Genetive case

[Metamorfose]

Hello people

Given the sentence:

(1) My girlfriend's mother's car didn't start.

I know that it is awkward, but what is the best way to re-arrange it?

José

[lolwhites]

Don't alter it. It's fine as it is.

[Lorikeet]

Doesn't sound awkward to me. Sounds fine.

[Duncan Powrie]

If you are uncomfortable with using or teaching several genitives in succession (as in your example), you can use a topic-comment structure along the lines of:

My girlfriend, her mother's car didn't start
(or even: My girlfriend, her mother, her car didn't start)

But in your example, there are only TWO genitives, and they are hardly that much of a "mouthful" are they (i.e. they are not that difficult to pronounce, or to comprehend), so I would definitely agree with Lorikeet and Lowhites that your sentence is fine as it is.

NOTE THAT NO REORDERING IS NECESSARY (indeed, it would be hard to imagine how one would reorder the elements to express the same meaning!) - all that has happened is that the genitives have been omitted/dropped (i.e. the grammatical/phonological processes involved have been simplified, to help ease the pressures involved in spoken, "on-line" production).

I don't know if this kind of "native", subconscious process would be easier for students than simply continuing to (consciously) make use of the genitive/learnt grammar; that being said, this topic-comment strategy will prove very useful when you have three (or more?!) genitives (it's hard to think of examples off the top of my head, however!).

I can't remember where I first saw examples of this kind (from spoken English) addressed (perhaps it was McCarthy, quoting CANCODE data?), but recently, Dave Willis has included some in his Rules, Patterns and Words(CUP).

[Lorikeet]

If you are uncomfortable with using or teaching several genitives in succession (as in your example), you can use a topic-comment structure along the lines of:

My girlfriend, her mother's car didn't start
(or even: My girlfriend, her mother, her car didn't start)

Ooh, always interesting posts Duncan! No way could I "accept" (whatever that means) those examples. Must be another disconnect from across the ocean. I didn't even understand what they were at first, although it's possible tone of voice might have helped....naw, I doubt it .

[Andrew Patterson]

Duncan,

I prefer the original. In fact, I don't think the revised version is grammatically correct.

Theoretically, you can pile as many genatives as you like although it can eventually get difficult to follow.

You could say, my girlfriend's mother's car's left indicator isn't working.

You could try substituting other expressions such as, "belonging to" or "of", or you could avoid possession all together.

How about, the the left indicator on my girlfriend's mother's car isn't working,

or the left indicator on the car belonging to my girlfriend's mother. You could ever refer to your girlfriend's mother as your potential future mother-in law.

The left indicator on my potential future mother-in-law's car isn't working.

[Duncan Powrie]

You know, Andrew, despite your demonic emoticon, I had no problem "processing" the meanings of the various "pile-ups" you dreamt up there Anyway, let's not shoot the messenger, this is just (apparently) an attested means of framing information, and even if it seems strange to you guys, I bet that at some point in your conversations, you've heard if not used such "structures"! The grammaticality of it is not really a "problem" as far as the listener is concerned, anyway...

By the way, Andrew, I'm sorry I haven't got back to you yet about Stimpy turning inside out, but I started a new job recently and am also in the process of moving! I might get Routledge's Guide to Modern Standard English (Second edition) soon, though, because its chapter on grammar is very succinct, and has quite a large section on catenatives (is that the right spelling?!).

Yeah, Lorikeet, this may be a regional thing...I can easily imagine people from "up north" in Britain talking like this...but then, I can also imagine Michelle from the "American Pie" movies using it too...

[Andrew Patterson]

Thanks Duncan,

Good luck with your new job.

When I looked back at my post, I realised that I could have made it clearer. Actually, I think that sentences are both understandable and elegant with two or three genetives piled up, but four although probably still understandable would sound a little inelegant.

The devil face was meant to refer to the phrase "potential future mother-in-law" which was meant to be scarcastic, but when I looked at my post, I could see that it could have been taken to refer to my whole post.

I look forward to reading your reply to "turn inside out" followed by "to" and the infinitive. Although, I prefer the example:

"When the microscopic nematocysts on a jellyfishes' tentacles are touched, they turn inside out to fire a long, thin, tube-like dart at whatever has triggered them."

Which is perhaps a little more dignified. Note, "firing" is also possible and sounds better..

[Andrew Patterson]

Thanks Duncan,

Good luck with your new job.

When I looked back at my post, I realised that I could have made it clearer. Actually, I think that sentences are both understandable and elegant with two or three genetives piled up, but four although probably still understandable would sound a little inelegant.

The devil face was meant to refer to the phrase "potential future mother-in-law" which was meant to be scarcastic, but when I looked at my post, I could see that it could have been taken to refer to my whole post.

I look forward to reading your reply to "turn inside out" followed by "to" and the infinitive. Although, I prefer the example:

"When the microscopic nematocysts on a jellyfishes' tentacles are touched, they turn inside out to fire a long, thin, tube-like dart at whatever has triggered them."

Which is perhaps a little more dignified. Note, "firing" is also possible and sounds better.

[Duncan Powrie]

Thanks Duncan,

The devil face was meant to refer to the phrase "potential future mother-in-law" which was meant to be scarcastic, but when I looked at my post, I could see that it could have been taken to refer to my whole post.

I look forward to reading your reply to "turn inside out" followed by "to" and the infinitive. Although, I prefer the example:

"When the microscopic nematocysts on a jellyfishes' tentacles are touched, they turn inside out to fire a long, thin, tube-like dart at whatever has triggered them."

Which is perhaps a little more dignified. Note, "firing" is also possible and sounds better.

My new paper: "The Grammatical Scope of Emoticons". Wanna read it?!

Stimpy locked himself in his room to protest the change in example, by the way...but he didn't slam the door, rather, he did it in a very dignified manner.