The door of my car

Question

... or "my car's door".According to my grammar book, "my car's door" is not correct. The "'s" construct is to be used withpersons, groups...However, an friend of mine (english native speaker) told me the opposite. He believes that only foreigners would say "the door of my car".Who should I believe ?ThanksJE

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]... or "my car's door". According to my grammar book, "my car's door" is not correct. The "'s" construct is ... me the opposite. He believes that only foreigners would say "the door of my car". Who should I believe ?[/nq]
For me it would be natural to use neither of these structures. I'd usually sas "my car door".
Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]... or "my car's door". According to my grammar book, ... "the door of my car". Who should I believe ?[/nq]
[nq:1]For me it would be natural to use neither of these structures. I'd usually sas "my car door".[/nq]
BTW in particular circumstances I might say "the door of my car". I can't imagine any circumstances where I'd say "my car's door".

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Usenet · Answer

The language use is always changing. The actual use is more flexible than the grammar book could cover. I'm a non-native speaker, and I always find English could be so simply used when I come to Britain.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]For me it would be natural to use neither of these structures. I'd usually sas "my car door".[/nq]
I agree.
[nq:1]BTW in particular circumstances I might say "the door of my car".[/nq]
That too.
[nq:1]I can't imagine any circumstances where I'd say "my car's door".[/nq]
I might with the inclusion of a qualifier:
"My car's left-rear door has a dent"

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I agree.[/nq]
I agree with the last point despite what I said above.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan

Usenet · Answer

Jock Ewing, what is the name of your grammar book? I have a very full response to this one, but it would be nice to know what you're working out of before I lay it out. Have you ever heard the term "Saxon Genitive" (please tell me "no!")?

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Jock Ewing, what is the name of your grammar book? I have a very full response to this one, but ... working out of before I lay it out. Have you ever heard the term "Saxon Genitive" (please tell me "no!")?[/nq]
You probably don't know my grammar book (unless you're French !). It's called "Grammaire anglaise de l'étudiant" and I thought it was pretty accurate.
It's written that genetive is used mainly for persons, institutes, sometimes countries or cities, plus some traditionnal expressions such as : "At arm's lenght, , water's edge".
But nothing about a "Saxon Genetive".
But I suppose that English is spoken by so many people that it evolves rapidly. Do you think that twenty years ago, people would have said "the door of my car ?".

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]... or "my car's door". According to my grammar book, "my car's door" is not correct. The "'s" construct is ... opposite. He believes that only foreigners would say "the door of my car". Who should I believe ? Thanks JE[/nq]
Your friend. While the of-possessive is more commonly used with inanimates than is the 's-possessive, the latter is not impossible with these, especially when the noun phrase for the posessor (my car) is so short. You are more likely to find the of-possessive when the possessor noun is modified beyond s determiner, so
My brand-new car's door is pretty bad
My red card's door is not great, but not as bad as the preceding The door of my red car is find
The door of my brand-new car is also fine
I think this illustrates the problem with "grammar" books. When they try to write rules of this nature they oversimplify and end up creating nonsense.
Barbara Need
UChicago Linguistics

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Jock Ewing, what is the name of your grammar book? ... ever heard the term "Saxon Genitive" (please tell me "no!")?[/nq]
[nq:1]You probably don't know my grammar book (unless you're French !). It's called "Grammaire anglaise de l'=E9tudiant" and I thought ... that itevolves rapidly. Do you think that twenty years ago, people would have said "the door of my car ?".[/nq]
Got a couple of shockers for you, Jock. I am not French, but I have heard of your grammar book. In addition, "the door of my car" was used twenty years ago, but not significantly more so than today, that is, "my car door" was just about as prevalent as it is today.

Language teachers do tend to get around, and I lived and worked in Paris a few years ago. Unfortunately, when I left, I didn't take a copy of your grammar book with me, so, well, I'm working from memory.

With a name like "Jock" which, incidentally, means something like "sports nut" in English, I figured that you might be of French extraction or working in France.
Down to the meat of it! Barbara Neal has in very clear and precise terms answered your grammatical query. The posters on this thread have replied enthusiastically and have given you a great deal of explanation as well. If you got lost in the middle of all the explanations, though, try this one on for size.
Prefer "car door," stay away from using "the door of my car" as a primary form, and avoid using "car's door," except in qualified circumstances such as "my Porsche's door," "my car's left front door."
The issue you've inquired about is typically called "noun+noun collocation" in the trade. Let's take it from the top.

We use the possessive form (a.k.a. genetive (the more highbrow formal term)) most typically for people and animals. We use "the X of Y" when dealing with things and ideas.
The kicker is that with more than a few "the X of Y" formations, common usage has led to the adoption of common collocations that now serve as primary forms for the terms in question. "Car door" is one of them. You have heard others both on the subject of cars and elsewhere, "windshield/windscreen wiper, dog collar, fish tank, cash cow, chamber pot."
You will not be able to memorize ALL of these forms. Do not search for wordlists that will answer your query. I recommend that you keep a notebook and make a note of these expressions as you come across them, which is, I am willing to believe, something that you already do.

This is a quickie explanation I would give an intermediate learner. It is designed to get you looking at the problem as being something other than hopeless. It is not a comprehensive explanation.

But it's probably all you need right now.
***
The reason I asked for the title of your grammar book is that something in your first explanation ran a bell with me. I knew that I had seen that explanation, in just about those words, before. I had and I hadn't. Allow me to explain.
English books written by authors whose first language is not English are typically peppered with liberal borrowings from the English-language classics in the field. One of those books, from 1960, is called A Comprehensive English Grammar for Foreign Students , by C=2EE. Eckersley and J.M Eckersley, Longman. There was a time when this was the very best teaching grammar sold in Europe, bar none. As I recalled reading your email and seeing the familiar language, the Eckersleys dealt with noun+noun collocation in a confusing way. I figured that if you were familiar with the term "Saxon Genitive," which appears in the part of the book that deals with possessive forms, you were dealing with either the aforementioned grammar or one based on it.Grammaire anglaise de l'=E9tudiant is very common on France, if I remember aright. It's probably reasonably accurate and useful, although my limited command of French prevented me from verifying that for myself back in the days. I would not throw it away. You are however, clearly at a stage in your language learning when you would find great use in turning to a contemporary reference English grammar written, in English, by a professional grammarian.

Your best bet, and one easily available in France, is English Grammar in Use , by Raymond Murphy, Cambridge University Press. I would not buy a more advanced grammar reference, most especially NOT Martin Hewling's ponderous Advanced Grammar in Use , CUP, which will probably be next to Murphy on the shelf or in the display. Murphy's book has just come out in a third edition, which means that you should be able to pick up a second edition in a used book store for a very reasonable price.

In either case, the sections that deal with the particular point under discussion are Units 79-81 in the second edition and 80, 81, 83 in the third edition.
***
If you are, as I suspect is probably true, interested in teaching English either now or in the future, you should at some point also buy a serious reference grammar. Right now, in France, I would go with Michael Swan's Practical English Usage , which will give you some real answers to your questions. You might also choose to invest in Martin Parrot's absolutely fantastic Grammar for English Language Teachers . Buying all of these books mentioned will set you back a serious wad, in the neighborhood of eighty to ninety euros, but you really shouldn't hold fast to your French grammar any more. Buy, at least, EGIU. You can probably get a used second edition for less than five euros.
***
For those posters who have held or might feel that buying any grammar book at all or studying any formal grammar at all is a waste of money and time for a foreign learner learning English abroad, because living English grammar is so complex, rich and changeable that one cannot hope to thoroughly master it through the dry-as-dust application of rules...

The issue of grammar teaching is, at the moment, a hot potato in ELT practice. Generally speaking, I'm on the side of those who do teach nasty, old-fashioned grammar, as is pretty much everyone else I've met who responsibly ply this trade abroad. "No grammar" methodologies are a nice pipe dream but not an option when you work overseas, if you as a teacher are honest enough to shoulder your share of the burden of the learning process.
On the issue of the problem with grammar books, well, it's very much a matter of level for a foreign learner. I would not send any foreign learners out to buy A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language or a style manual like Fowler's Modern English Usage or Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, which is the kind of stuff those learners will need to understand every single utterance of English they will hear in their lifetimes, but insofar as going bareback into the language, look Ma no grammar, well...
Homey don't play dat.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]With a name like "Jock" which, incidentally, means something like "sports nut" in English, I figured that you might be of French extraction or working in France.[/nq]
No, "Jock Ewing" is only a pseudonym, he's a character of the Dallas sitcom ! (and not "Dallas sitcom character" if I understood well what the other posters told me).
Anyway, thank you very much for your instructive answer.

The door of my car

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions