The False Possessive

[Jonathan Lighter]

The theory of the false possessive holds that inanimate things cannot
logically "possess" anything.  Of course, tradition allows us to use the few
idiomatic exceptions like "a day's wage."  It is a corruption we must
unfortunately live with.

BRAIN-TEASER:

Any English professor of 1899 could see what's wrong with this sentence.
Can you?

"I was very disappointed."

JL

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Baker, John <JMB at stradley.com> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Baker, John" <JMB at STRADLEY.COM>
> Subject:      The False Possessive
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>        In the midst of Jon's eloquent and insightful posts, I was
> struck by his rhetorical question, "Who today follows the
> nineteenth-century dictum to 'avoid the false possessive'?"  Partly this
> was because I had never actually heard of the false possessive.
> Predictably, there is somebody who follows (or purports to follow) that
> dictum.  As it turns out, it's The Economist, which says in its Style
> Guide,
> http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=673933:
> "And avoid the false possessive: London's Heathrow Airport."  The
> Economist does not bother to explain exactly why this should be avoided.
>
>        MWDEU calls this "genitive with inanimate nouns" (on page 475)
> and, of course, says it is perfectly standard.
>
>
>  John Baker
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org