A Dictionary of Cont..

genitive 198
not know when he can substitute a phrase for
the genitive or the genitive for a phrase and is
tied to stereotyped forms of expression. Three
genitive relations are expressed without using a
genitive form in Sandburg’s description of Chicago:
Hog Butcher for the World, Tool Maker,
Stacker of Wheat.
1. Classifying or descriptive genitive. This is
the basic genitive function, seen in the room’s
furnishings, the airplane’s speed, the building’s
foundations. In a count of the actual genitive
forms appearing in a newspaper this group
would not stand highest because it is usually
possible to substitute the uninflected form of the
noun for the genitive. When there is no reason
for emphasizing the descriptive word, the simple
uninflected form is preferred, and when there is
reason, the of-phrase does it better.
Sometimes we have no choice between the
genitive and the uninflected form. This may be
simply a matter of custom. For example, we
may speak of state rights or state’s rights, but
state’s prison is now old-fashioned and countrified.
But there are two situations in which the
genitive is required and the simple form cannot
be used. If a descriptive word is inserted we
must use a genitive. We may speak of New York
streets and Alaska cities, but we must say New
York’s smaller streets and Alaska’s southern
cities. And we do not put a word that stands for
something that has personality in the completely
subordinate position of a simple qualifier; we
always give it at least the dignity of a genitive.
What has personality and what does not depends
on one’s point of view. We are likely to
speak of the dog hair on the neighbor’s rug and
the dog’s hair on our own. When a person becomes
a public character he apparently loses his
personality. We say Robinson’s bank acco:rnt
but the Astor fortune; Mr. Corsen’s hortse but
the John D. Rockefeller mansion. Even the
same individual may seem more or less human
depending on the circumstances. We are likely
to speak of the doctor’s advice and of the doctor
bills.
2. Possessive genitive. This is the genitive that
indicates ownership. Obviously, it is only applicable
to human beings, and by extension to
pets or personified abstractions. Although it
accounts for less than half of the genitive forms
appearing in print, it is the largest single class.
This is because it has no substitute forms. Since
the idea of personality is always to the front
when we think of ownership, the uninflected
form of the word cannot be used here. Nor can
we substitute an of-phrase. We may use the
word of, but the genitive keeps its form. That
is, Irene’s coat becomes a coaf of Irene’s and
not a coat of Irene. For a further discussion of
this, see double genitives.
3. Subjective and objective genitive. Some
nouns name an action. With a noun of this kind,
either the subject or the object of the action may
be expressed as a genitive. For example, the
creation of Adam may be spoken of as God’s
creation or man’s creation. Taken out of con-
text, this genitive is often ambiguous. The oficer’s
orders may mean what he has been ordered
to do or what he has ordered someone else to
do. But in context it is usually cIear which is
intended.
Both the subject and the object of the action
may be named. In that case, since there is only
one position for the genitive and they cannot
both occupy it at the same time, one of them
must be expressed by a prepositional phrase, and
both may be. For example, we have a subjective
genitive in mind’s control over matter and an
objective in matter’s control by mind. Here the
prepositions over and by make it clear which is
which. An of-phrase may replace a subjective
genitive, as in the control of mind over matter,
and it may replace an objective, as in the control
of matter by mind. It should not do both in
the same sentence, as it does in fhe gift of a
member of a hundred dollars. An of-phrase will
be assumed to be objective unless there is some
reason for not taking it in that way.
Normally, a word representing something inanimate
will be assumed to be an objective genitive,
as in the idea’s discovery. A word representing
a human being will be assumed to be
subjective, as in the professor’s discovery, except
when the object of the action is more interesting
than the agent, and then it will be assumed to be
objective, as in the doctor’s rescue, the man’s
trial, the woman’s release. At one time the professor’s
robbery could be given as an example
of this. But in the United States today it is a
question whether the robber or the robbed is
the more interesting, and this expression would
now be ambiguous out of context.
If a subjective or objective genitive does not
fit the description just given, it will be ambiguous
and should be replaced by a prepositional
phrase. This genitive cannot be freely replaced
by an uninflected form, although the same relations
are expressed by simple word combinations,
as the subjective genitive in night fall and
the objective in rope walker.
4. Genitive of purpose. This genitive is found
in Old English and not in Latin. It is unlike the
other geni?ives in several ways: (1) It cannot
be replaced by an of-phrase but requires for.
(2) In the other types of genitive, the genitive
noun is singular or plural depending upon its
meaning. We say the child’s teacher or the children’s
teacher, depending on whether we are
talking about one child or more than one. In the
genitive of purpose the genitive is singular or
plural depending on the form of the noun that
follows. We say he is writing a child’s book and
he has written many children’s books. We speak
of a man’s college and men’s colleges, a woman’s
clab and women’s clubs. Therefore, if we were
being meticulous about the apostrophe, we
would write: he is teaching in a boy’s school
and he has taught in several boys’ schools.
(3) This genitive does not stand before the other
qualifying words. In the example just given several
stands before the genitive. In the child’s
book that he is writing, the word the refers to