Is it correct to say "I write children books" (not possessive case)?

Question

Although Children's books is what everybody says, I would like to understand why the genitive case is applied in such case.

If I write books for children, children is an adjective here; not the owners of my book! The word "children" just defines or characterizes the type of books I write. Therefore, it's an adjective.

So, I understand that genitive/possessive case ("I write children's book") is incorrect grammar.

My question is: is the genitive case here really accepted as right? If I use "I write children books" (following the grammar principle) as as I say "I write pets books" (books about pets, and not possessions of pets) - would I be incorrect? Why?

Answer 1

There are some interesting points here. One is whether the apostrophe (’) serves any purpose, but we can leave that for another day.

We speak of children’s books, not because, in this context, the books belong to the children, but because the books are for children. Children’s acts as a modifier rather than a determiner. As the ‘Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English’ says,

[such] genitives have the role of classifying the reference of the head noun: the question answered here is ‘What kind of X? . . . In many cases, a classifying genitive is equivalent to an adjective or a noun modifier . . .

To take up that last point, children’s books could, just about, be replaced with juvenile books or junior books. We can certainly speak of adult literature as well as adults' literature.

I don’t think pets books would normally be found. Instead you might possibly see a section in a bookshop for pet books. A better example might be animal books (not animals' books), which clearly refers to books about animals rather than books for animals.

Answer 2

Grammar is as it is, not as you would like it to be.

A story book, a picture book, a fiction book are all grammatical, but a children book is not, at least in the sense you mean it (It is possibly grammatical in the sense of a book about children, but is not in common use even in that sense).

Answer 3

The problem here is that basically "children's books" is an idiom. It is not incorrect to put two nouns together, but sometimes it goes against an established convention.

For instance "white and black photograph" is not incorrect, but it is strange because we only ever hear "black and white photograph".

A "driver's license" could be a "driver license" or "driving license". But it isn't, and that's that. It sounds strange because we are accustomed to using "driver's license" as a canned phrase.

"Children's book" has a more specific meaning, that the book belongs to children, and isn't about children.

Compare with "people's republic", which says something different from "people republic".

If we use A B, where A and B are nouns, there is a relationship between A and B in that an A B is a kind of B, which is somehow restricted to a narrower set, as qualified by A.

But A's B is more specific. There is a relationship bewteen A and B such that A's B is a kind of B, which belongs to A.

A "children book" or "child book" could be about children (for example rearing them) rather than for children, the way "car manual" is about a car (whereas the "owner's manual" is clearly not about the owner).

Answer 4

There is a move away from the use of the apostrophe in the 'adjectival' (rather than the 'true possessive') sense you mention here. However, the tendency is to just drop the apostrophe rather than switch to an unusual-sounding singular modifying noun:

Childrens Home

Dogs Home

Travellers Rest

Working Mens Club

Mens Clothing Department.

( at http://dict.leo.org/forum/viewGeneraldi ... de&lang=de :

Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers (John Wiley & Sons):

Nonpossessive and generic phrases. In phrases such as drivers licence, travellers cheques and visitors book, the plural noun is descriptive rather than possessive. As it describes an association with the following word rather than any direct ownership, no apostrophe is necessary. Some other examples: After primary school, she went on to the girls grammar school. The various proofreaders marks are shown in an appendix. Phrases such as drivers licence and travellers cheques have become merely generic ways of referring to common items. If used in a [non-, EA] generic sense, however, an apostrophe is still needed: The young driver's licence was cancelled.)

Sorry - that link seems to have expired. However, a parallel recommendation can be found at: http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/apostrophepunctuationterm.htm

That's gone too. Try this extract from The Associated Press Guide To Punctuation By Rene J. Cappon (and thanks to sumelic):

Descriptive Phrases Without Apostrophes

Don't use apostrophes in such primarily descriptive phrases as a New York Mets outfielder, a teachers college, a writers manual, a childrens book, the agencies request. As the AP Stylebook helpfully notes, the apostrophe is usually skipped if 'for' or 'by' would go better than 'of' in a longer version: college for teachers, manual for writers, request by the agencies.

In descriptive names, some organizations or institutions use the apostrophe while others don't. For instance, Diners Club , and National Governors Association. [both updated; EA] [The Long Island Writers' Guild, Redbud Writers Guild, The Harlem Writers Guild - examples still valid, EA.] Consult your house style." (Rene J. Cappon, The Associated Press Guide to Punctuation. Basic Books, 2003)

So, the awkward-looking spellings seem to be triumphing over the awkward-sounding alternatives.

Answer 5

In I write children's books (or, less correct but equally popular, childrens books), children's is indeed a adjective. In ?I write children books, children would probably be taken as the object of write, just as in I give children books. It might, as you say, be analogous to I write horse books/ spy books; but that has a differemt meaning; books about horses or spies, not for them. Education professionals might 'write children books' in this sense; but in fact the risk of confusion is so great that the phrase is not used.

Answer 6

In the expression "I write children books" children is not an adjective but a noun. You might torment the verb and claim it is trivalent and that this means "I write books to children", using that American dialectic peculiarity "I wrote you letters" rather than "I wrote letters to you." You could try that sort of grammatical strappado, I doubt you'd get away with it. I think there is something about this sort of linguistic abuse in the UN charter on Human Rights.

In "I write books for children" children is also not an adjective, it is still a noun. Even if it "characterizes" the audience, it would need a noun to modify unless it is being used attributively, which it is not. "Write books for cute little children", here we have a few adjectives, but children is still a noun. Nouns self describe, though adjectives can extend the description. "We discuss this for resolution." Here the type of discussion is indeed characterized by "resolution", but it is a noun, not an adjective.

Putting it in the genitive makes it function as an adjective -- "I write children's books". However you can also use a real adjective such as "I write juvenile books" or "I write childish books" but the latter is wrong, and the former is certainly subject to misinterpretation.

Perhaps clarity is the better part of brevity, and "I write books for children" would best convey your intent.