# Possessive - Woman’s college - Baby oil - Beginners class - singular/plural possessives.



## mzg

Hello everybody

I am currently preparing a class in which I need to explain the difference between the ‘s structure (saxon genitive ) and the “noun as adjective + noun structure”

There are many differences but I would like to know how do you explain *this one*:

My grammar book says:

A)A)  The ‘s indicates the  user: e.g.   woman’s college, lady’s toilette

C)  B)   The  “noun + noun structure” indicates  (among other things)  origin: olive oil, London man

My question is:

I f  I say “baby oil”, the user is the baby (we do not wring the baby in order to obtain oil from it!!!) . I know  we say “baby oil” and not “baby’s oil” BUT how do you explain it ?

María


----------



## zebedee

The *'s* denotes possession. But here the oil is not a possession, it does not belong to the baby but rather it is for the baby. Here _baby _ works as an adjective describing the oil. What kind of oil is it? It's baby oil.

Compare:
oil for babies : baby oil
oil for motors: motor oil

with:
a toy belonging to that baby: that baby's toy

Does this help you?

zeb


----------



## panjandrum

For clarification (I think):
A "woman's college" is the college that one particular woman attends.
A college that is particularly for women (although surely not these days) would  be a "women's college".


----------



## mzg

Hi Pajandrum and Zebedee

Zebedee: you said:




> The 's denotes possession. But here the oil is not a possession, it does not belong to the baby but rather it is for the baby. Here baby works as an adjective describing the oil. What kind of oil is it? It's baby oil.
> 
> Compare:
> oil for babies : baby oil
> oil for motors: motor oil



And exactly *that* is the problem. The *'s* is *NOT* always possession.

A ladies' toilette is *for *the ladies, it does not belong to the ladies and a women's college (thanks Pajandrum) does not belong to the women, it is *for* the women, the same as the baby oil. The oil is for the baby, exactly the same relationship as before but we do not use 's

So I ask the question again  

Thanks


----------



## zebedee

hmmm...I see what you mean, mzg. And it looked so easy 

I'll have to ponder on that one. I'll get back to you when the lightbulb flashes above my head...

*walks slowly away thinking*


----------



## cuchuflete

panjandrum said:
			
		

> For clarification (I think):
> A "woman's college" is the college that one particular woman attends.
> A college that is particularly for women (although surely not these days) would  be a "women's college".



Sorry to burst the politically correct bubble, but all male and all female colleges still exist.  I have close friends who teach at one.  It's called

XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX Women's College.  It has a superb Spanish and Portuguese department!  Shall we call this a panjandrum's dilema?


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi María,

Here are excerpts from a favorite guide to American Usage:


After saying the usual about genitive case of nouns, it goes on to talk about how the apostrophe is slowly disappearing, with help from the late Bernard Shaw, who refused to use it in his writings.



> ...the fewer apostrophes one uses the berrer. If you use an apostrophe where it does not belong, it shows that you do not know what you are doing. If you omit an apostrophe where one is usually expected, it may only prove that you admire Bernard Shaw.



The author also gives a good historical review of the apostrophe, and states, "There is no difference in spoken English between _boys, boy's,_ and _boys'_. The apostrophe is entirely a printer's problem, and has nothing to do with the language itself."


Best regards,
Cuchu

[A Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage.  Evans, Bergen and Evans, Cornelia.Random House, NY. 1957. LC catalog #  57-5379]


----------



## suzzzenn

Hi, 

Women's perfume
Men's deodorant
children's furniture
child's bed
children's pool
men's clothing

but

baby furniture
baby lotion
baby pool
baby shampoo
baby clothes
pet supplies
dog bed
bird bath

It isn't very logical, is it? Babies and animals don't have the same status in these constructions even though they have a similar meaning. 

It is possible to say, _Where is my baby's lotion? or Don't sit there! That's the dog's bed!_ But in your post you seemed to be looking at nouns and the _'s_ as modifiers rather than  possesives.


