Talk:His genitive

French

This peculiar form of genitive exists also in French (but becoming more and more obsolete) and is used exclusively when the possessor is a geographic location. Example: "je veux être enterré à Paris son cimetière" = "I want to be buried in Paris her cemetery". In more modern French, one would say "je veux être enterré au cimetière de Paris" = "I want to be buried in the Paris cemetery". Example: "nous avons visité la Normandie ses plages" = "we have visited Normandy her beaches". Modern form "nous avons visité les plages de Normandie" = "we have visited the beaches of Normandy". Etc... etc... 77.2.150.88 (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Um, what was wrong with:

This remains the practice in modern English, although some linguists argue that this is not a genitive case at all, but just an enclitic "-'s" used as a possessive particle.

Isn't this saying that the "'s" is just a morpheme added to the end of a noun to indicate possession, rather than indicating a separate noun case? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be a participle (presumably present participle), it would be "Ned possessing house," but that's pretty strained. At any rate, the reason that I cut it is that it was unsourced in the genitive article. I.e. it said that "some" argue, but we had no idea who they were or where they made their argument. Given that it's a minority view, and a somewhat strained reading, I wanted to know who they were. For example, were they structural linguists, comparative linguists, or synthetic linguists. I can see how some structuralists might want to deprecate the -s genitive, but it's kind of ... well... sort of artificial to argue at this point. So, because it was a minority view and we couldn't go hold those people to account, I cut the sentence, figuring that people interested in the genitive itself can go to the genitive article. Also, that sentence was drawing questions and edits. Geogre 12:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Partic_le_ - i.e. a random bit of text - not partic_ip_le_. As I understand it, a clitic is a separate lexical element that it half-way towards becoming a simple suffix, or vice versa. But I am no linguist / grammarian.

I have seen references to "English genitive apostrophe" and this article is interesting - it calls the possessive apostrophe "a vestigial case marker - appropriately shaped like a human appendix".

This paper has examples from 1458 and 1482, and also "Lucilla hir company" and "Pallas her Glasse", and discussion of some prescriptive grammarians who insisted that "of" was the only way to form a genitive in English. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That argument I'm aware of. What can I say? You can look at it either way. Some people suggest that English has no nominal case at all, just as it has only two tenses in verbs. I don't think those historical features are dead, though. At what point do you say that it has no meaning? That's a judgment call, and I think that people are aware enough, unconsciously perhaps, that there are cases involved that they can yet develop the nominal morphology in syntax. In other words, if you want to argue about whether case is vestigal or real, look at novel combinations of nouns and adjectives in new speech. If they follow case rules, then case still exists as a functional matter. I would say that it does. Some say it doesn't. My point is that I just didn't want to go there on this article on the his genitive as opposed to a general discussion of the -s genitive. Geogre 12:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[ Nominal case = nominative? ] Well, English declension says "Modern English morphologically distinguishes only one case, the possessive case — which some linguists argue is not a case at all, but a clitic (see the entry for genitive case for more information)." Shrug. It would be difficult to argue with the contention that inflection in Modern English is pretty weak. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"Nominal" = "name-ish" = "noun-ish." The declension article is incorrect, then, because we also identify the dative in our personal pronouns, and we recognize the accusative ("objective case") as well, although generally only in the personal and impersonal pronouns. I would never argue that inflection is really weak. It's just that a morphological case is not the same thing as a syntactic case. The function of case still exists, and we coin and run together phrases as if the markers were still present. My point was that I didn't want to get into this sort of argument here, and I thought that a reflection on the weakness or archaism of the genitive was inviting, if not demanding, it. We're stronger with our verb inflections, but I keep running into books saying things like, "English has no future tense." It does, but the tense is formed by helping verbs with the main verb: an ending is not the same thing as a case or a tense. Geogre 16:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, proper declension of nouns in English is the exception rather than the rule; and there is no simple future tense in English (that is, formed directly by conjugating a word stem, like in French, without adding auxilliary verbs) - taken together, this, to my mind, indicates that English is only weakly inflected.

But I agree that this is probably not the article to be discussing it in. Perhaps the first part of that sentence should come back, though: adding "'s" is still the way that most possessives are formed in English. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

An example would help. Korandder 09:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Several examples can be found in Shakespeare.

