The False Possessive

[Jonathan Lighter]

Nope.  F for the day.

JL

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Joel S. Berson <Berson at att.net> wrote:

> ---------------------- Information from the mail header
> -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       "Joel S. Berson" <Berson at ATT.NET>
> Subject:      Re: The False Possessive
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> An inanimate object cannot disappoint someone?
>
> Joel
>
> At 3/4/2009 01:50 PM, Jonathan Lighter wrote:
> >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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

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