----------



## panjandrum

*Cuchu:* Max grin - I rather imagined that my PC-ness had overtaken reality. And as for the possible total loss of the apostrophe - apoplexy!! What on earth would I find to become irrationally irritated about if not the aberrant use of and appallingly erroneous absence of the dear little thing.

*suzzzenn:* I am totally convinced there really is a pattern there, if not logic. That may be my obsession with the need to find order amongst chaos. But all is not lost. If the plural of the possessing noun is irregular (child/children, man/men, woman/women) then the full possessive form will be used. 
If the plural is regular (baby/babies, dog/dogs, cat/cats and so on) the alternative form (dog food, bird bath, baby milk) will be used.
On that basis, "child's bed" is out of place in your list. I knew it felt wrong


----------



## panjandrum

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Sorry to burst the politically correct bubble, but all male and all female colleges still exist. I have close friends who teach at one. It's called
> 
> XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX Women's College. It has a superb Spanish and Portuguese department! Shall we call this a panjandrum's dilema?


With the greatest of temerity, might I suggest that to be unambiguous the reference to single-sex colleges should read ".... but all-male and all-female colleges ...".


----------



## cuchuflete

panjandrum said:
			
		

> *Cuchu:* Max grin - I rather imagined that my PC-ness had overtaken reality. And as for the possible total loss of the apostrophe - apoplexy!! What on earth would I find to become irrationally irritated about if not the aberrant use of and appallingly erroneous absence of the dear little thing.
> 
> *suzzzenn:* I am totally convinced there really is a pattern there, if not logic. That may be my obsession with the need to find order amongst chaos. But all is not lost. If the plural of the possessing noun is irregular (child/children, man/men, woman/women) then the full possessive form will be used.
> If the plural is regular (baby/babies, dog/dogs, cat/cats and so on) the alternative form (dog food, bird bath, baby milk) will be used.
> On that basis, "child's bed" is out of place in your list. I knew it felt wrong



Hola Pan!  

Happy that you took it with the intended mirth.  Rest assured, it's not claiming to be Irish or even BE....just some colonial rabble rousers who must have been working on a precursor of Benjois.  

We should try to collaborate more often.  Your tendencies complement mine.  I like to bring chaos to order. (hmmm...I could read that more than one way...I wonder which is the most disorderly?)

Thanks for the explanation of dog food, baby milk _et alia_.  

Now, because you have demonstrated a knack for grammar, at which I am concurrently indifferent and inadequate, I have a related question for you:

In the term "olive oil"  the first word clearly acts an an adjective, modifying oil.  Yet, it is a noun.  In this particular usage, is it a noun or an adjective?  Is there a name for this kind of construction?

many thanks,
C.


----------



## mzg

Hi 
 
 
It seems Paj has provided us for the rule about using the 's or the noun +noun 
 
 
"the plural of the possessing noun is irregular (child/children, man/men, woman/women) then the full possessive form will be used. 
If the plural is regular (baby/babies, dog/dogs, cat/cats and so on) the alternative form (dog food, bird bath, baby milk) will be used.
On that basis, "child's bed" is out of place in your list. I knew it felt wrong"
 
And  Zuzzenn has offered some examples  BUT 
 
A "sheep dog"  is a dog for sheep, and Sheep is irregular  
 
A "tooth cap" is a cap for the tooth and  Tooth is irregular (it is singular, it might have something to do)
 
And then we have "oxen's yoke" that follows the proposed rule
 
I am still  
 
Bye


----------



## panjandrum

*Cuchu:* I confess to having referred to the Oxford English Grammar for a reply - but I really like it, though the terms now used in grammar are not the same as those I was taught...  
It seems that in this particular instance (olive oil), "olive" is a *premodifier* of "oil" in the noun-phrase; I quote:  "Adjectives are typical premodifiers of nouns in noun-phrases, but other word classes are also used in this function.  Nouns, participles, genitive noun phrases, and numerals are particularly common."
Whoopydoo; just listen to the sound of that!!!!

