Re[6]: [tied] Evening/Night (was Re: The "Mother" Problem)

At 10:11:45 AM on Sunday, February 13, 2005, Patrick Ryan
wrote:

> From: Brian M. Scott<mailto:BMScott@...>

>> At 6:22:09 PM on Saturday, February 12, 2005, Patrick
>> Ryan wrote:

>> <snip>

>>> The apostrophe simply indicates a former letter/sound
>>> which is not pronounced. <it's> for <it is>, etc.

>> Clearly not in the plural possessive, e.g., <wolves'>.

> What is clear to you is certainly not clear to me.

> <ox>; plural possessive: <oxen's>

Plainly I was talking about plurals in <-(e)s>, so the
example is irrelevant.

> <wolves'> is pronounced /wulv-z:/ with the /z/ sustained
> longer than than in <wolves>, or made into a separate
> syllable; <wolves> is /wulvz/ - at least in my Midwestern
> English dialect.

I've lived in several parts of the Midwest, and I don't
believe that such a distinction is made by most speakers.

[...]

>>> The English genitive ending was formerly <-es> after
>>> consonants.

>> The one that was generalized, you mean.

> Yes, of course. By way of information, what was another
> English genitive ending that was not generalized?

OE <-e> and <-an>, becoming early ME <-e> and <-e(n)>.

[...]

>>> <'s> is simply a genitive ending.

>> In <the king of England's daughter>?

> Yes, of course. The underlying genitive is <king's>.

Perhaps it was when one could still say <the king's daughter
of England>, but I'm not at all sure that the analysis is
useful today.

Brian