring " 's " and a weaker possessive more like a descriptive? For instance, would you say "UNESCO representatives" or "UNESCO's representatives", or would it depend on context?

I would naturally use " 's " for a singular in a case like "France's project", not too sure about the plural, but I would rather write "UNESCO representative" or "UNESCO representatives", but "UNESCO's project is great.", "A great UNESCO project is(...)", "the UNESCO projects" and "one of UNESCO's projects".

It's not really a form of possession, but it's not just a simple relationship either. I am a bit at a loss, I can't enunciate any clear rules about such cases, which should probably be listed or at least referenced in this page. It seems that there is a difference when definite and indefinite articles (a/an/"" vs. the) or demonstratives (this) are used, or some other context. For instance, "UNESCO's project is great." sounds like a ghost demonstrative ("This project from the UNESCO is great.") Chimel31 (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the question is here. I would distinguish between
 * genitives/possessives that are used as determiners ("my problems", "IBM's profits") and are thus not mixable with other determiners, and precede any adjectives and
 * noun phrases used like adjectives as attributive modifiers (usually in plain case as in "the IBM way" but sometimes as a genitive, as in "that doll's house").
 * --Boson (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Apostrophe in business names with a plural
Why isn't any example mentioned of an apostrophe appearing in a business name created with a plural noun, therefore ending in -s'? --Backinstadiums (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

1.2 "Pronouns" section
The majority of this section is WP:OR gibberish that conflates determiners and pronouns (e.g. the "her" in "her success" isn't a pronoun though it might have been construed to be one, say, 75 years ago). I'm all but set to delete the first three paragraphs. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 08:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

s’
I actually do pronounce possessives of plurals differently from plain plurals (cats’ is like “catses” and dogs’ is like “dogses”).

Am I the only one who does this? Is it a dialect feature? (I was raised in western Washington state, USA, in the 1980s.) N. Pharris (talk) 00:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

's suffix or ending?
suffix is not the same as ending.

is 's a suffix or an ending? please do not confuse these terms and have consistency within the article. 92.39.75.106 (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)