- Joined
- Aug 24, 2007
- Messages
- 8,049
- Reaction score
- 770
- Location
- Clearlake Park, CA
- Website
- www.strokingthepen.com
men's room, ladies room
- Thread starter tko
- Start date
It's plural possessive, not simply plural, so the apostrophe is correct.
"The room of the men" = "The men's room"
"The room of the ladies" = "The ladies' room"
"The room of the men" = "The men's room"
"The room of the ladies" = "The ladies' room"
After thinking about this, I believe we have missed the mark on this issue. See if this makes sense. The room is neither owned by a lady or ladies, or by a man or men, therefore these terms become adjectives when placed in front of the word “room” and merely describe what kind of a room it is. Similar to saying “This is the blue room. “ or “This is the wash room.” You would not say “This is the blue’s room” or “This is the wash’s room.” The apostrophe becomes inapplicable when denoting ladies or mens in reference to the room.
Now it becomes tricky when referring to a room someone actually “owns” when you say “This is my kids’ room.” I believe when individual ownership (not collective ownership of some generic group) comes into play, then the apostrophe is needed. That is why I think calling it “The People’s Choice Award” is incorrect. My feeling is that it should be “The Peoples Choice Awards” because in this instance, people is an adverb modifier to "choice."
Anyone one want to weigh in on exceptions they can come up with to what I just said? I would be interested in hearing what Chase thinks of my logic.
Now it becomes tricky when referring to a room someone actually “owns” when you say “This is my kids’ room.” I believe when individual ownership (not collective ownership of some generic group) comes into play, then the apostrophe is needed. That is why I think calling it “The People’s Choice Award” is incorrect. My feeling is that it should be “The Peoples Choice Awards” because in this instance, people is an adverb modifier to "choice."
Anyone one want to weigh in on exceptions they can come up with to what I just said? I would be interested in hearing what Chase thinks of my logic.
Last edited:
The room might not be owned by the ladies or the men, but it is to be used by the ladies or the men, therefore the possessive still applies.
Compare:
"The teachers' staff room."
"My cat's bed."
"The children's television shows."
"My husband's company car."
The teachers/cat/children/husband in the above sentences do not own the room/bed/TV shows/car - but they use them. Therefore the possessive is still appropriate.
Compare:
"The teachers' staff room."
"My cat's bed."
"The children's television shows."
"My husband's company car."
The teachers/cat/children/husband in the above sentences do not own the room/bed/TV shows/car - but they use them. Therefore the possessive is still appropriate.
Equality, please. If the guys get an apostrophe, the ladies should too. Either that, or rip off that little appendage.
More and more, I see just an icon on the doors. Be sure and wear your glasses when you gotta go.
More and more, I see just an icon on the doors. Be sure and wear your glasses when you gotta go.
This is a fun debate.
This is not correct in my opinion because the teachers do not own it. They only use it as a collective group, therefore it should be described as a "teachers room." We may be used to seeing it written as teacher's, but "teachers" is clearly a modifier to the word room and seems more correct as such than a possesive. The teachers use the room but do not have custody of it and cannot use it however they like but only for the purposes that someone else designates.
This is correct. The human may technically own the bed, but the owner has bestowed ownership to the cat and the cat is free to use it however it chooses. And anyone who has owned a cat, knows that cats do own things, lol.
This one is definitely trickier to explain why it is correct. Naturally the children do not own the shows in the conventional sense, but they have claimed them as their own, in their own capacity to do so. By stating it this way, the children lay claim to the shows they like to watch. Also, using it in this manner indicates a specific set of children and not children collectively. Their shows might include "Law and Order" or "Supernatural," but these would not be considered children shows (notice how a word not made plural with the addition of an "s" complicates things).
This would be correct because the company has bestowed custody of the car to the husband and in this case would indicate that he has the sole use of it. In essence, he owns it and is responsible for it. Nor would you have a husband company car. Using husband as a conventional adjective would not make sense. Now, just as in the case of the teachers, the husband cannot use the car except for the purposes designated by the company, but in this instance, the thing in question is portable and is placed in the care of one person and has sole responsibility for its use and can essentially take it wherever he wants. The implication by the terms of its assignment to this individual indicates it is his for all practical purposes. I think it could be referred to as "the company car" or "the company's car" and either would be correct.
I know my use of italics and quotes may be all over the map, but after all the thought given to this, my brain is not up to the task of sorting this out. So sue me.
By the way, how do you get the highlight to work when you split someone's quote up? Nevermind, I figured it out.
This is not correct in my opinion because the teachers do not own it. They only use it as a collective group, therefore it should be described as a "teachers room." We may be used to seeing it written as teacher's, but "teachers" is clearly a modifier to the word room and seems more correct as such than a possesive. The teachers use the room but do not have custody of it and cannot use it however they like but only for the purposes that someone else designates.
