One of the items which can fill the Determiner slot (and make an NP definite) is the genitive NP. For this purpose it is convenient to include both genitive determiners like my, his, their and genitives like John's, the boys', the Duke of York's. It has been persuasively argued that PDE 's (plural s' in spelling) is no longer an inflection but a syntactic word cliticised to an NP; see Huddleston (1984: 46-7). The argument is particularly strong for the so-called 'group genitive', whose origins were discussed in CHEE II: 229-30, so that the structure of the Duke of York's house would be roughly Since the ME period at least, the use of an '^-genitive in the Determiner slot has been in variation with an o/phrase in post-modifier position, thus the book's contents vs. the contents of the book. The ranges and relative frequencies of the competing constructions have varied over the course of time, with genitives of inanimates perhaps on the increase. Mosse (1947: 208) finds twentieth-century examples like the war's duration, the cliff's edge, the car's horn worthy of note, and Barber (1964: 132-3), cited by Strang (1970: 58), detects a revival of the '^-genitive at the expense of the o/-genitive in such NPs as biography's charm. Conversely, however, some examples from Jane Austen, cited by PhilHpps (1970: 163), are scarcely possible now:

(77) a. and that Mr. Elliott's idea [= the idea of Mr Elliott] always produced irritation in both, was beyond a doubt.

(1818 Austen, Persuasion II. xii.107) b. and his sight [= the sight of him] was so inseparably connected with some very disagreeable feelings, that

(1816 Austen, Emma II. iv[xxii].182)

These are 'objective genitives', most clearly seen in (77b), where his corresponds to an object in to see him. What has changed - and Aussen comes near the end of a long rundown - is that object relations are generally expressed in PDE by an a/genitive, with the '^-genitive confined pretty much to animate genitive followed by deverbal noun and often not even then (Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech & Svartvik 1985: 17.41-3).

Since at least the seventeenth century it has been possible to combine both constructions in patterns like this friend of mine, an idea of the secretary's:

(78) a. old Rowley who. . . has, you know, never been a Friend of mine.

(1777 Sheridan, Schoolfor ScandalU 363.13) b. These whipmasters of ours.

(1893 K. Grahame Pagan Papers 96 [OED])

(Here, of course, we are looking at a syntagm which forms a complete NP rather than filling the Determiner slot in an NP headed by something else.) Rissanen (1993: 50-3) treats the pattern this friend of mine as a replacement for structures like **this my friend with double determiner (see 3.2.4 above). As Strang points out (1970: 98), the new construction allows the NP as a whole and the genitive NP to be marked independently for definiteness; see also the discussion in Jespersen (1909-49: III 15-23).

This may be the best place to mention the rise and fall of the apostrophe, almost entirely contained within our period, even though it is not a matter of syntax at all. Strang argues (1970: 109-10):

For the genitive singular of nouns -'s became fairly regular by the late 17c, and in the genitive plural - s' not till the late 18c. This creates the curious situation that for almost all nouns the two-term system of contrast operative in speech (unmarked form without ending, form marked for case or number with sibilant ending), corresponds to a four-term system in writing.

For much of the period it has been the convention that no genitive inflection is added to proper names (and a few other nouns) already ending in /s, z/, thus Tiberius' rule, Dickens' novels, though this exception is now being ironed out. In our period too came the arbitrary codification of its and whose without apostrophe as the genitives of it and who, respectively, and it's, who's with apostrophe as the contraction of it, who with is or has.24 It is hardly surprising that these conventions seem to be in rapid collapse, with what has been called 'the greengrocer's apostrophe' (apple's 60p, Antique's, linguistic's, and perhaps even mean't, all personally attested) just one symptom of what may well turn out to be the imminent demise of the apostrophe. Distressing though it is to purists, it must be admitted that genuine ambiguities caused by omission or misuse of the apostrophe are very infrequent indeed.

• Gerunds

I shall use the term gerund for a nominal - ing form with verbal properties. I discuss them here because gerundial constructions tend to bear closest resemblance to nonfinite nominal clauses, even though combinations of preposition and gerundial construction can dso approach (non-fimte) adverbia causes, as Rissanen points out (CHELILI,

• The noun phrase

The noun phrase (NP) is the syntactic unit which typically functions as subject or object of a clause or object of a preposition. A pronoun or proper noun usually constitutes a complete noun phrase in itself - he, ,hem, James, Amsterdam - with occasional exceptions like poor old her, you

• Articles and demonstratives

There are minor changes in the use or omission of articles. Several nouns denoting illnesses and afflictions have recendy ceased to occur with articles, so that a sunstroke (1902 Nesbit, 5 Children ix.183), the influenza, the mumps seem old-fashioned now - although the flu is still quite possiblee, nd indeed

• Partitives

It is possible to analyse an NP like a majority of students in two ways: (79) a. head noun majority, premodified by determiner a and Postmodified by the prepositional phrase of students (cf a steak in breadcrumbs) b. head noun students, premodified by complex determiner a majonty of(cf. a few students) For conflicting

• Jane

Jane A limerick about Jane. 2012, 196 words, 0 source(s). More Free Term Papers: Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" This paper presents a critical review of Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice". It elucidates the main themes in the novel while providing a summary of the plot. Jane Austen's "Pride and