TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:The Plural of RPM? (take II) From:Geoff Hart <ghart -at- videotron -dot- ca> To:TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>, Stuart Burnfield <sburnf -at- au1 -dot- ibm -dot- com> Date:Wed, 03 May 2006 08:56:04 -0400
Stuart Burnfield responded to my comment that "nowhere does it say that
only living things can possess something, and English would be a
horribly stilted language if you couldn't say "the mountain's
shadow"...": <<I thinks that's a little strong.>>
Fair enough. I did intentionally overstate my case to make the larger
point, namely that there's no _grammatical_ reason not to use
possessives with inanimate objects. There may indeed be other reasons
beyond the misleading anthropomorphism I mentioned in my previous
<<A company might have its own reasons for preferring to avoid
personification. To use Tom's example, the IBM Style guide says: Use
the possessive form for individuals or individuals' titles only. Avoid
the possessive form when you refer to abbreviations, brand names, and
inanimate objects. Examples (incorrect) IBM's practice is to...>>
That guideline makes very good sense for trademarked names and phrases,
which have more stringent rules designed to protect the trademark. I
suspect that's the context for this recommendation and that the
creators of the style guide found it easier to create a blanket rule
than to explain the exceptions... which is a sensible decision, since
writers often fail to make the distinction.
But IBM's choice is not a universal standard; for example, all the
government departments I work with allow possessives if memory serves.
Nor is it the most common standard. A descriptive grammarian would
point out that grammar tells us how the language actually works; a
prescriptive grammarian would instead state that grammar tells us how
the language _should_ work. I'm a descriptive grammarian because I
write and edit for people who use the language, not for those who
prescribe it. Descriptive grammar tells us that using possessives for
inanimate objects is the way the language is used by the vast majority.
<<I would treat this as a requirement or a strong preference if I
happened to be working for IBM or an IBM partner.>>
Indeed. It pays to remember that whenever you work for someone else,
you need to take their preferences into account. The client may be
wrong from one's own chauvinistic viewpoint, but they're still right
and they're the ones who pay the bills. <g>