Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
This question recently came up in an exchange with a friend from Iran. His email contained the phrases "elections results" and "officials responses." I concluded that he was fuzzy on the use of the possessive and suggested "election's results" and "officails' responses." He asked whether it might also be correct to avoid the possessive and say "election results" and official responses." In the latter case, the meaning of "official responses" versus "officials' responses" is clearly different, but in the former, since there was only one election under discussion, it seems to me that the difference between "election's results" and "election results" is trivial. My friend asked, therefore, which phrase was "better" and whether there is a general rule for choosing between using a possessive and a noun-turned-adjective in such cases as this. The question stumped me. Does anyone have a fresh insight?
You and your friend ask a very good and somewhat difficult question.
I have done a small study of this same thing in a few other languages.
In many cases and uses they function identically. In general, the noun-based adjective tends to represent a more abstract idea, such as the entire class of noun. The possessive form tends to represent a more concrete relationship or an individual instance. There are also some cases where a small or significant shift in meaning takes place. (You can see that semantic shift in your example above of “official response†vs. “official's response.†“Official†is a case of an adjective being used as a noun, so trying to use it as a noun-turned-adjective doesn't really work: instead, the meaning of the original adjective comes back.)
Automobile insurance (general) vs. An automobile's insurance (particular)
World peace (abstract) vs. the World's Fair (concrete)
Water pressure vs. Water's edge
There is also the question in some cases of true adjectives: water, water's, watery; world, world's, worldly; mind, mind's; mental, etc. These tend to allow for uses that are even more abstract, generic, and sometimes emotive or symbolic — but not always. Sometimes they can be quite literal:
Watery grave (but “a watery drinkâ€); wooden affect (but “a wooden shoeâ€); mental illness; worldly gain; golden opportunity.
These are very advanced topics for second-language learners. Ultimately, usage rules, and usage can be fickle.
It wouldn't be solved by particular vs general, or any other rule. This is a case where they are functionally equal — as is evidenced by the fact that states are split on the matter.
Nevertheless, I suspect that, even in states that use “driver license†in general, when things get very specific or particular, they might be inclined to switch to the possessive:
“Driver licenses are available at window 3.†(general)
“These three drivers' licences are being revoked.†(particular, with emphasis on the drivers — as opposed to the equally valid “These three driver licences are being revoked.â€)
I may be wrong.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)