The English and Foreign Languages Departments at CTK are in disagreement - and students are joining in also. According to Ms Freestone and Ms Payne,
their is a possessive adjective. It is not, they insist, a pronoun - posessive or otherwise. We in the English Department however are not convinced. In fact we tend to steer towards classifying "their" as a pronoun. So, Steve (English Language Guru) attempts to set the record straight...
their
c.1200, from O.N. þierra, gen. of þeir "they". Replaced O.E. hiera. Use with singular objects, scorned by grammarians, is attested from c.1300. Theirs (c.1300) is a double possessive. Alternate form theirn (1836) is attested in Midlands and southern dialect in U.K. and the Ozarks region of the U.S.
our
O.E. ure "of us," genitive plural of the first person pronoun, from P.Gmc. *ons (cf. O.S. usa, O.Fris. use, O.H.G. unsar, Ger. unser, Goth. unsar "our"). Ours, formed c.1300, is a double possessive, originating in northern England, and has taken over the absolute function of our. Ourselves (1495), modeled on yourselves, replaced original construction we selfe, us selfum, etc
Their and our are plural possessive pronouns which have a similar function / position to an adjective in standard English. But ‘their dog’ does not describe the dog but actually gives information about the people who own the dog. ‘their dog’ = the dog of them.
In English, the important function of our & their is that we can separate people grammatically for different purposes. For example, in George Bush’s speech after the attack in New York on 7/11, he is careful to use many pronouns to unite the people of America such as, ‘we, us, our’. He is also careful to distance the American people from ‘the attackers’ by always referring to ’them, they’. ‘Their actions’ does not – like an adjective – describe the actions. It means ‘the actions of the attackers’. In this way ‘their’ also acts like a determiner – pointing out whose actions are being referred to, but not modifying the actions in any way.
5 comments:
Hi, I'm currently an A-level student (from east London!) and am interested in this kind of philology-type issue.
I'd like to present an analysis - feel free to criticise etc.:
I think there are other items that must be defined as possessive pronouns - "theirs", "ours", "mine" - as they are standalone words that (currently) do not modify nouns, but represent nouns - thus are pronouns. Since "their", "our", "my" can all modify nouns, they are adjectives. One could say that "their dog" does give information about the dog - the dog's state of belonging is to "them"; likewise "their actions". However, it is true that "their", "our", "my" are historically (well, from Old English) genitive-case pronouns - so if these are adjectives then "attacker's" is a possessive adjective too.
I conclude that basically, "their" etc. are in (Standard) English a special type of determiner. I can see why it is a pronoun, and also why it is an adjective; but because it seems to do both simultaneously (as the meaning of possession does) it should be a determiner.
German has possessive adjectives. It certainly has a genitive case and thus genitive case pronouns. How do they compare?
I would agree completely - 'their' determines ownership of the dog and as such can most meaninfgfully be understood as a determiner. I am less convinced of the notion of 'their' being classified as an adjective as it does not 'describe' any innate qualities or attributes of the noun itself, other than the fact that the noun is owned. Fido however probably couldn't care less so long as he gets a walk.
I say that "their" is a possessive adjective, not a pronoun.
"Their" describes the dog. It says that the dog is owned by a specific group of people and is distinguishable from other dogs, owned or not. "It's not her dog, it's their dog." "They walked their dog", as opposed to walking someone else's dog. Yes, it does indirectly illustrate that "they" own a dog, but in the context of a full sentence the focus would surely be on the dog and some event or action pertaining to it, not pertaining to the ownership or the owners.
Within just a few minutes I have changed my mind. :-) "Their" is a genitive pronoun and a determiner, but not an adjective.
Pronouns and articles don't mix, adjectives and articles do. "They walked the black dog." "They walked their black dog."
It would appear that this is a debate that has no clear answer. The point of view becomes skewed as you look at it from different perspectives (purely the english language vs its derivation from other languages). Personally, my mind is made up by the following simple comparison:
John has a black dog.
The dog is black.
Black is an ajective in either case.
It is John and Mary's house.
The house is John and Mary's.
In both cases, the purpose of the sentence is to show that the house belongs to John and Mary. The phrase "John and Mary's" can be replaced in both cases with either "their" or "theirs". Since the word is specifically being used to replace the nouns, they would both be considered pronouns.
Post a Comment