simple apostrophe question

Cody Pomeray

When talking about the property of individual students.

is it
...individual student's property?
or
...individual students' property?

I know one student would usually be the former, but here we are talking about a group of individuals, so I'm certain it's the latter. But I'm tired and confused and just want someone to tell me this is correct. Thanks:)

DECEiFER

If the student is one person then it's the former but if it's a group of students, the latter is then appropriate. Are you talking about a group of students (plural) or just one student (singular)? Don't get confused. The normal rules still apply. If you were to use the latter, you'd have to be talking about a group of students and property would need to be changed to its plural, properties.

MathsManiac

The use of "individual" means that it is singular. So, "......individual student's property".

However, we would need to see the whole sentence to tell you whether it's grammatically correct and sensible.

odds_on

Try writing it the long way:
(The books are the) property of (an) individual student
or
(The books are the property) of individual students (of a group of students)

MathsManiac

When previously posting, I couldn't think of a sensible sentence in which it would be anything other than singular, but subsequent posts have prompted me to think otherwise.

Consider the following two versions of a paragraph. I think both are correct, and they illustrate that both locations of the apostrophe are possible:

Version 1:

Three students formed a study group. Each bought a few books and they shared them for studying. Although they treated these books as a sort of communal library, the books bought by each student nonetheless remained the individual student's property.

Version 2:

Three students formed a study group. Each bought a few books and they shared them for studying. Although they treated these books as a sort of communal library, the books nonetheless remained the individual students' property.

(With reference to DECEiFER's post, by the way, it wouldn't be properties in the second case above, as property in this context is a mass noun. Properties would only be correct if you were talking about houses or the like.)

DECEiFER

MathsManiac wrote: »

(With reference to DECEiFER's post, by the way, it wouldn't be properties in the second case above, as property in this context is a mass noun. Properties would only be correct if you were talking about houses or the like.)

Absolutely and for some reason, my response was constructed on the basis of property being in the context of a house, building, etc. It seems stupid now when I think about it. Student, property...d'oh!

Earthhorse

MathsManiac wrote: »

Version 2:

Three students formed a study group. Each bought a few books and they shared them for studying. Although they treated these books as a sort of communal library, the books nonetheless remained the individual students' property.

I don't think that's grammatically correct though; it's a contradiction in terms. Either we are treating them as individuals or as a group. If you wish to say the books "...remained the students' property", then that's fine, but if you qualify it with individual then it should be "student's".

syntax1

the individual student's property.
an individual student's property.

the students' individual property.

(English teacher and proofreader)

DECEiFER

syntax1 wrote: »

the individual student's property.
an individual student's property.

the students' individual property.

(English teacher and proofreader)

99%. A1. :P

MathsManiac

Earthhorse wrote: »

I don't think that's grammatically correct though; it's a contradiction in terms. Either we are treating them as individuals or as a group. If you wish to say the books "...remained the students' property", then that's fine, but if you qualify it with individual then it should be "student's".

That's what I said (and meant) in post #3, but on reflection I think that what I have in the second version of post #5 is also correct. It's not a contradiction in terms. There is a distinction between the collective property of a group, and property that belongs to the members of a group in their individual capacity.

It would not be correct in version 2 to say "...the individual student's property", as that would imply that all of the books belonged to one student.

This is not a construction that I would envisage using myself; it's just that I can see how it can be argued to be correct.

For an example in a different context, I am satisfied that the apostrophe is correctly located in the last sentence on this webpage: http://www.brent.gov.uk/your-council/elected-representatives/councillors-interests-expenses/

(P.S., syntax1, I've done my share of professional proofreading too!)

Earthhorse

MathsManiac wrote: »

It would not be correct in version 2 to say "...the individual student's property", as that would imply that all of the books belonged to one student.

This is not a construction that I would envisage using myself; it's just that I can see how it can be argued to be correct.

Well, exactly, and you wouldn't use it because it would be wrong. Instead, you would say what you said in the first paragraph or else use the construction the "students' individual property". Either you are using the word individual to modify student or to modify property. If you are using it modify property it should appear directly before it.

syntax1

MathsManiac wrote: »

(P.S., syntax1, I've done my share of professional proofreading too!)

Just answering the OP.

I wasn't making a comment as to your contribution :-) (didn't read down)

MathsManiac

Earthhorse wrote: »

Well, exactly, and you wouldn't use it because it would be wrong. Instead, you would say what you said in the first paragraph or else use the construction the "students' individual property". Either you are using the word individual to modify student or to modify property. If you are using it modify property it should appear directly before it.

But the adjective "individual" can clearly be used to modify a plural noun, which remains plural. (e.g. "I don't like speaking to groups of teachers, but I don't mind speaking with individual teachers".) I am simply contending that this can equally arise in the possessive, where the purpose of "individual" is to indicate that the nature of the possession is individual or several rather than collective.

An example is in the link I gave, referring to "...individual members' interests", (meaning the interests of individual members).

Another example of the same construction is in this recommendation from a report by the Inspectorate of the Department of Education and Science:
"· Teachers were caring and patient in providing support. They were very knowledgeable about individual students’ needs and abilities."

The semantic purpose here is clear and correct. It could similarly occur in a sentence such as "Meeting the group's collective needs does not necessarily meet all of the individual students' needs." (i.e., the needs of the individual students.)

Similarly, in published books, which will presumably have been copy-edited, you'll find instances of the phrase "...individual children's needs", which is an equivalent construction to "...individual students' property" (i.e., "individual" followed by possessive plural).

This is a heading from the official minutes of the Jersey State Assembly's Public Accounts Committee:

States of Jersey 2007 Financial Report and Accounts - Individual members’ responsibilities

I can find this same phrase ("individual members’ responsibilities") in several published books.

I can also find lots of references to "individual citizens' rights" in books and elsewhere.

I think that these examples indicate that this construction is widespread and legitimate.

MathsManiac

syntax1 wrote: »

Just answering the OP.

I wasn't making a comment as to your contribution :-) (didn't read down)

Apologies for my over-sensitivity!