Inanimate object/abstract noun possessive

Question

I have a coworker who continually uses what I think is an improper usage of the possessive for inanimate objects/abstract nouns in a business setting. For example, instead of saying "the instructions for Form x" he'll write "the form's instructions". Or instead of saying "the contact person on the form" he'll write "the form's contact person". He doesn't agree that this sounds odd in formal writing and he thinks my way sounds odd and too proper: "the instructions for the form" or "the contact person on the form". Which one of us is correct? A written reference to the rule would be very much appreciated, as I don't think he'll be convinced without something official.

Thank you!

BarbaraPA · Accepted Answer

It sounds like you won't be convinced without an official reference either, but I agree with your coworker. There is no valid rule that says that only sentient beings can have a possessive.

The Winter's Tale
Long Day's Journey into Night

Ignore the confusing misuse in the first post and read Nona's second post:

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/possessives.htm

http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/preposterous-apostrophes-viii-inanities-in-inanimate-possession/

If you google inanimate possessive, you'll find many more.

(Edited by khoff to correct a typo.)

Khoff · Answer

I'm with Grammar Geek (and your co-worker) on this one.  The references Gramar Geek links to seem to cover the question pretty thoroughly.  I never even heard of the "rule" about this until I started frequenting English Forums, and I don't know anyone who actually practices it.

CalifJim · Answer

AnonymousFor example, instead of saying "the instructions for Form x" he'll write "the form's instructions". Or instead of saying "the contact person on the form" he'll write "the form's contact person". He doesn't agree that this sounds odd in formal writing and he thinks my way sounds odd and too proper: "the instructions for the form" or "the contact person on the form". Which one of us is correct?

Actually, you both are. All you're saying is that it sounds odd to you and not to him. If you're telling the truth, and there is absolutely no reason to believe you're not, I have to accept that it does sound odd to you and that it doesn't sound odd to him. But that's got nothing to do with rules. As one of the links given above states, "There simply isn’t any evidence that there is or ever was a rule of English saying that inanimate objects cannot take an ‘s possessive."

Consider, though, that there is no rule prohibiting people from jumping to their deaths off the Golden Gate Bridge, and yet people rarely do it, so it seems unusual when it happens.

I don't see the absence of a rule as any evidence that people frequently do what the rule would have forbidden. In fact, from my own experience I find that most people rarely spontaneously generate a construction with an apostrophe-S inanimate. Of course, there are those expressions that fall into set groups of idioms, for example, to name just one, when the inanimate is a time period (a day's work; summer's heat; last week's news). But I'm not talking about idioms like those.

Among the people I know where I live, the compound nouns are much more frequently selected than their possessive counterparts. The first of each pair in the following examples is preferred, for example. There is no rule prohibiting the second; they are just not used by anyone I know.

Could you please clean the oven racks? / Could you please clean the oven's racks?
And the stove top, too. / And the stove's top, too.
My computer screen went dead. / My computer's screen went dead.
You left the car door open! / You left the car's door open!
Did you notice that your shirt sleeve is torn? / ... that your shirt's sleeve is torn?
___________

With regard to the of-construction in place of the possessive, here's what Huddleston says in Introduction to the Grammar of English:

"If the subordinate term refers to one or more humans, the PossP construction is almost always possible and often preferred; if it refers to something inanimate the same applies to the of construction. Compare the man's left eye, more natural than the left eye of the man, and the eye of the needle, more natural than the needle's eye. Similarly, the doctor's removal from the board is much better than the error's removal from the draft. Notice - and this might be considered a distinct factor - that the latter becomes significantly worse if we replace singular error with plural errors: in speech at least we would be just about bound to say the removal of the errors."

Later in the text, Huddleston points out a few oddities. There are cases where the inanimate with apostrophe-S is just impossible. He cites as an example the letters' writing, which he says must be the writing of letters. (This section of the book is not about compound nouns, so he ignores at this point the possibility of letter writing.) He also directs the reader's attention to these, in which the choice of 's or the of construction causes a difference in meaning: the king's fear / fear of the king.

AnonymousA written reference to the rule would be very much appreciated, as I don't think he'll be convinced without something official.

Convincing him is going to be very difficult, given that the "rule" is more like a distribution of probabilities (or a probabilities' distribution, if you prefer). It's more a matter of style than of grammar. Nevertheless, if it's any consolation to you, I too find the form's instructions and the form's contact person somewhat disturbing. If I were an editor, I would request a rewrite.

CJ

Inanimate object/abstract noun possessive

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions