Timeline for When do we use "of" rather than " 's" to show possession? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jun 13, 2013 at 19:57 | vote | accept | lvarayut | ||
| Jun 13, 2013 at 10:32 | history | closed | RegDwigнt | exact duplicate | |
| Jun 13, 2013 at 9:41 | answer | added | Reza Saberi | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jun 13, 2013 at 9:11 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackEnglish/status/345106029501104128 | ||
| Jun 12, 2013 at 20:30 | comment | added | John Lawler | Right. None of the abstract terms you used should have the suffix; this is especially true for metaphors, like head/foot/leg of the table. | |
| Jun 12, 2013 at 19:46 | comment | added | lvarayut | @JohnLawler So, the data's example is the false sentence. Right? | |
| Jun 12, 2013 at 19:39 | history | edited | Kit Z. Fox♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
cleaned up language a bit
|
| Jun 12, 2013 at 19:32 | comment | added | Kit Z. Fox♦ | See for instance the excellent answers on this closed question: english.stackexchange.com/questions/52104/… | |
| Jun 12, 2013 at 19:29 | comment | added | John Lawler | The general pattern is to use the suffix -'s for possessors that animate, including humans, and to use a prepositional phrase with of for inanimate possessors. Thus, the leg of the table but the horse's leg. There are many exceptions and idioms, however. | |
| Jun 12, 2013 at 19:29 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 12, 2013 at 20:41 | |||||
| Jun 12, 2013 at 19:09 | history | asked | lvarayut | CC BY-SA 3.0 |