The ambiguity of the possessive case

Question

We often heard a person is tried for "someone's murder" where it would suggest that the "someone has been murdered". When will it also allude that the someone is the one who has murdered not has been murdered? A student's graduation means the student graduates or he or she to be graduated, though to gradute rather than to be graduated is more likely what it means and in this case the ambiguity unlike the previous example would not constitute any major difference.

In this type of scenario, the English language is not clear-cut. Very often, it relies on the context which is not always available at a glance. I have come across a lot of these examples which I can't recall more right now.

So when the word after the apostrophe 's' is a verbal noun, which sense are we supposed to take, be active of the first person or be passive of the third person, as in the example above, to murder or to be murdered?

I will apreciate some comments to verify my understanding, to affirm or to correct my thinking.

Ivanhr · Accepted Answer

healerSo when the word after the apostrophe 's' is a verbal noun, which sense are we supposed to take, be active of the first

I think that you will often have to rely on context to elicit the intended meaning. While "his murder" might be ambiguous, "his murder of innocent civilians" is certainly not. Don't blame English for this. Context is important in every language.

CalifJim · Answer

healerSo when the word after the apostrophe 's' is a verbal noun, which sense are we supposed to take

Occasionally, the construction really is ambiguous, and you don't know which sense to take, but here a few observations on the general topic of genitive constructions.

A genitive construction can be subjective or objective.

In the subjective construction a possessive acts as a subject to the verbal noun.
In the objective construction an of-phrase acts as an object to the verbal noun. (For this to be possible, the verbal noun must be derived from a transitive verb, of course.)
Both constructions may occur around the noun, thus:

Lenny's removal of the trash< Lenny removed the trash. (Lenny's ~ subjective; of the trash ~ objective)
the army's destruction of the city< The army destroyed the city.
the madman's murder of Megan< The madman murdered Megan.

Or just one or the other may occur:

Fred's arrival< Fred arrived. (subjective genitive construction)
the writing of the letters< ... wrote the letters. (objective genitive construction)
the manager's fear< The manager feared ...
the fear of the manager< ... feared the manager.
________

A problem seems to occur when the objective construction is expressed as a possessive and placed before the verbal noun.

the city's destruction (= the destruction of the city) < destroyed the city (objective)

But the factor of animacy (agency) is often the key to disambiguating such cases. "city" is inanimate, so it is unlikely to be the agent of a destructive act.

Similarly, the bicycle's assembly.

This transformation is not even used most of the time. If not ungrammatical, it can be awkward at the very least. We say the disposal of rubbish, not the rubbish's disposal; we say the writing of the letters, not the letters' writing; we say the disclosure of tax returns, not the tax returns' disclosure; and so on. Even the bicycle's assembly is "iffy".
________

When both the subject and the object can be interpreted as agents, ambiguity occurs if there is no of-phrase, as in your 'murder' example.

Jack murdered Larry > Jack's murder
Jack murdered Larry > the murder of Larry > Larry's murder

Frank recommended Lucy > Frank's recommendation
Frank recommended Lucy > the recommendation of Lucy > Lucy's recommendation

The doctor examined Tom > the doctor's examination
The doctor examined Tom > the examination of Tom > Tom's examination

Mary described Susan > Mary's description
Mary described Susan > the description of Susan > Susan's description

Knowing this should help the writer to know when a rephrasing is advisable.

CJ

Healer · Answer

In fact, all both of you said quite agreed with what I had concluded before I posted this question of mine. However, having asked and got your comments has affirmed my thinking.

I also incline to avoid using apostrophe 's' when the subject is an inanimate thing. I would prefer to say the legs of a table, not a table's legs.

From the examples of CJ: the fear of the manager could be to fear the manager or the manager fears and the examination of Tom, without knowing that the doctor examins Tom, one could interpret it as Tom examines or to examine Tom.
Anyway, I thank both again to have reinforced my understanding so I just have to put in more effort to make a statement clear.

CalifJim · Answer

healerI would prefer to say the legs of a table, not a table's legs.

Don't forget that there is a third choice: table legs.

CJ

Healer · Answer

Thanks for reminding me.

In fact, I remember this sort of structure using noun as an adjective or an attributive can also be ambiguous. I can't think of one instantly though. Perhaps I would give some when they occur to me.

CalifJim · Answer

healerPerhaps I would give some when they occur to me.

OK. You'll be more likely to find the ambiguous ones if you look among those noun compounds that have three or more nouns together.

CJ

The ambiguity of the possessive case

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions