Eugene Volokh asks:
So how come the Writers Guild of America and the Authors Guild, organizations for professional users of words, have what seems to be a mispunctuation in their names? (I'd have thought it would be the Writers' Guild, or conceivably -- though I wouldn't much like it -- the Writer's Guild, if they want to stress that it's an organization for each individual writer.) Is there some complicated labor union movement background here that I'm missing? Or are they just trying to make sure there's work left for the Proofreaders' Guild?This is an issue I've dealt with before, and I think the answer's the same. "Writers" isn't being used as a possessive -- the name isn't saying the guild belongs to the writers -- it's being used as an adjective. What type of guild is it? It's a writers guild. Similarly for "authors".UPDATE: Some people respond saying that it's just the plural, not the possessive. But that's the question -- should you just have the plural, or the possessive of the plural?
Consider some other examples. Dr. Seuss wrote books for children: childrens books. Those books may have also belonged to children, and thus been "children's books" as well. Likewise, Saddam Hussein kept childrens prisons -- the prisons didn't belong to the children, that's just who he kept there.
When we were making signs for our childrens ministry at church (Rockstars) the signs were printed as "Rockstars Children's Ministry" -- likely leading to the confusion of no one, but still mildly annoying to me when I think about it.
Update, revisted:
Ok, now I'm more sure of this post again, thanks to Heather's comment and reference to the Chicago Style Manual.
My handy Chicago Manual of Style says:That example looks incredibly familiar, and in fact I think it's identical to the example I saw several months ago; unfortunately, if I got this idea from the CMS, I can't find an open-access version of it online anymore. However, the FAQ says this:7.27 "...Chicago dispenses with the apostrophe only in proper names...or where there is clearly no possessive meaning."
Q. Would the phrase “The Board of Trustees meeting” be considered an attributive noun? Or should possession be indicated with an apostrophe? Thank you for your assistance.As with much else in English, it looks like there may be many correct variations.A. Better to write “board of trustees’ meeting.” When it is a matter of drawing the line between the possessive (or genitive) form and the attributive (adjectival) form, CMS generally sides with the former, adding the apostrophe unless there’s no possessive meaning or unless it is a matter of an official, published form that does not carry the apostrophe. See paragraph 7.27 in CMS 15 for examples. ...
Q. My husband owns a production company with his brother. The name of the company is Deep-Dish Pictures. The brothers would like to state on their video jacket that the film is: A PEPPERONI BROTHERS FILM. No one in the production company can agree if it should be: A PEPPERONI BROTHERS FILM, A PEPPERONI BROTHER’S FILM, or A PEPPERONI BROTHERS’ FILM. [Company and surname changed for this forum.] Please help!!!! Thanks!
A. It should be “a Pepperoni brothers film” because “Pepperoni brothers” is functioning as an adjective (it is a film by the Pepperoni brothers; compare “employees’ cafeteria,” a cafeteria for employees). “Pepperoni brothers” can also function possessively: I saw the Pepperoni brothers’ first film last year.
Wait. Are you saying that "childrens" is a word? A plural of a plural? Is "writerses" a word? By your reasoning about the names of the "Writers Guild" and the "Authors Guild," wouldn't it be the "Rockstars Children Ministry?"
Apostrophes are not only used to signify possession or ownership. They can be used to express other relationships. "Michael goes to this school. This is Michael's school." Or, "Michael is smart. I admire Michael's intelligence." You don't own or possess the school that you go to, or the quality of being intelligent.
"This is a gift for my parents. This is my parents' gift." :: "This is a ministry for the children. This is the children's ministry."
My handy Chicago Manual of Style says:
7.27 "...Chicago dispenses with the apostrophe only in proper names...or where there is clearly no possessive meaning."
Examples used are:
a consumers' group
taxpayers' associations
Department of Veterans Affairs
Dear Michael
I disagree with your use of apostrophe in the adjectival noun on the basis of Fowler's and Quirk's references to modern language.
I have had a debate recently with a publisher who insists that records' management should not take an apostrophe. In this instance, this is a title for a chapter which discusses, in quite some detail, the management of records.
Do we assume, or presume, that if such a phrase is printed in many instances that the lack of apostrophe is unflawed?
I think that writers' guild should definitely take the apostrophe as the guild 'belongs to' writers (as opposed to plumbers, or John).
Regards
'twas
T: Yeah, it looks like anything goes at the moment, and since the publisher has the $$$....
I take it the same would go for the phrase "a hard day's work" versus "a hard days work."
I am presently in a debate over which is correct. I am of the opinion that "day's" is possessive, whereas a friend is convinced that the work in question does not in any sense "belong" to the day (though "hard work of the day" makes grammatical sense, even it it does not trip as easily off the tongue).
In any event the plural "days" looks wrong to me, especially when I am infact referring to a single day.
The word "possessive" can mean "pertaining to" or "for" rather than referring to ownership. Hence "children's prison" is correct, as is "a day's work"; "childrens" is always incorrect. The dropping of the apostrophe from some official titles is essentially an abuse of English in many cases. However, a noun can sometimes be used adjectivally without an apostrophe (or an "s" in the case of a plural such as "children" or "people"), even when the meaning is essentially possessive, as in "a book title". For example, "People management" would be an acceptable title for a chapter of a book. Similarly, "Records management" is theoretically legitimate, though perhaps best avoided, since it's hard to specify exactly when an adjectival plural with no apostrophe is acceptable and when it isn't. I would be wary of accepting opinions given in any "manual of style", no matter how popular, on such matters.
My supervisor and I are having a battle of the wills. I insist that, in describing a network that we've developed with resources for computer application developers, that the appropriate title is the "Developers Network." My boss insists that it should be the "Developers' Network." Although one could argue that it is a network designed for developers (thus the possessive), I argue that Developer in this sense is used as an adjective to describe the network. Although fundamentally correct, her version looks awkward in a website menu. Thoughts?
Marketer: I forget what I wrote about before, but if I were in your position I'd do it without the apostrophe.