*mzg:*  I don't accept "sheep dog" as a problem, the term is "sheep-dog", hyphenated and therefore out of scope.
I don't accept "tooth cap" as in common usage.  When I am with my dentist and he mentions a cap, I know what he means.
And why would anyone in their right mind want to refer to an "oxen's yoke" whatever the supposed construction ought to be???  A yoke of oxen, perhaps.  On the other hand, if I wanted to refer to the aparatus connecting my oxen I would certainly write ".. the oxen's yoke..."  - had I any oxen of course.
Note, and please forgive, the tendency to snappiness in this reply.  It was not intended.  Please assume flippancy unless marked otherwise.


----------



## suzzzenn

*



suzzzenn: I am totally convinced there really is a pattern there, if not logic. That may be my obsession with the need to find order amongst chaos. But all is not lost. If the plural of the possessing noun is irregular (child/children, man/men, woman/women) then the full possessive form will be used. 
If the plural is regular (baby/babies, dog/dogs, cat/cats and so on) the alternative form (dog food, bird bath, baby milk) will be used.
On that basis, "child's bed" is out of place in your list. I knew it felt wrong

Click to expand...

 *
Hi everybody, 

I agree, there is a pattern. The trick is figuring out what it is! I could find nothing on this in the grammar books I checked, which in my opinion is better. It is more fun to figure out the answer. The irregular idea is a good start, but not complete. Consider:

Teacher's lounge
Cook's kitchen
prisoner's uniform 

but

Bird house
Dog collar

I included child's bed because I was looking for an example that didn't use the plural. I can invent a context that works... Imagine shopping and someone says, "That bed is so small my feet would be hanging over the edge! Someone responds ..That's because it's a child's bed! child's is modifying bed much in the same sense as dog is modifying bed in _dog bed_. You can't omit the 's in child's bed and say child bed. 

I was thinking that it had to do with humanness. English doesn't pay attention to distinctions like animacy too often but other languages do. What would be strange is the fact that babies aren't included with other humans but children are. I condsidered that volition had something to do with it. Babies aren't self directed. Of the two ideas, volition and humaness, I like humaness better.


----------



## mjscott

Apostrophe-wise....
....Was I just born way too long ago that I write _teachers' lounge_?


----------



## suzzzenn

Hi MJ, 

You are probably right! Teachers' lounge it is.  Thanks


----------



## panjandrum

suzzzenn said:
			
		

> Consider:
> Teacher's lounge
> Cook's kitchen
> prisoner's uniform
> 
> but
> 
> Bird house
> Dog collar


  Oh spit and botheration. I must have oversimplified. Thanks for testing the hypothesis though. 
For a while I thought I was still OK - a "teachers' lounge" would have to be a particular place, not a class description (oops - accidental pun).
The stuff worn by a prisoners generally is "prison uniform" whereas that worn by a particular prisoner would indeed get the full possessive "prisoner's uniform".
I was avoiding the problem with cook's kitchen by suggesting (to myself) that kitchen is sufficient and "cook's" is reduntant.
In fact I was well on the way to convincing myself that I had dismissed all your objections when I began to think - I know, stupid notion - and realised there are lots of these: fiddler's elbow, housemaid's knee, butcher's hook, baker's dozen.... 
And I can't escape from the child's bed.
So although parts of the original hypothesis might seem to hold good, that's probably only because of the particular examples picked.
Back to the drawing board.


----------



## mjscott

Oh, yes, panjandrum--
--But you wouldn't have stimulated so many minds to ruminate in thought concerning their own language!
Cheers!


----------



## panjandrum

suzzzenn said:
			
		

> I was thinking that it had to do with humanness. English doesn't pay attention to distinctions like animacy too often but other languages do. What would be strange is the fact that babies aren't included with other humans but children are. I condsidered that volition had something to do with it. Babies aren't self directed. Of the two ideas, volition and humaness, I like humaness better.


I haven't given up. Several pages of examples later, I am ALMOST convinced that suzzzenn is right. If it is a human that is the possessor (modifier) of the noun, then it will take the genitive form ('s or s').
I heard howls of objection that babies are also human (though sometimes at 4am I have wondered....)? 
But *baby* is applied very generally as an adjective, certainly for the infant version of non-human animals (baby elephant, baby giraffe, baby seal, baby whale). In this context it would (generally) be wrong to use the genitive form - I mean you don't very often need to write about a babies' elephant in the same sense that you would need to write about a women's college.
So today I am voting for *suzzzenn's rule*, qualified by the exception that because *baby* is in general use as an adjective in that form, it is also used in the baby chair, baby food,baby bath context.
In mitigation of my previous proposal (like I feel I must try), all of the human terms that I considered took an irregular plural form. My error was to limit the sample. A very good example of inadequate research leading to a misplaced connection between cause and effect.  My wrists are being slapped as I type.


----------



## mzg

Hi Pajandrum and the others

Thank you very much for your help BUT you say:




> I haven't given up. Several pages of examples later, I am ALMOST convinced that suzzzenn is right. If it is a human that is the possessor (modifier) of the noun, then it will take the genitive form ('s or s').
> I heard howls of objection that babies are also human (though sometimes at 4am I have wondered....)?


 
I have to think about it but I remind you we are *NOT* talking of the *'s*  as possessor but as *USER*  (there 6 uses of 's and possessor is just one) 

"This is my dog's leash" is ownership.

* I question about the contrast between the USERS so please, if you want to help me to not mix ownership in this  *


This is dog food (food for dogs),
This is baby food (food for babies)
This is fish food
This is body lotion 

This is soldiers' food (food for soldiers) 
This is adult's food not children's 
Children's literature
Ladys' restroom
Women's pads (for the period) 

These examples  (are they ok?) make me think that Suzzenn and Pajandrum are right:

Human USERS take 'S and no-human and babies do not,  but also there seems to be a plural/singular distinction.

Any insights?

Thank you for your help

María


----------



## panjandrum

Maria:  Sorry for having blurred the distinction between owners, users, genitives, possessers, adjectives, modifiers and so on.  But I think we are still on the real point of the use of the genitive form as a modifier for the noun, rather than as an owner.  You make a good point on singular/plural.  If the line we are following is correct, then the people words seem usually be plural (hence I think adults' food) and the non-people words (and baby) are singular.  This could be another foolish generalisation, but I have to rush.....


----------



## JohninVirginia

mzg said:
			
		

> Hi Pajandrum and the others
> 
> Thank you very much for your help BUT you say:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to think about it but I remind you we are *NOT* talking of the *'s* as possessor but as *USER* (there 6 uses of 's and possessor is just one)
> 
> "This is my dog's leash" is ownership.
> 
> *I question about the contrast between the USERS so please, if you want to help me to not mix ownership in this  *
> 
> 
> This is dog food (food for dogs),
> This is baby food (food for babies)
> This is fish food
> This is body lotion
> 
> This is soldiers' food (food for soldiers)
> This is adult's food not children's
> Children's literature
> Ladys' restroom
> Women's pads (for the period)
> 
> These examples (are they ok?) make me think that Suzzenn and Pajandrum are right:
> 
> Human USERS take 'S and no-human and babies do not, but also there seems to be a plural/singular distinction.
> 
> Any insights?
> 
> Thank you for your help
> 
> María


 

As a native speaker without having thought about this before, I think that there is just no rule.


Children's literature.
Adult literature
ladies' clothing
girl talk
men's shoes
it's a "guy thing"


Like prepositions, I think this is just an area where each one is what it is and all you can do is repeat what you hear until it sounds natural.

John in Virginia


----------



## panjandrum

Hi John: I rather suspect you may be right, but I am enjoying the quest just the same
Sticking, at Maria's request, to the users of the things not the owners is a really useful distinction because I think it is clear that the full genitive case is used in all cases of ownership (the dog's bed, the cats' dishes).
The question is about the form to be used as a non-owning pre-modifier. So far, a generalisation has has emerged from much collective thought:
people words tend to be plural and in the genitive case; 
non-people words tend to be singular and not genitive; 
*baby* is an exception - because of its general use as an adjective.
Your examples are OK with this, except for half of them I think *girl talk* and *man thing* could be considered as atypical forms, contrived for a purpose and deliberately atypical. I have a bit of a problem with *adult literature*.
*AHA* - of course I haven't. *Adult* is an exception for precisely the same reason that *baby* is an exception.


----------



## mzg

*Hello again *thank you for your contributions

I really hope John in Virginia is NOT right and there is actually a rule.  Just for non-English speakers's sake.

Thinking about this, Panjandrum:



> *baby is an exception - because of its general use as an adjective.
> 
> *


* 

*
Wouldn't the reason be that babies as users are considered equal to animals? I say this because I believe that little babies are referred to as "it": Is it a boy or a girl?

As for Jonh in Virginia's examples:

Children's literature. This is Ok with OUR rule
ladies' clothing. This is Ok with OUR rule
men's shoes. This is Ok with OUR rule

girl talk This is not user. This is not talk for the girls. This is Talk by/from girls so I erase it 

it's a "guy thing". This again is not user is by or from guys. So I erase it.

THE PROBLEM IS:

Adult literature

Because, according to our rule, adult is the user so it should be adults' liteterature. 

BUT the rule is NOT broken here because adult is both a *NOUN and an Adjective.*

So I can say 

1. adult literature and female literature (both adjectives) but not "women literture" (women is only noun not adjective). this does not describe the user but a quality such as good literature. 

2. Adult's literature and women's literature who are the receivers of the literature  (both are nouns), the users... At least in one of the possible meanigs.


I am not sure if I have made my point, neither if my examples are right or even if I am right. 

I am asking for more cases and opinions  

See you


----------



## mzg

Hi John 
I have visited the page you proposed. I knew of rules for the order of the adjectives. 

For example you say a "fat old man" not a *old fat man 

The order is as follows.

age, shape, size, temperature *plus *colour *plus *origin *plus *material* plus* purpose

Old fat lady
Cold wooden door
Black Venetian window
Squared steel container
big tennis racket (tennis is the purpose) 


But if you want to talk about this *I would appreciate it* if you opened a new thread as this one is for comparing "'s" as user and "noun as adjective" as user

See you

EDIT: This post is in answer to JohnInVirginia's posts about a new topic which I've split off into a new thread called "Adjective Order Rules". 
Thanks.
Zebedee


----------



## panjandrum

Maria: Nouns and adjectives can be pre-modifiers for other nouns. I don't think this helps us a lot? And I have a parental and grand-parental brain-gap when it comes to thinking of babies as non-people.
I still think that because *baby* and *adult* are very well-established words that can equally well be applied to non-human creatures they have become established as adjectives, rather than noun pre-modifiers.
Moving into dangerous territory now:
I don't think "female literature" or "adult's literature" are common usage. In fact, the more I think about it, female literature would imply something about the sex of the actual book, which is beyond comprehension. And because "adult literature" has come to have a specific meaning, if I wanted to talk about literature that was particularly aimed at adults, or appropriate for adults, I would talk about literature for adults.
Still holding to the rules......


----------



## mzg

Hi Pajandrum 

Thanks for your help

I 'll keep thinking about it   

Bye


----------



## JohninVirginia

mzg said:
			
		

> *Hello again *thank you for your contributions
> 
> I really hope John in Virginia is NOT right and there is actually a rule.  Just for non-English speakers's sake.
> 
> Thinking about this, Panjandrum:
> 
> 
> 
> [/b]
> Wouldn't the reason be that babies as users are considered equal to animals? I say this because I believe that little babies are referred to as "it": Is it a boy or a girl?
> 
> As for Jonh in Virginia's examples:
> 
> Children's literature. This is Ok with OUR rule
> ladies' clothing. This is Ok with OUR rule
> men's shoes. This is Ok with OUR rule
> 
> girl talk This is not user. This is not talk for the girls. This is Talk by/from girls so I erase it
> 
> it's a "guy thing". This again is not user is by or from guys. So I erase it.
> 
> THE PROBLEM IS:
> 
> Adult literature
> 
> Because, according to our rule, adult is the user so it should be adults' liteterature.
> 
> BUT the rule is NOT broken here because adult is both a *NOUN and an Adjective.*
> 
> So I can say
> 
> 1. adult literature and female literature (both adjectives) but not "women literture" (women is only noun not adjective). this does not describe the user but a quality such as good literature.
> 
> 2. Adult's literature and women's literature who are the receivers of the literature (both are nouns), the users... At least in one of the possible meanigs.
> 
> 
> I am not sure if I have made my point, neither if my examples are right or even if I am right.
> 
> I am asking for more cases and opinions
> 
> See you



I'm still not sure, but it seems that you are mostly right:

"Nouns as adjectives" seem to appear in the simple noun form, but...
when the "noun as adjective" is a person or group of people who are the intended user, the possessive form tends to be used.

