# EN: of / 's (genitive) / adjective - how to translate the possessive "de"



## AurélienD

Hello,

I always wondered and want to be sure whether nouns, when used as adjectives, could be plural or not in English ? How express some distinctions as they exist in French (as below) in English ?

Examples :
 - Le travail du pompier -> The fireman work 
 - Le travail des pompiers -> the firemen work ? fireman work ? The work of firemen ?

Free me of this old doubt 

*Moderator note:* Multiple threads have been merged to create this one.


----------



## Outsider

In this case, I think the phrases _the fireman's/firemen's work_ or _the work of a fireman/of firemen_ sound better. I can't explain why.


----------



## AurélienD

Yes, It was a bad example because here an possesive 's' could (should ?) be used.

Try another example :
- la couleur de la pomme : the apple colour
- la couleur des pommes : the apples colour (looks false) ? the colour of apples ? the apple colour ?

Definitively, "the apples colour" looks wrong. But I want to be sure !


----------



## Benjy

the colour of the apple
the colour of the apples

that is what i would write. the apple's colour could be used of rthe first one if you really wanted


----------



## la grive solitaire

I hope these will help set your mind at ease...  

Your examples are of plural, possessive nouns, so:

The color of the apples = The apples' color  (apples is plural)
If it were singular, it would be :  The apple's color  (one apple)

The work of the firemen = The firemen's work  (firemen is plural)
The song of the children = The children's song  (children is plural)
The song of the birds =  The birds' song          (birds is plural)

The locks of the prisons =  The prisons' locks
The locks of the prison = The prison's locks


----------



## AurélienD

Thank you La Grive for your interest in my problem 



			
				la grive solitaire said:
			
		

> The color of the apples = The apples' color  (apples is plural)
> If it were singular, it would be :  The apple's color  (one apple)



Errr... but i thought the "'s" could only be used without animated thing like humans or animals ? 



			
				la grive solitaire said:
			
		

> The work of the firemen = The firemen's work  (firemen is plural)
> The song of the children = The children's song  (children is plural)
> The song of the birds =  The birds' song          (birds is plural)



I agree with those sentences. No problem. But could not a noun be used as an adjective with an other noun as in 'the bird song' (In French : Adjectivisation du nom) ? Or shall i use 'the bird's song ? Both are correct ? If 'the bird song' is correct, and only in this case, what about plural ? 

Finally, I wonder about the sentences like "the song of the bird". Many years ago (Yeah, not so far ), my english teacher taugh me this construction was baby-ish and should be banned. She said we must used "the bird's song" in place of. (My teacher could be wrong, I would rather trust a native speaker than her )

Go away wrong ideas ! Today we will crush you and throw you in hell !!
I 
 Mmmm... I think I'm a little too enthusiast


----------



## RobInAustin

Your teacher was referring to active vs passive voice. It is always better to say "the bird's song" "the apple's color" etc.  to say the song of the bird, or color of the apple sounds poetic, old fashioned, and in many cases odd.

Rob


----------



## LV4-26

AurélienD said:
			
		

> could not a noun be used as an adjective with an other noun as in 'the bird song' (In French : Adjectivisation du nom


Right. Nobody has really answered this question. I have no definite idea about this matter. But I would think that
_the fireman work _can be said for le _travail du pompier_ as well as for _le travail *des* pompiers._
After all, it comes to the same, doesn't it. It's the same work.
Now I'm not sure your example is correct, Aurelien. I'm not sure "fireman" is one of those nouns that can be used as adjectives. And this may be the reason why everybody thinks you're talking about possessive constructions.


----------



## Outsider

Clearly, sometimes you can use nouns as adjectives, and sometimes you can't. _Fireman work_ and _bird song_ sound wrong to me, although I can't explain why. I think you should look for better examples of nouns used as adjectives. Here are a few I posted in another thread:

Adjectivized nouns: _*computer* programmer, *shoe* shop, *Boston* University, *backseat* driver, *Sunday* school, *home* schooling, *water* cooler, *air* conditioning._

The question is: why not "*computer's* programmer, *shoe's* shop, *Boston's* University, *backseat's* driver, *Sunday's* school, *home's* schooling, *water's* cooler, *air's* conditioning"?


