The determiner position in an NP [noun phrase] is usually filled
by one of two kinds of expression.
In all the examples so far it has been a determinative [a word
like the, a, this, some, or three], and some of these can
be accompanied by their own modifiers, making a determinative
phrase, abbreviated DP.
In addition, the determiner may have the form of a genitive NP.
Examples, with the determiners underlined [bolded], are given
[below]:
DETERMINATIVE *the city **some* rotten eggs
DP *almost all politicians **very few* new books
GENITIVE NP *her income **the senator’s* young son
p. 109:
As a determiner, the genitive is always definite. Note, for example,
that [one patient’s father] corresponds to *the father of one
patient, not **a* father of one patient.
Note, for example, that [one patient’s father] corresponds to the father of one patient, not a father of one patient.
Hm. So how do you express the concept of an undetermined relative of some patient? The text you quoted would say that [one patient’s relative] means the relative of one patient—how do I express a relative of one patient?
Well, of course there are ways to rephrase most anything. I am, however, interested in whether there’s a way to express the “a relative of one patient” notion through the possessive ’s.
A related question is whether a native speaker would be sure that one patient’s relative necessarily means the relative, or he would be ambiguous whether it means the relative or a relative.
In a specialized context (such as among people who work at a hospital), “patient’s relative” could conceivably become a set phrase, in which case sentences such as “there are some patient’s relatives waiting outside” would become possible (contrast * “there are some Greg Egan’s stories on the shelf”).
This is presumably what happened with “girls’ school”. Very rarely, it can even happen with proper nouns, as in the mathematical term Green’s function. But this is not part of the syntax of the possessive ; it is the result of the whole possessive phrase being treated as a unit. (When you hear “the Green’s function for this operator” for the first time, you immediately know that “Green’s function” is a jargon phrase, because of the irregular syntax.)
(My comment was generated by the spontaneous reaction and reflection of a native speaker rather than memory of any deliberately learned rule.) Wikipedia has this to say:
In English and some other languages, the use of such a word implies the definite article. For example, my car implies the car that belongs to me/is used by me; it is not correct to precede possessives with an article (* the my car) or other definite determiner such as a demonstrative (* this my car)
One should indeed think of ” ’s ” in this context as the equivalent for nouns of what “my” is for the pronoun “I”.
Thanks. This sounds plausible (if irrelevant), but I could not find an authoritative reference confirming it. Any links?
A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar, p. 90:
p. 109:
See also the Wikipedia determiner and genitive case articles.
Thanks! Now, if only someone linked that Egan story :)
“Crystal Nights”
This story is not by Egan, but it might be what you’re looking for.
Ah, yes, thanks. I wondered why I couldn’t find it :) Hmm, I thought it was longer...
Hm. So how do you express the concept of an undetermined relative of some patient? The text you quoted would say that [one patient’s relative] means the relative of one patient—how do I express a relative of one patient?
Didn’t you just?
Well, of course there are ways to rephrase most anything. I am, however, interested in whether there’s a way to express the “a relative of one patient” notion through the possessive ’s.
A related question is whether a native speaker would be sure that one patient’s relative necessarily means the relative, or he would be ambiguous whether it means the relative or a relative.
In a specialized context (such as among people who work at a hospital), “patient’s relative” could conceivably become a set phrase, in which case sentences such as “there are some patient’s relatives waiting outside” would become possible (contrast * “there are some Greg Egan’s stories on the shelf”).
This is presumably what happened with “girls’ school”. Very rarely, it can even happen with proper nouns, as in the mathematical term Green’s function. But this is not part of the syntax of the possessive ; it is the result of the whole possessive phrase being treated as a unit. (When you hear “the Green’s function for this operator” for the first time, you immediately know that “Green’s function” is a jargon phrase, because of the irregular syntax.)
(My comment was generated by the spontaneous reaction and reflection of a native speaker rather than memory of any deliberately learned rule.) Wikipedia has this to say:
One should indeed think of ” ’s ” in this context as the equivalent for nouns of what “my” is for the pronoun “I”.