 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2009s' or of the
Please consider the following two pieces: The retirement plans of the employees The employees' retirement plans Is there necesserily a difference between the two? Should I prefer one over the other? Especially in academic writing. I prefer to keep it as short as possible and therefore prefer to trade "of the" for "s'". But do you think that the second is less clear at a glance? >Please consider the following two pieces: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >the" for "s'". >But do you think that the second is less clear at a glance? Both could include retirement plans made by the employees and not provided by the company. I think it is clearer to write "The employee retirement plan". This indicates that it is the plan offered by the company. I'm assuming that you mean a plan that provides money to the employee after the employee's retirement. The examples you gave could mean what the employees plan to do after retirement. Moving to Florida and becoming a beach bum could be an employee's retirement plan.  SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida On 04 Jan 2009, tony cooper wrote >> Please consider the following two pieces: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Both could include retirement plans made by the employees and > not provided by the company. I certainly assumed it included such plans, both financial and social, but the sentences as presented give no hint as to whether they are or aren't included. > I think it is clearer to write > "The employee retirement plan". This indicates that it is the > plan offered by the company. Certainly, if that's what's meant; but AFAICT there's no grounds for assuming it is. > I'm assuming that you mean a plan that provides money to the > employee after the employee's retirement. Hmmm.... I don't see the basis for assuming that. > The examples you gave > could mean what the employees plan to do after retirement. > Moving to Florida and becoming a beach bum could be an > employee's retirement plan. That's what I figured was intended to be included. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 04 Jan 2009, tony cooper wrote > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Hmmm.... I don't see the basis for assuming that. My assumption is based on the idea that it is less likely that someone would come here to ask about the construction of a sentence about what employees plan to do with their lives after retirement than it is for them to ask about a sentence involving a financial plan. This assumption, in turn, is based on the idea that the OP is writing something for company use. Re-writing an employee handbook, for example. A lot of assumption, but we see a lot of questions in this newsgroup that originate from such projects. I'm playing the odds. >> The examples you gave >> could mean what the employees plan to do after retirement. >> Moving to Florida and becoming a beach bum could be an >> employee's retirement plan. > >That's what I figured was intended to be included. People don't generally write about this in relation to all of the employees' plans. Maybe a magazine article or something, but the financial plans are usually the topic. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > Both could include retirement plans made by the employees and not > provided by the company. I think it is clearer to write "The employee > retirement plan". This indicates that it is the plan offered by the > company. That is a good point. But before the sentence I indicate that it is about employment, about labor market status of the employee. So the plans do not refer to social plans, but the economic ones. Also, after the sentence I explain what the plan is more in detail. I should be fine then right? >> Both could include retirement plans made by the employees and not >> provided by the company. I think it is clearer to write "The employee [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I should be fine then right? I would still write "The employee retirement plan" to make it clear that it is the plan offered by the company for the employees. Even better is "The company employee retirement plan". You may not like to use extra words, but extra words make things clear. Unless you are limited in some way, use the number of words that express your thought unambiguously. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > I would still write "The employee retirement plan" to make it clear > that it is the plan offered by the company for the employees. Even > better is "The company employee retirement plan". But in my context the retirement plan does not need to be provided by the company. It is actually just the retirement plan of the employee (and I mention before the sentence that the company fully agrees with the plan). >> I would still write "The employee retirement plan" to make it clear >> that it is the plan offered by the company for the employees. Even [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >It is actually just the retirement plan of the employee (and I mention >before the sentence that the company fully agrees with the plan). If it's a plan of the employee about what they will do after retirement from the company, why would the company have any say about it at all? You say "my context" but haven't revealed it fully. SignatureJohn > If it's a plan of the employee about what they will do after > retirement from the company, why would the company have any say about > it at all? You say "my context" but haven't revealed it fully. There is no need to compicte the matter. My question was actually grammetical but it went out of hand now. Forget about the context and everything. I am just asking if I should say the persons' jacket or the jacket of the persons. That is all! Forget about the employee and company.... >> If it's a plan of the employee about what they will do after >> retirement from the company, why would the company have any say about [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > or the jacket of the persons. It's unlikely that several persons share one jacket... > That is all! > > Forget about the employee and company.... >> If it's a plan of the employee about what they will do after >> retirement from the company, why would the company have any say about [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Forget about the employee and company.... Bad example then - "persons" has a very limited use; the normal plural for "person" is "people". But then we get into the question of why the people have only got one jacket. How about - the cat's bowl - the bowl of the cat - the car's wheels - the wheels of the car - the man's arm - the arm of the man In each case, the former is nearly always better. You can imagine situations in which you would need to use the latter, but these will be uncommon. SignatureDavid On 04 Jan 2009, minimus wrote >> If it's a plan of the employee about what they will do after >> retirement from the company, why would the company have any say [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > or the jacket of the persons. I vote for "the persons' jacket" -- simpler/cleaner writing. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >> If it's a plan of the employee about what they will do after >> retirement from the company, why would the company have any say about [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Forget about the employee and company.... The choice between possessives isn't that simple, and grammar and semantics are intertwined. As others pointed out, persons/jacket is a bad example. Choosing another, consider "the children's bookbags" - this seems to me likelier than "the bookbags of the children", but "the colors of the houses" is more likely than "the houses' colors". In the case of the original example, "the retirement plans of the employees" seems as apt as "the employees' retirement plans", but it's hard to judge without the rest of the sentence as immediate context, and the meaning as expressed in the more general context. SignatureJohn >> If it's a plan of the employee about what they will do after >> retirement from the company, why would the company have any say about [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Forget about the employee and company.... Without question, I'd write "the persons' jacket". The second version is no only longer, it is awkward. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >> I would still write "The employee retirement plan" to make it clear >> that it is the plan offered by the company for the employees. Even [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >It is actually just the retirement plan of the employee (and I mention >before the sentence that the company fully agrees with the plan). If you would provide sufficient context along with your questions, we would be able to provide you with answers that might help. I am not a dentist. I don't do pulling teeth. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.