----------



## RobInAustin

the fireman work  is not appropriate.  Fireman work, meaning "the work of a fireman" is not appropriate.

"Bird song" is a bit of an exception as it has come to mean The song of a bird. However, you would never song "the dog bark" or "the cat meow"

Your best rule, frankly is not to use this construction (the work of, the song of, etc) at all. If you never use it, you will never make a mistake.  It is always better, frankly NOT to use it, even as a native speaker. Always say "the firemen's work" "the birds' song" "the children's singing" etc.

Rob


----------



## AurélienD

If I try to sum up : 
 - 's is used with person (or animals) "the bird's song"
- Adjectivized nouns : only with non-human or non-animals nouns "computer programmer". And its this case, no plural form for the adjectivized noun ?

If all of this is correct. It was what I thought ...  but, at least, now it's clear 




> Your best rule, frankly is not to use this construction (the work of, the song of, etc) at all.



Clearly typical French construction...


----------



## Outsider

AurélienD said:
			
		

> And its this case, no plural form for the adjectivized noun ?


"Arm*s* race"?  



			
				AurélienD said:
			
		

> If I try to sum up :
> - 's is used with person (or animals) "the bird's song"
> - Adjectivized nouns : only with non-human or non-animals nouns "computer programmer".


I'm not sure you can put it that way. That may be an oversimplification.
But I do agree with RobInAustin that translating "X de Y" as "Y X" is usually a bad idea--a common error of foreigners. It only seems to be acceptable in certain set phrases.
When in doubt, it's better to translate "X of Y" or "Y's X". The latter should be used when some kind of possession is implied.


----------



## LV4-26

Outsider said:
			
		

> Adjectivized nouns: _*computer* programmer, *shoe* shop, *Boston* University, *backseat* driver, *Sunday* school, *home* schooling, *water* cooler, *air* conditioning._


Yes, these examples work much better. And, as you can see, Aurelien, the singular/plural issue is "sans objet" (purposeless ?) in those cases. Which is what I'd supposed in the first place.
A computer programmer programs computers
A shoe shop sells shoes.
But "Boston" is singular and "water" and "air" are uncountable...
The adjectivised nouns can refer to sing or pl objects, depending on the context.
The *sing/pl issue (which was your very first question*, wasn't it, Aurelien ?) is only relevant with the possessive case, not with the adjectivised noun.


----------



## esteban

Hi everyone,


I'd say my next issue is basic stuff which I'm supposed to be aware of  but the truth is that now I'm having serious doubts about it.
So here's what I want to ask: in general when I have the choice between either choosing 's or "of", is there a specific rule that tells me which one is better or is it up to me to make a decision?
Please consider the following examples, how would you translate them?

"L'anniversaire du père de Marie", "Les crocs du lion du cirque de Moscou sont assez impressionants!" 


Thanks for your help


----------



## Tabac

"Marie's father's birthday" is fine: "The birthday of Marie's father" sounds better to me.

"The fangs of the lion" at..." is probably the best choice.

No rule that I know of.  Just what sounds better without too many *'s* or *of*.


----------



## RobInAustin

Marie's Father's birthday.
The Moscow Circus' lions have impressive fangs.

Of usually is best used only for a place...ie: The people of Marseille have a distinct accent.  

To say "The birthday of Marie's father" is not the best English, it sounds foreign to native speakers.  To use "of" for possession is passive voice. to use 's is active voice and active voice is usually preferred.

Cheers
Rob


----------



## esteban

Thank you Rob and thank you Tabac,

Here's one more question for you Rob, you wrote "The Moscow Circus..." did you omit one 's/of  between "Moscow" and "Circus" on purpose? If so, would it be also right to write "The Circus of Moscow..." (or maybe write this sentence using an 's)?


----------



## RobInAustin

to be 'most' correct in English, it is considered redundant to use " 's " after a word ending in s. You need only use '.  The Princess' crown, The Circus' lions...etc.
Now many people use s's, and it is generally accepted, but isn't strictly "proper".

You can say "The Circus of Moscow", but in English that specific thing is properly called "The Moscow Circus".


----------



## Caronium

This is from my notebook from an English grammar course I had a few years ago:

The possessive case (_'s_) is used of:

people, countries or animals (_the girl's hair_)
ships, boats, planes, trains, cars and other vehicles, though "of" is safer (_the ship's bell, the train's heating system_)
in time expressions (_today's paper_)
in expressions of money+worth (_two dollars' worth_)
in the expression for+noun+sake (_for heaven's sake_)
"of" is used for possession with inanimate "possessors" except those listed above


----------



## ihaveaquestion

in what case can I translate the french _de _(un systeme de culture, un facteur de production) by _of_, and in what case can I just put the two words without transition.

Should i say a culture system or a system of culture? a production factor or a factor of production?

And what when there are two _de _in a row, for example "l'analyse des systèmes de production" ? is it the analysis of production systems, the analysis of systems of production (heavy no?!)

thnks


----------



## Monsieur Hoole

as a general rule, the shortest option is the best.  you also want to avoid repeating of, as it sounds increasingly awkward.  i'm sure there's the odd exception (often related to the jargon of any given field), but that'll do the job 98% of the time.

M.H.


----------



## sibaris

Bonjour,

Il y a il une régle pour savoir quand est ce qu’on met « ‘s » ou « sometihng of something » ? merci
Exemple : j’ai traduit
This heritage development of the site was discussed at the time of the scientific and political conference in 1994, about proposing solutions for the future in term of nature conservancy, starting from the example of the Orx Wetlands.
Pour :
C'est-à-dire qu’à partir de l’exemple de l’évolution des paysages des Marais d’Orx, il s’agissait de proposer des solutions pour l’avenir en terme de protection de la nature.

D’autrs examples où je ne sais jamais : What is necessary to retain of this site’s storry is the will to rebuild and to protect a particular nature, symbol of a last ecological history, on an area strongly affected by two successive times of agricultural prosperity and decline.
Thus, this area very presents at the same time the marks of, in one hand, an ecological development like the small islands of the Southern Wetlands created of all parts, characteristic of the genesis and the evolution of the Aquitanian coastal systems, and in another hand, some vestiges from the prosperous economic and social time like the old dams and the old smallholdings.


----------



## Bibouillette

I have the same question... For example, with very easy sentence I always hesistate :
- The end of the film
or
- The film's end.

And with human, don't you prefer :
The book of Lucy
or
Lucy's book ?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

ihaveaquestion said:


> Should i say a culture system or a system of culture? a production factor or a factor of production?
> [...]
> is it the analysis of production systems, the analysis of systems of production (heavy no?!)


Some nouns have developed adjectival power: we say production systemps as well as systems of production. Economists talk of factors of production, not of production factors.

In your examples, I'd say: a cultural system, or a system of culture. The first suggests to my ear general culture, the second culture of the earth (agriculture).

The analysis of production systems is fine, but people might also say the analysis of systems of production. The repeated of is a bit clumsy, but not impossibly so.



Bibouillette said:


> The end of the film or The film's end.


Either is possible.  I think the end of the film is more usual and natural.



> The book of Lucy or Lucy's book ?


Yes, certainly: Lucy's book.  I think the 's works particularly well with short words and names - though we do say Nebuchanezzar's dream.  The dream of Nebuchanezzar sounds a bit like the title of a book or an opera.  That form has added drama and importance, which you'd often want to lose.


----------



## Kelly B

You'll find a great deal of discussion on this subject in these threads from the English Only forum:
Chavez's or Chavez' stuff 
Chris' or Chris's dog? Possessive forms of proper nouns
proper names enfing in Z + possessive 
Possessive of names ending with s 
Saxon genitive - boss 
Possessive of Dress = Dress's


----------



## rabbit on nerves

hi!

there's something I've been wondering about for a looong time : when should you use «of» or «'s» to express "possession" in english?

for example, are those two sentences correct?

_John's car is blue
The car of John is blue_

what about those ones?
_
the tires of my car are __worn_
_ my car's tires are worn_


does the choice depend on the subject, like if you're talking about a human or not?

thanks 

en VF : je me demande quand on doit utiliser «of» ou «'s» pour exprimer, pour une personne ou un object, le fait de posséder quelque chose


----------



## jann

All of your sentence examples are reasonable except "the car of John is blue" , which, though grammatically correct, is not something we would actually say.


----------



## rabbit on nerves

"_my car's tires are worn" _is correct? I didn't think it would be lol


----------



## clairet

Yes, it's correct.


----------



## SwissPete

Sometimes the problem can be solved by using neither _of_ nor _'s_. In most situations, saying _my tires are worn_ would be easily understood.


----------



## Ofboir

Hi !

I am writing a report for an internship, and I have little doubts. Each time I want to write a sentence that would use _de_, _du_ or _de la_ in french, I hesitate.

I think the form " 's " is used just for a person, like :
Lucy's dog.
Ok, this one's easy !

But when it comes to technical discussion, I get confused ...
For information, the report is talking about programming a simulator. But anyway, it doesn't make a lot of difference.

Here are some examples (I generally hesitate between the 3 forms below) :

_Le développement du simulator_
_The development of the simulator_ ? (This one sounds ugly to me)
_The simulator development_ ?
_The simulator's development_ ? (I think it's incorrect, but it doesn't sound that bad to me)

_L'efficacité de la politique de navigation_
_The efficiency of the navigation policy ?
The navigation policy efficiency ?
_
And there are a lot more ...
(the size of the city, the traffic lights synchronization, the limits of software X ...)

Anyway, if you know formal rules for that, or just some correct examples, it would be great.

Thanks !


----------



## timpeac

Hi

People usually take "'s", as in your example "Lucy's dog".

Otherwise "of" is normally preferred - all of your examples above with this are fine ("the development of the simulator" is fine).

I've been pondering on "the traffic lights' synchronization" (note the apostrophe!!) which sounds ok - but "the synchronization of the traffic lights" would also be fine, and I think better. Equally "the simulator's development" is also ok, but I think "the development of the simulator" is better (to my ear).

When you have "nom de nom" in French this is where we can concatenate nouns in English - for example "un garçon de café" - "a café waiter" (definitely not "a café's waiter" or "a waiter of (a) café").

_L'efficacité de la politique de navigation _mixes the last two points and so your _The efficiency of the navigation policy _is the right one.

Quantities also take "of", like French "une bouteille d'eau" "a bottle of water", "une tasse de thé" "a cup of tea", cf "une tasse à thé" "a tea-cup".

I think that gets most of them - and are at least useful generalisations, I hope (I'm not claiming it works all the time - a dangerous thing to do on these forums!!).

You might want to try the English only forum for opinions on any difference between phrases such as "the limits of the software" and "the software's limits" - as I say above I think that the "of" phrases are more usual - well perhaps more formal at least. I'm not sure if there are further nuances people might discern.


----------



## Mokasiliquide

Bonjour !

Je voudrais comprendre à quels moment doit-on passer l'adjectif avant le nom. En effet, dans mon cours sur _A Midsummer Night's Dream_, ma prof a écrit "Titania uses the vocabulary of logic to demonstrate the _*effect of the quarrel*_ on nature". Ne dit-on pas "the quarrel effect" ? A quel moment dit-on l'un et à quel moment dit-on l'autre ?

Merci d'avance,

Mokasiliquide


----------



## janpol

Je n'ai pas l'impression qu'il y ait un adjectif dans cette phrase.


----------



## Mokasiliquide

Non effectivement, je voulais parler de l'ordre des mots.

Bonjour !

Je voudrais comprendre à quels moment doit-on changer l'ordre des mots en passant du français à l'anglais. En effet, dans mon cours sur _A Midsummer Night's Dream_, ma prof a écrit "Titania uses the vocabulary of logic to demonstrate the _*effect of the quarrel*_ on nature". Ne dit-on pas "the quarrel effect" ? A quel moment dit-on l'un et à quel moment dit-on l'autre ?

Merci d'avance,

Mokasiliquide


----------



## Maître Capello

Si tu dis _the quarrel effect_, c'est comme si en français tu disais _l'effet querelle_, alors que _the effect of the quarrel_ est le pendant anglais de _l'effet de la querelle_…


----------



## Mokasiliquide

Effectivement, mais dans le cas de "the Queen of the Amazons" (qui est aussi tel quel dans mon cours), ne peut-on pas dire "the Amazons Queen" ?


----------



## LILOIA

1) a cup of tea : une tasse de thé
2) a tea cup : une tasse à thé
1) a box of chocolates : une boîte de chocolats (on parle des chocolats)
2) a chocolate box : une boîte pour mettre des chocolats (on parle de la boîte)
Dans les exemples 2), "tea"  et "chocolate" deviennent des déterminants (c'est sans doute pour ça que tu as confondu avec "adjectif", mais un déterminant n'est pas obligatoirement un adjectif).
Hope it helps !


----------



## Maître Capello

Mokasiliquide said:


> Effectivement, mais dans le cas de "the Queen of the Amazons" (qui est aussi tel quel dans mon cours), ne peut-on pas dire "the Amazons Queen" ?


On pourrait en effet aussi dire _the Amazon Queen_ ou éventuellement _the Amazons' Queen_…


----------



## afbyorb

Your prof could also have said:

... the quarrel's effect .....

_Cherchez le genitif_


----------



## acme_54

RobInAustin said:


> Your teacher was referring to active vs passive voice. It is always better to say "the bird's song" "the apple's color" etc. to say the song of the bird, or color of the apple sounds poetic, old fashioned, and in many cases odd.



Correction: It is SOMETIMES better to say "the bird's song". Not "always".


----------



## Keith Bradford

I think that bird + song is a special case.  In fact the word *birdsong *exists (it's the title of a novel by Sebastian Faulks ).  But bird's song, birds' song and song of the bird(s) are all perfectly good and not at all babyish.  But they'll be used in different circumstances.  E.g.

I have studied the house sparrow.  This *bird's song *is unusual...
I was woken by *the song of the bird *that sits on my windowsill each morning.
*Bird song *is one of nature's wonders.

But nouns when used as adjectives can never be in the plural because English adjectives have no plural.  _*Football*_, not _feetball_!  *Manpower*, not _menpower_.

So - la couleur de la pomme : the colour of the apple 
- une couleur de pomme : apple colour (not very common, because there is no single colour that fits, but _tomato colour _is common)
- la couleur des pommes : the colour of apples


----------



## CapnPrep

Keith Bradford said:


> But nouns when used as adjectives can never be in the plural because English adjectives have no plural.  _*Football*_, not _feetball_!  *Manpower*, not _menpower_.


It is a useful rule of thumb to tell learners of English, particularly French-speaking learners of English, that the first noun in a noun-noun compound (i.e. the attributive noun) is usually in the singular. It is unhelpful to tell them that attributive nouns "can never be in the plural" and to claim, inaccurately, that this has something to do with them being adjectives.

Since this thread was started in 2005, several others have have appeared that may be useful to anyone who comes across this one, for example:
FR: star wars / stars war
EN: email scams / scam emails - nouns used as adjectives

And there's a list of similar threads in the English Only forum here.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Yes, but I had my fingers crossed when I said 'never' .

Seriously, this rule has so few exceptions, and the error of breaking it is so common, that I would advise any French-speaking beginner to consider it as virtually absolute.

And I stick by my argument that these nouns in apposition/adjectival nouns perform the work of an adjective (they describe the noun) and behave like an adjective (they come before the noun and have no plural), so they are in fact, to all intents and purposes, adjectives.  What else would you call them?


----------



## CapnPrep

Keith Bradford said:


> What else would you call them?


I would call them nouns.


----------



## Keith Bradford

Sorry, that won't do.

