A question about saxon genitive

[irmamar]

Charles' I history or Charles I's history?

Thanks.

[hermit]

"Charles I's history", (but I'd probably write it as the history of Charles I).

[irmamar]

Well, I wrote 'history', but my sentence was "Charles I's difficulties...".

Thank you, Hermit. (I would have sworn that it was Charles' I ).

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by irmamar

(I would have sworn that it was Charles' I ).

But that would have meant "The first difficulty of Charles"

[irmamar]

Would it? Thank you.

[laepelba]

I would totally turn the words around like Perikles suggests and talk about "the difficulties of Charles I" or "the difficulties that Charles I had..."

[irmamar]

Don't you like to use saxon genitive?

[Rusty]

We use the Saxon genitive a lot, and I believe that it's used more when we're speaking than when we're writing. It may be that we're choosing the written form over the spoken form here in the forums, but I wanted to ask others their opinions.


If the subject in question were "Alexander the Great," would you say "Alexander the Great's difficulties," but write "the difficulties of Alexander the Great," or would you give both forms of communication equal treatment? Which form would you use?

[Elaina]

¡Gracias Irmamar! En mi vida había escuchado "saxon genitives" a lo que me impulsó a hacer una búsqueda y aprender algo. Hoy aprendí algo nuevo. Aunque la regla es una que siempre sabía no sabía que tenía nombre.

Live and learn!

[irmamar]

Me sorprendes, Elaina. But you're welcome, of course.

Rusty, do you mean that saxon genitive is less formal than the other form?

[pjt33]

Yo usaría el genitivo sajón o una frase más elaborada (e.g. ...the difficulties which Charles I faced...). "The difficulties of Charles I" me suena poco natural.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by irmamar

Rusty, do you mean that saxon genitive is less formal than the other form?

Not at all. I mean that when we speak we tend to use the easier form - the Saxon genitive. When we write we have more time to gather our thoughts and may choose an alternate, more elaborate phrase, or we might take the time to rephrase (especially if we're not sure how to properly punctuate or write the phrase, as in the example you cited).

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by Rusty

When we write we have more time to gather our thoughts and may choose an alternate,...(especially if we're not sure how to properly punctuate ..).

But it doesn't stop us splitting our infinitives (something I shall never get used to), even if grammatically acceptable.

[Rusty]

We like splitting infinitives in American English. We also like splitting hairs.

[Elaina]

Originally Posted by Rusty

We use the Saxon genitive a lot, and I believe that it's used more when we're speaking than when we're writing. It may be that we're choosing the written form over the spoken form here in the forums, but I wanted to ask others their opinions.


If the subject in question were "Alexander the Great," would you say "Alexander the Great's difficulties," but write "the difficulties of Alexander the Great," or would you give both forms of communication equal treatment? Which form would you use?

I tend to agree with you Rusty. One thing is to say it and another to write it. I think I would go the round-about way to write it but would say "Alexander the Great's difficulties". Sometimes we second guess ourselves when we are writing. Thank God for the editing button!

[laepelba]

Originally Posted by irmamar

Don't you like to use saxon genitive?

Originally Posted by Rusty

We use the Saxon genitive a lot, and I believe that it's used more when we're speaking than when we're writing. It may be that we're choosing the written form over the spoken form here in the forums, but I wanted to ask others their opinions.


If the subject in question were "Alexander the Great," would you say "Alexander the Great's difficulties," but write "the difficulties of Alexander the Great," or would you give both forms of communication equal treatment? Which form would you use?

First of all, I'd never heard of it called "Saxon genitives" until today in this post. And, I have no issue with using them in writing or in speaking ... except when it's awkward. Usually in names that include titles (like both Charles I and Alexander the Great), the "apostrophe s" is awkward - "Alexander the Great's campaign" sounds awkward to me. "Charles I's difficulties" sounds even more strange to me. "John Smith's difficulty" sounds fine. I also avoid using "apostrophe s" on words that end in "s". It just sounds strange to me. "Charles's difficulties" is awkward.

SOoooo ... regardless of correct usage rules, I have to say that I simply avoid what is going to sound or feel strange to my tongue/ear.

Now, back to Lou Ann's difficulties with the subjunctive, because Lou Ann's history with that grammatical construction reveals a poor track record.

[irmamar]

Your answers surprise me. I thought it was widely used in writing.

Thanks anyway.

[Cloudgazer]

I'm also with Rusty regarding which form I'd use when speaking or writing. I tend to avoid the Saxon genitive when writing though I use it all the time while talking. And today is the first time I've heard this possessive form called Saxon genitive, too. Way cool! "Hey, Mom! Guess what!..." The things you learn about your own language from those studying it as a foreign language.

[irmamar]

Now that I read your posts again, I'm not sure if "saxon" should be with capital letters, "Saxon".

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by irmamar

Now that I read your posts again, I'm not sure if "saxon" should be with capital letters, "Saxon".

Yes of course it should - it was a language, and a geographical region, and a race of people, so an uppercase S please.