Afrikaans

There is an example for afrikaans in this article. My first language is afrikaans and people would rather say die man se kinders which translates to the man's children. The example might have been used in old afrikaans, I'm not sure, but it is definitely not standard as claimed by the article. - FredStrauss 10:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I guess I misunderstood what I read about Afrikaans then. I confused the se (which is some sort of particle, I take it?) with the possessive pronoun sy. —Angr 10:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am a native Dutch speaker with some passive knowledge of Afrikaans. When I copyedited the article, I let the Afrikaans example stand as I thought it to be correct. It should, of course, be 'se' not 'sy', but correct me if I'm wrong, that's still a possessive pronoun cognate with Dutch 'zijn' (and so, the corrected example would still be valid)? -- Curt Woyte 11:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right Curt, se could be considered a different form of sy. However, we do use sy, for example. This is his bike would be Dit is sy fiets. Die man se kinders just naturally translates better to The man's children for me, rather than The man his children, but I guess that's kind of the point the article is trying to make. I'm happy with the example as Die man se kinders. As a matter of interest, se is also used for the feminine form, as in Die vrou se kinders, which is The woman's children. Rather than using sy, you would use haar, like her, for example, Dit is haar fiets, which translates to This is her bike. - FredStrauss 06:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I see! If I'm correct, then "sy" translates to "zijn" in Dutch and "se" to the Dutch enclitic, unstressed form "z'n" / "d'r" (which, incidentally, is pronounced "se" for the masculine version in many parts of the Netherlands). So it is a valid example; I shall re-include it. Thanks! -- Curt Woyte 08:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I'm just going to change it to kinders, kinders is the plural and kind the singular. - FredStrauss 14:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth noting that Afrikaans also uses s'n as well as se. I'm not sure what the grammatical term for the difference is, but while English uses -'s for constructions like Marie's book and This bike is Mary's, Afrikaans would use Marie se boek but Dié fiets is Marie s'n. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.254.132 (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

More immediately clear example

I added an example in the first paragraph. I find it to be needlessly time-consuming to have to hunt the main text just to get an examle of the phenomenon I am reading about. Learning by example is a much faster way for me to get understanding than actually have to think about a description - it makes the text more accessible and user-friendly! :-) 195.24.29.51 12:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There is also a Shakespeare example that I can dig up, but Shakespeare used both genitives. The article is trying to delineate the era when the his genitive was used instead of or in competition with the -s genitive, and that's after Shakespeare. That's why I hadn't had an example right off the bat. Geogre 12:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the example to "Caxton his ink" (the first example I ever saw of the "his genitive"), which is a more appropriate example to the time period than "John his bicycle". —Angr 12:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the lead to reflect the point that the "his" genitive was used more widely that just those 20 years (perhaps it needs further clarification?)

The Allen paper (cited above) has some interesting before/after examples, and of the "her" genitive.

I have found one Shakespeare example - with both the "his" genitive and the "'s" genitive in the same line, no less - Sonnet LV, 7 and 8 - "Nor Mars his sword, nor war's quick fire shall burn // The living record of your memory" (we have an article at Sonnet 55). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

ALoan, I would prefer your Shakespeare example, because it demonstrates pretty clearly the fact that the earlier use was as an alternative rather than replacement, where a "his" or "her" is used as an intensifier. I love the use as an intensifier, myself, but it's a separate matter from the hypercorrective impulse to replace -s genitives with "his" genitives. Geogre 14:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion: perhaps the tragedy Sejanus, His Fall by Ben Jonson (1603) should be mentioned? This play was performed as recently as January 2006 at the Whitehall Theatre in London. Jmas13 17:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Or Catiline: His Conspiracy? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think in both those cases the punctuation seems to indicate that the "his genitive" was not intended. —Angr 18:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree, yes. —Nightstallion (?) 19:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

We still retain the mistaken statement "Having only appeared around 1680, it was exceptionally rare by 1700. ", even as we ghave built up the examples dating from 1580 and following years. As I remember there was some struggle over this.--Wetman (talk) 06:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The point about H-dropping especially in unstressed syllables is already made in the article (in David Crystal's reconstruction of Shakespeare's accent, hs are mute literally all the time and the difference between words beginning with or without h may simply be one of emphasis, irrespective of the presence or absence of an etymological h), but I just want to call attention to the phenomenon as an explanation why his and -'s seem to alternate freely: Shakespeare probably said [ˈmɑ˞sɪz], which he chose to spell Mars his but which we would spell Mars's – it would be interesting to research if he regularly has Mars his (there is another example mentioned below) and whether perhaps he uses his predominantly after sibilants, where the [ɪ] vowel is retained even in contemporary English, allowing for the reanalysis of the ending as clitic possessive pronoun.

Analogously, Sejanus, his fall can sound just like Sejanus's fall and Catiline: His Conspiracy just like Catilina's conspiracy, if I am not mistaken. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Old Norse and Old English mentions

An Anglo-Saxon "his" genitive occurs occasionally, along with a "her" genitive and "their" genitive, but not as a widespread feature of syntax (Curme 71). This "his" genitive continued and developed in other Germanic languages, while it died out quickly in Old English. Therefore, although there are analogous "his" genitives in Old Norse descendants, the Old English "his" genitive is not the source of the early Modern English form.

This reads as slightly confused to me. There is a "his genitive" in Norwegian, which is an Old Norse descendant, but the construction is not from Old Norse, which has no such thing. It came to Norwegian from Low German some centuries ago.

Arrgh! You see, I originally had it as simply Germanic and Low German (e.g. in Dutch), but then all sorts of questions came in and changes, and so I backtracked. Ah, well. This is proving to be a pickle. I cannot cite for this, so please feel free to change it. Geogre 19:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of a "his genitive" in Old English - do you have any examples? Haukur 18:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Baugh had the examples. I can look them up. He regarded it as a brief feature of OE and noted that it had a /hir/ genitive as well. Geogre 19:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can be troubled I'd be interested. Haukur 19:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's from Curme, p. 71:

"he his-genitive occurs occasionally in Old English: 'Enac his bearn' ( Numbers, XIII, 29) = 'Anak's sons.' In older English alongside of the his-genitive were a her-genitive and a theirgenitive: 'Mary her books,' 'the boys their books.' Also these genitive forms occur in Old English. The genitive with his, her, and their became common between 1500 and 1700: 'my lord his gracious letteres' ( Thomas Cromwell, Letter to Thomas Arondell, June 30, 1528); 'Mars his true moving' ( Shakespeare, I Henry VI, I, II, 1); ..."

The examples are somewhat few, and I think Curme was trying to say that it was brief. Geogre 11:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Victory her dance

You know, folks, I hesitate to say it, but this is a pretty darned good article now. What's more, it got that way through the wiki- process. It isn't that often, after all, that a dozen hands contribute a piece at a time, sand and plane and clear and varnish together, and end up with a coherent, expressive, and scholarly whole, but it has happened here. Of course, there might be new discoveries that will render all of it worthless, but it's...pretty good. Congratulations and thanks to absolutely everyone. Geogre 16:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A blooper: "Having only appeared around 1680, it was exceptionally rare by 1700." No. 1580 might have been intended. It was disappearing in 1680. --Wetman 01:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No. I was very careful in what I said, and I said it for a reason. See your own talk page. We are discussing two separate matters, as the lead makes clear. How many references from primary sources would you need? They're plentiful, and they all cluster around 1680-1700. In fact, it was such that Johnson commented upon it. He wouldn't be doing this in 1760 if the whole thing was moot before the Glorious Revolution. Your addition is interesting data, but it is absolutely incorrect with regard to the hypercorrective his genitive. It is right enough for the reflexive his genitive. Geogre 02:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I would love to have the example and information that you provided, but not up in the lead, and not denying the thesis of the article. I would rather that you weave it in in a more a propos spot, if you will. Geogre 02:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A blooper, as I said: I have added a 1622 occurence, sourced, without fixing the erroneous "Having only appeared around 1680, it was exceptionally rare by 1700", since the idea seems to be liked. --Wetman 02:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And you still want to come back and have your way. The article discusses the regular formation, but the "his genitive" as a hypercorrection or replacement for the -s genitive is brief. You should use the talk page, not edit summaries, to argue, and you should respect the text and not try to have your way despite it. Geogre (talk) 10:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A question

The term "his genitive" may refer either to marking genitives with "his" as a reflexive or intensifying marker or, much more precisely, the practice of using "his" instead of an -s.

So is the use of the possessive apostrophe and indicator of the 'now lost' his gentive? For instance, in "The King's daughter" is the apostrophe replacing the "is" of "his"? I'm guessing not because we still have "The Queen's daughter" and not "The Queen'r daughter" (I assume there was a female equivalent)? Just wondering......--Joopercoopers 12:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry - the answer's in the text....--Joopercoopers 12:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

German samples are very much the contrary of WP:NPOV

Whoa, the paragraph on German is very much anti-NPOV. As if it were right out of one of the polemic books of that Sick.

The construction is, in German, one of the rare cases of a grammatical feature that is found in all dialects of German, but not in the standard language. This ubiquity in German dialects is a solid sign that the feature is rooted deep in the language. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 22:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Turkish and Azerbaijani?

Of course we're talking about a language that isn’t even Indo-European, let along Germanic, but it seems Turkish does something similar:

• kadın “woman”
• ev “house”
• kadının evi “woman’s house” ("woman-GEN house-3.SG.POSS", or lit. "a/the woman’s her house")

In other words, the possessor is marked in the genetive case and the possessee is marked with a possessive suffix. .

Azerbaijani has the same feature, but I don’t know about other Turkic languages. —LudwigVan (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Styling the phrase

I'd like to see the titular phrase styled consistently throughout the article (and the title)... but how should we do it?

• Bare (his genitive)
• Quotation marks ("his" genitive)
• Italics (his genitive)

Personally I prefer the third style, but the article uses a mix of the first and second at present. (The third style happens to be used in the Wiktionary entry for the Indonesian possessive marker -nya, which is how I ended up at this article today!) -- Perey (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Use of the his genitive to indicate ownership of books

I’ve noticed that books in English, even into the mid 18th century, often have signatures of original owners using the his genitive. I saw a book from the 18th century with a signature and ‘Thomas Reynolds his Book’ written on the inside, dated 1743. Is it possible the his genitive survived into the 18th century in this way? 38.15.254.90 (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)