Let's take the word "table".  Sometimes it's a noun (The cup is on *the table *= _la table_); sometimes it's a verb (The chairman *tabled *the proposal = _présenter _(BE) or _ajourner _(AE)) and sometimes it's an adjective (A jug of *table *cream = _fraîche liquide _(AE)).  Likewise "house" which can be translated as _la maison_, _abriter _or _interne (house magazine = journal interne)_. This is how English words behave.

To call these words "nouns" means inventing a whole new meaning for the word "noun".  And it doesn't help French learners either.


----------



## CapnPrep

Sorry, but I already addressed your objections in one of the threads I linked to above. You may enjoy repeating yourself; I do not.

French learners already know about noun-noun compounds in their own language. _Timbres-poste_, _compte chèques_, _navette aéroport_, _chèque vacances_, … It is clear that the modifying element (which is the second word in French) is a noun, not an adjective. What learners need to be told is that the same structure is very widespread in English (although individual French examples will not necessarily translate directly into English), and that unlike in French, the modifying noun in English is usually but not always in the singular, even when the sense is plural.


----------



## lucas-sp

CapnPrep's answer in the email scams thread is pretty definitive.

I think the big reason you can tell that the noun modifying the other noun is a noun is that it can be plural: arms dealer, media theory, systems administrator. Adjectives can't be plural.

Another thing that would happen is that any adjectives modifying that first noun would suddenly jump ship from adjectives and become adverbs, if the noun became an adjective: small-arms dealer ("small" would be an adverb, so I ought to be able to re-write it as "slightly arms dealer"), Scandinavian design store ("Scandinavianly designed store"?), Computer Systems Administrator (now there's a _noun_ that's supposed to be an adverb).

Perhaps it's best A) to admit that this entire question of "modifying" is a little vague, since almost every part of a sentence modifies almost every other and B) to jump on this "nouns can modify nouns too" bandwagon.

Also, articles obviously modify nouns and are not adjectives, if you need a clearer counter-example to your rule, Keith.


----------



## alogbe

AurélienD: I don't have a complete answer to this. But it is certainly not true that the possessive "'s" can be used only with "animate" nouns: you may talk about _a car's appearance, the book's theme, the building's roof,_ etc.

There can be two possibilities, both correct, but with different meanings:

- _a computer programmer_ is someone who writes programs for computers generally;

- _the computer's programmer_ is the person who programmed this particular computer. 

Similarly: "this is John Smith, the aircraft designer" means that's his job; "this is John Smith, the aircraft's designer" means he designed the aircraft we are talking about.


----------



## Giordano Bruno

Keith Bradford said:


> But nouns when used as adjectives can never be in the plural because English adjectives have no plural.  _*Football*_, not _feetball_!  *Manpower*, not _menpower_.



Hi Keith,

Better late than never.  An important exception to your rule concerns irregular plurals. You may talk of "teeth marks" but not "claws marks",  "a mice infested barn", but not "a rats infested barn".


----------



## romano5

In sports I've noticed that most of the times the apostrophe is omitted. Is It because there's no need for one because it's not a genitive form (a noun used as an adjective)?

examples:
the Champions League
The Lakers team
Arsenal players


----------



## clairet

I think the conclusion from the previous discussion in this thread is that it is more useful to think of such phrases in terms of nouns modifying nouns than in terms of nouns used as adjectives.  There is nothing particular about sports in this respect.  See Timpeac's and lucas-sp's posts for a general explanation.


----------



## lucas-sp

The only reason that "sports" come up is because many team names are plurals (Lakers, Bears, 49ers, Steelers, Bulls, Mets...). So you'll commonly see "the Lakers/Bears/Niners/Steelers/Bulls/Mets defense" or whatever.


----------



## Savi77186

Hey, i am currently studying old and modern english at my university and sometimes it looks as though i am writing things by heart and this is my problem, i would like to understand why, so as for me referring to the title i have troubles expressing "the ownership"

1 st example : "harry's bag" = "the bag that belongs to Harry" BUT could i say "the bag of Harry" ?
2 nd example: "harry's reaction" and "The reaction of Harry"

in the second example the reaction belongs to Harry since it is his reaction and so does the first example, the bag belongs to harry so i hope you could find out about what is my problem.

