Uneasy

[Paul Doherty]

While I was writing examples for the one-page summary I came up with:

• a pint of cow's milk = a pint of milk of cow
  
• six lamb's kidneys = six kidneys of lamb
  
• four children's shoes = six shoes of children
  

I didn't like the thought of shoes made of children, so I dropped the animal examples.

[Dave M]

"Of" is a funny word, isn't it, Paul.

We can usually (save your examples) go from an "owning" apostrophe to an "of", but not always the other way: a pint of milk and a choice of two are not a milk's pint and a two's choice!

[Paul Doherty]

True. It's no wonder people get confused, is it? Even our "simple" examples tend to have exceptions.

[Barry]

Paul,

This seems to be a bit of a cross-thread issue, but as the 'How the Board Works' thread is big, I thought I'd post my comments about your intro page here.

Six children's shoes, can, rather confusingly, also mean the (unnumbered, but logically, twelve) shoes of six children, surely ...

Is it really do's and dont's? There's a double apostrophe here (one for the missing letter, one to clarify the plural) - can't remember how it goes ...

Otherwise it looks good. Many thanks for the work.

[Glyn]

I'm clearly far less sensitive than you, Paul!
Since the apostrophe indicates "for" as well as "of, I don't think I would agonise over the possibility of shoes made of children any more than I would shudder at the thought of "women's face-cream".
"Four children's shoes" is also a bit ambiguous. Four or eight shoes?
Adding "pairs of" would clearly indicate eight shoes, and I suppose one would have to add something like "individual", or "odd" to suggest four shoes.
"Six lamb's kidneys" is clear enough, I think - though "lamb kidneys " seems a safer option - whilst "six lambs' kidneys" would suggest six pairs.
I wonder, too, whether "a pint of cow's milk" might not make the pedant query whether the liquid was, in fact, the product of one cow, as the singular "cow" suggests. Again, "cow milk" might be the best option, like "chicken leg(s).
Now, why to we say "chicken legs" but "pig's trotters", and "baby clothes" but not "child clothes"? All very confused and confusing.
Shall I or shan't I get that "men's shaving-cream" today? You've got me worried.

Glyn

[Sue M-V]

four children's shoes = six shoes of children

My maths is infamously lousy, so will one of you kind people please explain the above example, as it doesn't seem to add up, to me.

Sue

[Sue M-V]

Incidentally, I don't see why you can't use "for" as an alternative to "of" now and then.

Sue

[Sue M-V]

Aha! I see Glyn beat me to it!

Sue

[Paul Doherty]

May 14, 2008 11:04:41 GMT Barry said:

Is it really do's and dont's?

(And Dave M, in the other thread.) Nope, it's a mistake! Thanks for spotting it, I'll change it.

May 14, 2008 11:35:22 GMT Sue M-V said:

Incidentally, I don't see why you can't use "for" as an alternative to "of" now and then.

Well, you can, of course. But I didn't want to do it in the examples because then people worry about "why has he changed it to for" and it confuses the issue. In my view, of course, but I'm happy to hear other opinions -- we want it as perfect as it can be.

And as Sue and Dave M say in the other thread we don't want to poach John's customers by focusing too much on apostrophes. I'm happy to do a page on other issues (i.e. one page per issue) -- but what should they be?

[Paul Doherty]

May 14, 2008 16:59:07 GMT Paul Doherty said:

I'll change it.

Done.

Further comments welcome.

[Bertie]

May 14, 2008 11:31:42 GMT Glyn said:

"Six lamb's kidneys" is clear enough, I think - though "lamb kidneys " seems a safer option - whilst "six lambs' kidneys" would suggest six pairs.
I wonder, too, whether "a pint of cow's milk" might not make the pedant query whether the liquid was, in fact, the product of one cow, as the singular "cow" suggests. Again, "cow milk" might be the best option, like "chicken leg(s).


Glyn

This 'pedant' would query "six lamb's kidneys" because one lamb only has two of said organs, which fact goes toward your point about how milk is produced.
I think we need a little consistency (if only so it tastes better).

[Tone]

> whilst "six lambs' kidneys" would suggest six pairs.<

I really am tempted to wonder how many people, these days, actually know how many kidneys a lamb has?

In a similar vein (and it gives Tone a chance to tell a rather old joke :. The essence of this joke would fail utterly if told to someone who had never seen a cow:

Miss Jenkins, the teacher, was doing a spelling test for young children -- writing words on the blackboard and asking the little lads and lasses to pronounce them. She'd done few, and then got to little Johnnie.

She wrote L E G S on the board and then said, "Now Johnnie, what does that spell?

Johnnie -- "Don't know, Miss."

Miss -- "Come on, Johnnie, I'll give you a clue. I've got two and a cow's got four."

So Johnnie told her!

Tone

[Sue M-V]

But I didn't want to do it in the examples because then people worry about "why has he changed it to for" and it confuses the issue.

This sort of thing usually works all right if you have several examples of both "of" and "for", so that they both seem acceptable. I agree that only one "for" is likely to confuse. You can also explain a bit more about the nature of "possession". I appreciate that you're trying to keep it simple.

It's a fine line we tread, and I face this problem daily, but I usually find that lots of examples work better than a few representative ones. To us it might seem like overkill, but to someone struggling to understand, I think it helps.

As to what else to explain, I think that we'd end up with a whole grammar book if we tried to explain everything we're likely to want to discuss. You might write a note about the fact that we're up for discussing all matters of language, including, for example, everything from pronunciation to the good old apostrophe, and other such niceties.

Maybe someone could make a few sample videos of exciting grammatical situations and upload them on Youtube, or plaster posters all over Tube stations!

Sue

[Paul Doherty]

May 14, 2008 21:37:12 GMT Sue M-V said:

but I usually find that lots of examples work better than a few representative ones.

I'd agree about mixing for and of if I was giving general examples of possessive use, but that section is specifically about where to place the apostrophe. The examples are trying to show there's a pattern: (the boy's shirt ... the shirt of the boy) so I don't want to confuse the pattern by sometimes using of and sometimes for.

[Dave]

would fail utterly

Or perhaps udderly. ;D