So, "woman's bike" but, "mountain bike" or "street bike"
and "men's boots" but "football boots".


But there are some exceptions, such as "people food" (as opposed to "dog food") (and Soylent Green aside).

While the "adult" in "adult literature" may refer more to a content of the the literature rather than to the intended user, "adults' literature" just has a weird sound to it.  It should sound right in the right context if we were consistent.  Maybe it is correct but just not used so often.  I suspect that it would have a different meaning, since the noun-as-adjective "adult" can have specific connotations, as you point out.
On the other hand, "children's literature" sounds fine and "child literature" doesn't.

It seems that the exceptions are few.

BTW, in doing a quick google search (and finding not much helpful) one of the first links was this website!!  Congrats to all!


----------



## Trisia

OK, I know it's probably a stupid question, but how exactly do you say this:
 beginner's course or
beginners course (or maybe class instead of course?)
I looked it up in the dictionary, and beginner's course doesn't exist. . Still, a google search would reveal that it is used. A lot.

Background: I'm trying to explain to somebody that, at school, we were assessed and split into groups (beginners or advanced). So, I wound up in the  beginner.... help, please


----------



## OldMike

Beginner's course is the correct use.


----------



## panjandrum

This is not a stupid question at all, it is difficult to find a clear answer.
Is this a class that is for a beginner - hence a beginner's class?
Or for lots of beginners - hence a beginners' class?
Or is "beginners" an attribute of the class - hence a beginners class?

The question was discussed at length in an other thread about a woman's college, and baby oil came into it as well.  As the themes are so close, I'll move this thread to the end of the previous  one, and change its name.
Meantime, I think it should be a beginners class - no apostrophe - or maybe I don't.


----------



## Trisia

Thank you both !

Ha-ha-ha, who would have thought this was a puzzle for native speakers as well. I feel so much better. Panjandrum, thanks for posting that thread, it was very helpful. And I love the undecidedness of your answer 

I think I'll go with beginners class, just to be on the safe side. After all, if I'm really a beginner, nobody will mind


----------



## panjandrum

Two years after I first became embroiled in this little puzzle as a newbie in these forums - here we are again  - thanks to Trisia for bringing back the fond memories.  In the intervening period, I have found a new source that includes:


> Don't confuse an adjectival label (sometimes called an *"attributive noun"*) ending in _s_ with the need for a possessive. [...] Do you attend a *writers' conference* or a *writers conference*? If it's a group of writers attending a conference, you want the plural ending, _writers._ If the conference actually belongs to the writers, then you'd want the possessive form, _writers'._
> _Possessives versus Adjectival Labels_


That doesn't give an unequivocal answer, but like Trisia, I feel better knowing that I am part of a much larger group of the confused.

On balance, I think that the class is a class for beginners - not a class belonging to a set of beginners.  If so, then beginners is an attributive noun - no apostrophe.


----------



## bloomiegirl

I think there is no rule at all! For instance, would one say:_ his secret agent reflexes_, but _his footballer's reflex_?

I realize this is an old thread, but this issue came up today in the French-English forum... here.


----------



## Dmitry_86

As regards the example with "beginners", I also agree, at least at first glance without much contemplating this subject, that "beginners" is used here attributively. That is to say, we characterize a class saying that beginners study, are studying or will study there. Certainly, this class does not belong to any beginner or any beginners. That is why I also consider the apostrophe wrong in this context.

Nonetheless, I do not completely understand why cannot we say "*beginner* class". As far as I know we use an attributive adjective in the plural when we want to emphasize that the noun following the first word (here the "first" word is "beginner") refers to something existing in many different forms. For example: "building material*S* industry". Since there are different materials produced by some industry we are compelled to use the "material" in the plural brcause otherwise this would mean that only one material is the only produce. The same with beginners. Are they all different? Perhaps, they have all come from different places: some are natives, some have come from afar. Another version: they are all beginners but not in the literal meaning of the word. For example, people taking some course and these people have a different age. Anyway, such a situation is possible. In this case, I think, we should say "beginner*S* class".

What is your viewpoint?

Thanks!!!


----------



## Dmitry_86

bloomiegirl said:


> I think there is no rule at all! For instance, would one say:_ his secret agent reflexes_, but _his footballer's reflex_?
> 
> I realize this is an old thread, but this issue came up today in the French-English forum... here.



"his secret agent reflexes" is clear. This suggests that he possesses these reflexes rather than he has an agent who has particular reflexes.

In the light of the interpretation we have given to the previous example, "his footballer/footballer's reflex" can also indicate both, I think. First, someone (a coach or a football team doctor, for example) may be referring to a footballer they know who has a specifix reflex. Also, it may mean that as a footballer (as a typical footballer) he has some reflexes. These reflexes have developed as a result of his playing football.

The second example requires further clarification.

Thanks!!!


----------



## FireBones

Just a note on the "baby" issue. One could make the claim that the _baby_ is not the user. The mother [or whoever is applying the baby oil] is the user.

I think the correct answer is that there is a logical answer, but that logical answer conflicts with usage.

Even the Chicago Manual of Style paints itself in a corner here. It first claims that attributive nouns should not require a possessive, citing "participants manual" as an example. But then it claims that "women department" is unacceptable.

It is logical for attributive nouns [or noun adjuncts, adjective nouns, or noun pre-modifiers...whatever you want to call them] not to use an 's. 

A "writers conference" is a conference for writers, not a conference owned by them.

Unfortunately, that logical answer is not played out in our actual lives.

It might be worth noting that Latin would [probably?] use a dative to get across this idea (perhaps by instantiating a verb) rather than a genitive. Some might take that as further indication that there is no call for an apostrophe.

An example that might be worth considering is "Negro water fountain," with obvious apologies to the insensitivity inherent in the phrase.


----------



## Loob

FireBones said:


> A "writers conference" is a conference for writers, not a conference owned by them.


Yes but, yes but ... the 's/s' genitive is used for many other things, not just ownership I'm happy with_ writers' conference = conference for writers, conference bringing together writers__._


----------



## FireBones

I question whether we should think about this as a genitive. As I mentioned earlier, in Latin it wouldn't be...

And even if it is a genitive, there are many genitive uses that do not use apostrophes.

But I think if you go by how things are actually used, it is hopeless:

Women's Studies
but
Women and Gender Studies

Women's rights
Gay rights

I don't think saying "adult is an adjective" works for literature...since it is certainly not acting like an adjective in its normal sense there. And, in any regard, we have:

Children's fiction
Youth Fiction

And some more example of "things for humans" that use (non-possessive) attributive nouns:

Juvenile Hall
Master Bedroom
Butcher Block
Wimp Clause
Man Food
Family Meeting
Graduate Dinner
Couples Retreat


----------



## Nunty

FireBones said:


> I question whether we should think about this as a genitive. As I mentioned earlier, in Latin it wouldn't be...[...]



At the risk of being both pedestrian and obvious, English isn't Latin and English grammar is not identical to Latin grammar.


----------



## herotitizhang

If the plural is regular, should I use this plural form or use the singular form?
(girls bathroom and dog food - why not girl bathroom and dogs food)


----------



## Hildy1

panjandrum said:


> For clarification (I think):
> A "woman's college" is the college that one particular woman attends.
> A college that is particularly for women (although surely not these days) would  be a "women's college".



In theory (and logic) this is so, but not always in practice. A "woman's college" can also be a college for women.
http://www.uncg.edu/inside-uncg/inside-history.htm


----------