May you guys help me to find a way to figure them out so as not to make mistakes further in time ? (I thank you in advance).

Have a nice day, Thanks for reading


----------



## djweaverbeaver

Hi,

In both cases, it should be the 's possessive:  Harry's bag and Harry's reaction.  In general,  when the owner is a human, many but not all animals, a country, an orgranization made up o people,  we tend to use this form to show possession.  You could say The reaction of Harry, but I think it would depend on the context and sentence structure.  I think you might find *this explanation* (en français) quite helpful.  *This link* also provides other useful examples.


----------



## Savi77186

Thank you @djweaverbeaver because i was watching the TV news about usain bolt's 200M victory and the speaker clearly said "Oh my god no...usain failed, the reaction of bolt was amazing etc..." i do think that i clearly heard it that's why that pissed me off cause i could not understand why he said that which made me create an account here in order to ask native speakers, plus

QUESTION 1: my teacher wants me to avoid using apostrophes within my essays (formal) so how could i avoid them in order to express the ownership ?is there any other way than using the verb "to belong" ?

QUESTION 2: i looked at the link that you gave me but guess what i may be a dumb but i don't get it well, maybe you could gelp once again, what's the difference example between

1: The reputation of Madonna is amazing
2: Madonna's reputation is amazing.

1: the man's arm
2: the arm of the man

Thank you in advance


----------



## djweaverbeaver

Hi again @Savi77186 ,

Just reading "the reaction of Bolt" doesn't sound very natural to me.  I would've said "Bolt's reaction...", but then again, I'd have to hear it for myself to know if this use makes sense.  On the page it doesn't look like something a native speaker would say.

I'm not quite why your teacher wants you to avoid apostrophes in essays.  The *s* form of the possessive case has nothing to do with formality.  Furthermore, there might be situations where not using it would produce something that's not grammatically correct, as in some of the examples towards the bottom of the second link I posted.  The only apostrophe that would not use in formal writing is the one found in contraction: *can't, shouldn't, I'm, gov't etc.*  In formal writing, you should always spell out these contractions:  *cannot, should not, I am, government, etc.*

As to your last question, there is no difference between "The reputation of Madonna" and "Madonna's reputation" in your two sentences; they are equally correct.  However, adding other elements to the sentence could make one formulation possible and another not.  Consider the sentence given in that first link:
*The reputation of Madonna, the American singer, is amazing.*
​In this sentence, *the American singer* is an _*appositive*_, or it stands in apposition to _*Madonna*_. (*Apposition *is when two noun phrases, here *Madonna *and *the American singer*, are next to each other in a clause and refer to the same person or thing.  Check *this link* for more on this.)  This apposition explains why the *of *possessive form is correct whereas the *s* possessive form is not. With the *s* form, the apposition is impossible because *reputation *and the *American singer* do not refer to the same thing:
*Madonna's reputation, the American singer, is amazing. *
*(reputation ≠ the American singer, no apposition).
*​I hope this helps you to understand that particular example.


----------



## Nattie

Hi, sorry to update such an old thread but I have read all the posts and still cannot seem to find the answer I need! From what I understood this "'s or of" thing is more of a "does it sound okay" thing and does not have detailed rules, so I absolutely do not know what to choose in my case (and am even more confused than before to be honest)...
Would you (natives) say "the creation of the museum" or "the museum's creation" ? 
Thank you!


----------



## Keith Bradford

If you want a "rule", Nattie, here's a very simple one for you.

Use *'s *(or _*s'*_ in the plural) for:

*People*: John's book... My father's car... The Queen's coronation... The thieves' plot...

*Times*: Three weeks' holiday... A day's leave... Tomorrow's weather... Last year's fashions...
For all other circumstances, use "of".

Is this the whole answer?  No.  Is it incorrect?  No.  Will you go far wrong if you follow it?  No.