This is correct. The human may technically own the bed, but the owner has bestowed ownership to the cat and the cat is free to use it however it chooses. And anyone who has owned a cat, knows that cats do own things, lol.
This one is definitely trickier to explain why it is correct. Naturally the children do not own the shows in the conventional sense, but they have claimed them as their own, in their own capacity to do so. By stating it this way, the children lay claim to the shows they like to watch. Also, using it in this manner indicates a specific set of children and not children collectively. Their shows might include "Law and Order" or "Supernatural," but these would not be considered children shows (notice how a word not made plural with the addition of an "s" complicates things).
This would be correct because the company has bestowed custody of the car to the husband and in this case would indicate that he has the sole use of it. In essence, he owns it and is responsible for it. Nor would you have a husband company car. Using husband as a conventional adjective would not make sense. Now, just as in the case of the teachers, the husband cannot use the car except for the purposes designated by the company, but in this instance, the thing in question is portable and is placed in the care of one person and has sole responsibility for its use and can essentially take it wherever he wants. The implication by the terms of its assignment to this individual indicates it is his for all practical purposes. I think it could be referred to as "the company car" or "the company's car" and either would be correct.
I know my use of italics and quotes may be all over the map, but after all the thought given to this, my brain is not up to the task of sorting this out. So sue me.
By the way, how do you get the highlight to work when you split someone's quote up? Nevermind, I figured it out.
Last edited:
You're taking the word 'possessive' much too literally.
Grammatically, the possessive apostrophe does not necessarily imply direct ownership.
It denotes that something either belongs to someone or is for someone (or someones).
Ladies' room is correct as the room is for the ladies.
Girls' school - Children's library - Boys' toilets
These are all also correct.
In your post above - 'teacher's room' is incorrect unless it is only used by one teacher, rather than all the teachers.
See here: http://www.eng-lang.co.uk/apostrophe_rules.htm
This link above also explains the difference between a possessive connection and an adjectival connection, such as "accounts department" and "sports car".
This is why we have "cleaning cupboard" but "teachers' room".
There is no "opinion" regarding this rule - the rules governing it are clear.
The only area where there is still debate is when the thing or person doing the possessing already ends in an 's', e.g. "Jesus's robe" or "Jesus' robe" - as putting the two 's' sounds together is clunky, so historically, the second one was dropped, although it is an exception to the usual rule. Obviously you would have "Jane's robe".
Grammatically, the possessive apostrophe does not necessarily imply direct ownership.
It denotes that something either belongs to someone or is for someone (or someones).
Ladies' room is correct as the room is for the ladies.
Girls' school - Children's library - Boys' toilets
These are all also correct.
In your post above - 'teacher's room' is incorrect unless it is only used by one teacher, rather than all the teachers.
See here: http://www.eng-lang.co.uk/apostrophe_rules.htm
This link above also explains the difference between a possessive connection and an adjectival connection, such as "accounts department" and "sports car".
This is why we have "cleaning cupboard" but "teachers' room".
There is no "opinion" regarding this rule - the rules governing it are clear.
The only area where there is still debate is when the thing or person doing the possessing already ends in an 's', e.g. "Jesus's robe" or "Jesus' robe" - as putting the two 's' sounds together is clunky, so historically, the second one was dropped, although it is an exception to the usual rule. Obviously you would have "Jane's robe".
Yes, I should have caught the distinction between writing teacher's and teachers'.
In all the examples given in the link (with the exception of people's princess), the item in question can be claimed as something personal to an individual to which they can claim sole ownership of, even when referred to with the collective wording. I don't think any of us can claim ownership of a public restroom, unless of course you are one of those who locks the door and sits and reads, lol.
Still working on why people's princess could be correct in the example given. Still waiting on Chase to to weigh in on this. Like i said, it's fun to ponder.
In all the examples given in the link (with the exception of people's princess), the item in question can be claimed as something personal to an individual to which they can claim sole ownership of, even when referred to with the collective wording. I don't think any of us can claim ownership of a public restroom, unless of course you are one of those who locks the door and sits and reads, lol.
Still working on why people's princess could be correct in the example given. Still waiting on Chase to to weigh in on this. Like i said, it's fun to ponder.
And also, what about the emphasis placed on a specific word within the sentence "There is the ladies room" (ignoring the apostrophes for the moment). If you say "There is the lady's or ladies' room (verbal emphasis on room)," the article "the" seems to refer to the lady and not to the room, whereas if you say "There is the ladies room," the emphasis of the article "the" is on the room even if the verbal emphasis comes on 'ladies." The later seems to me to place "ladies" in the realm of a regular adjective modifier in relationship to the room.
My thoughts on the "people's princess" issue are that "people" refers to a specific subset of a group of people (implied---Great Britain) and not universally, so the apostrophe seems correct. This group can claim sole ownership as a whole to the princess. As an American, she was not my princess but simply a princess. In contrast, a ladies room is a room for all ladies universally, whatever race, creed, or nationality they belong to.