----------



## clairet

Nattie said:


> Would you (natives) say "the creation of the museum" or "the museum's creation" ?



Hi.  One thing I don't see in this thread (but I haven't checked out the links) is mention of the role of intended emphasis in choosing which form to use.  For your museum example I can't think of two examples which give "creation" and "museum" obviously different emphases, so I'm not surprised that my first (and last) reaction to the question was that both your phrases are fine and mean the same, e.g. "the creation of the museum was controversial" and "the museum's creation was controversial".  But a slightly earlier post gave the example of a sports commentator saying "the reaction of (Usain) Bolt" and a number of posts thought this was wrong.  In context, where the sports commentator clearly wanted to give special emphasis to the reaction which Bolt had, the usage seems perfectly reasonable to me (and the more usual "Bolt's reaction" would have been a bit boring - unless the commentator gave strong spoken emphasis to the word "reaction", but then it would have sounded a bit weird).  I think some of the counter-examples to basic "rules" (I prefer "practices" since rules change all the time) may come from this performance aspect.  All of which is not to say there aren't some choices which it's currently impossible to regard as anything but weird to a native speaker.  So "the bag of Harry" (from way earlier in the thread) would indicate you are not a native English speaker (who, if wanting to emphasise the bag, would say "the bag belonging to Harry" - note that you cannot say "the reaction belonging to Bolt").


----------



## acme_54

I'm a native speaker and I might use both "the creation of the museum" and "the museum's creation", depending on the context and the purpose of the text. Are you writing or speaking? is it a formal text for publication, or just a chat with a friend via email or text messaging? In general, "the museum's creation" is probably the most often used, and is less formal than "creation of the museum." Likewise, in general terms, the "X of Y" construction tends to be more formal, and more commonly used in written texts. For example the King of Spain sounds quite formal, whereas Spain's King is more conversational and informal.

Here's a link to a published text that uses the formal style: "creation of the museum":

*ethnographic conservation newsletter - ICOM-CC*
www.icom-cc.org/.../ethnographic-conservation-newsletter-26-december-2005/?...
"...creation of the museum was beset by difficulties ..."


----------



## Keith Bradford

acme_54 said:


> In general, "the museum's creation" is probably the most often used, and is less formal than "creation of the museum."...


Most often used?  Quite the contrary, eight or ten times less often used.  See Google Ngram Viewer


----------



## Kelly B

What is the surrounding sentence, please, @Nattie? I agree with Keith Bradford's general suggestion, but sometimes there are contextual considerations to be taken into account as well.


----------



## Meedfried

Hi,

In a website I have found :

Do not form the possessive of an inanimate object; use an adjective or an "of" phrase.  

The desk drawer is stuck. OR The drawer of the desk is stuck
So it means that here desk is an adjective and drawer a noun? Like "blue car". So I can't say "the desks drawer is stuck"  because an adjective is invariable ?
To say that I should say " the drawer of the desks is stuck " ?

Thank you !


----------



## Maître Capello

En anglais, on emploie essentiellement le possessif (_'s_, noter l'apostrophe au singulier) pour des personnes et non des choses comme un bureau, parce que les objets ne peuvent rien « posséder ». On ne dit donc pas _the desk's drawer_, mais on emploie un nom en tant qu'adjectif (ici, _desk_) : _the desk drawer_ = the drawer of the desk.


----------



## Meedfried

D'accord
Donc desk ne peut bien sûr pas être pluriel ?


----------



## Terio

My understanding :

*The desk drawer* : Le tiroir de commode.

There is a desk drawer in that pile of junk.

*The desk's drawer* / *The drawer of the desk* : Le tiroir de la commode.

The desk's drawer is full.
The drawer of the desk at the left of my bed is full.

*The desk drawers* : Les tiroirs de commode.

The desk drawers are stacked inside the shop.

*The desks' drawers* / *The drawers of the desks* : Les tiroirs des commodes.

The desks' drawers are varnished.
The drawers of the desks we bought last week were missing. They will ship them tomorrow.

*The desks drawers* :


----------



## Meedfried

Merci beaucoup


----------