So when you say "teachers lounge", to me that includes all teachers everywhere. If you narrowed it down to one school, say Garfield Elementary, would you say "Garfield's teachers lounge" or "Garfield teachers' lounge" or Garfield's teachers' lounge?" When they put up the signs, they never include the apostrophe.
I am not posting anymore to the thread as this is wearing me out.
My thoughts on the "people's princess" issue are that "people" refers to a specific subset of a group of people (implied---Great Britain) and not universally, so the apostrophe seems correct. This group can claim sole ownership as a whole to the princess. As an American, she was not my princess but simply a princess. In contrast, a ladies room is a room for all ladies universally, whatever race, creed, or nationality they belong to.
So when you say "teachers lounge", to me that includes all teachers everywhere. If you narrowed it down to one school, say Garfield Elementary, would you say "Garfield's teachers lounge" or "Garfield teachers' lounge" or Garfield's teachers' lounge?" When they put up the signs, they never include the apostrophe.
I am not posting anymore to the thread as this is wearing me out.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2009
- Messages
- 197
- Reaction score
- 29
Moving the goal-posts slightly, I notice the increasing use of 'restroom' and 'bathroom' as euphenisms for toilet/lavatory/mens'/ladies' - whatever.
Restroom was usually a place in factories, schools and suchlike where a person who had suddenly become sick was able to lie on a bed, while someone ran for the nurse.
Bathroom was and still is a room with a bath in it, sometimes a shower as well sometimes a toilet too. It is becoming unclear what is really meant when these extra-polite terms are used.
Restroom was usually a place in factories, schools and suchlike where a person who had suddenly become sick was able to lie on a bed, while someone ran for the nurse.
Bathroom was and still is a room with a bath in it, sometimes a shower as well sometimes a toilet too. It is becoming unclear what is really meant when these extra-polite terms are used.
John, I'd think it's correct because people is already plural, and the rule for possessive of a plural not ending in "s" is to add apostrophe "s," as in men's fashions or cacti's spikes.
Or am I missing something, which happens more and more in discussions of precise grammar?
The same has happened in ASL. For a century or more, "toilet" has been a T-sign (thumb between the fisted forefinger and middle finger, as in "got your nose") pulling it down like the chain on an old toilet with elevated tank.
Now "polite" signers move the R-sign in a slight hop for rest room.
Chase, "signing" in
Last edited:
Chase:
Not so much the particular one you quoted me on, but on the entire apostrophe issue--possessive vs. adjective perspective as the modifier of the subject.
Maryland:
Isn't that like saying it's fun to watch paint dry?
Whoops! Made a liar out of myself because of you, Chase, ha, ha.
Not so much the particular one you quoted me on, but on the entire apostrophe issue--possessive vs. adjective perspective as the modifier of the subject.
Maryland:
Isn't that like saying it's fun to watch paint dry?
Whoops! Made a liar out of myself because of you, Chase, ha, ha.
I can't believe how much of a discussion restrooms have become! Details, details!!! I'm wondering how important it was to the story? I bet we've found a dozen different ways to describe it... 
Teachers is a plural noun, not an adjective.
To modify a noun, another noun needs to be in the genitive case which does not necessarily just indicate possession but can indicate some other relationship or association of one noun with another.
See Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive_case
So, Teachers' Room it is. The apostrophe should go after the S because it's referring to a plurality of teachers.
I can't believe how much of a discussion restrooms have become! Details, details!!! I'm wondering how important it was to the story? I bet we've found a dozen different ways to describe it...
And your point is . . . ? Ha ha ha, welcome to Detail City, where the residents take issue with minutia, all with tons of attiitude.
But then, if it weren't important to some, it wouldn't have been asked and discussed.
exactly!
It's amazing how many people, when asked a simple question, wonder why you'd even need to do that in a novel. No doubt they're thinking of something simple, like a character visiting the ladies' room to use it for it's obvious purpose. But that shows a serious lack of imagination.
Drugs are sold and done in restrooms. Certain people, usually congressmen, have sex in them. Rapes occur. Occasionally people are shot in them. Sometimes these restrooms are for females. In which case you need to know how to spell the name in a pretty serious way. Not "the drug dealer was shot in the little heifer room," cute as it may sound when said by a 200 lb. cop.
It's amazing how many people, when asked a simple question, wonder why you'd even need to do that in a novel. No doubt they're thinking of something simple, like a character visiting the ladies' room to use it for it's obvious purpose. But that shows a serious lack of imagination.
Drugs are sold and done in restrooms. Certain people, usually congressmen, have sex in them. Rapes occur. Occasionally people are shot in them. Sometimes these restrooms are for females. In which case you need to know how to spell the name in a pretty serious way. Not "the drug dealer was shot in the little heifer room," cute as it may sound when said by a 200 lb. cop.