2

Here are my constructions:

  1. As I said, I am present in territory of the European Union's , therefore, please contact me only via e-mail at [email address].
  2. As I said, I am present in territory of the European Union, therefore, please contact me only via e-mail at [email address].

So my question is, should I use 'the European Union's' or 'the European Union'?

CowperKettle
  • 36,282
  • 16
  • 126
  • 224
Heniek Kowalski
  • 635
  • 5
  • 12
  • 24
  • 1
    possible duplicate of [What is the use of using preposition 'of' to talk about possessions with \*ANIMATE\* countable nouns?](http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/37915/what-is-the-use-of-using-preposition-of-to-talk-about-possessions-with-animat). Also [Why say “of x's” instead of “of x”?](http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/38278/) – FumbleFingers Nov 03 '14 at 14:12
  • 1
    "I am present in territory of the European Union" is not grammatically correct (or at least, not the usual way of saying it). Making it "...in **the** territory..." would make it correct, but still unusual. "I am [currently] in the EU" would be how I'd expect most native speakers to say it. – Tim S. Nov 03 '14 at 14:22

2 Answers2

4

Apostrophe ('s) talks about possession. Looking at your sentence, I don't think you mean that. Check out two sentences to clear whether to use it or not.

This is the territory of the European Union

And...

This is ‎‎the European Union's territory

Broadly, when you use '...of the...', it won't take apostrophe. Because you already said that possession.

However, there's something called double genitive/possessive, that uses 'of...'s' constructions. Merriam-Webster describes it.

a syntactic construction in English in which possession is marked both by the preposition of and a noun or pronoun in the possessive case (as in “A friend of Bob's is a friend of mine”) —called also double possessive.

[But again, to stay unambiguous, I'd prefer to avoid this usage].

Good read here.

Boann
  • 569
  • 2
  • 9
Maulik V
  • 65,222
  • 105
  • 299
  • 447
  • 1
    It's called (by some) "double genitive". [Check out](http://ell.stackexchange.com/tags/double-genitive/info) the tag I've added to *the post of Heniek's*. (0: – CowperKettle Nov 03 '14 at 11:03
  • @CopperKettle Hey, I think it'll be useful to include this. Thanks – Maulik V Nov 03 '14 at 11:51
1

Compare:

  1. (?)That is the book of Peter.
  2. (*)That is the Peter's book.
  3. That is Peter's book.

  4. (?)That is the book of Peter's.

  5. (*)That is a book of Peter.

  6. (*) That is a Peter's book.
  7. That is a book of Peter's.

We normally use the 's structure, rather than of when we talk about possessions, relationships and physical characteristic, especially when the 'possessor' noun refers to a person, animal or to a country, organisation or other group of creatures [see Swan (2005.440), Practical English Usage]. That is why sentence 3 is natural and sentences 1 and 5 are not. However when the 'possessor' noun is not a person but one of the other types mentioned, both the of and the 's constructions are possible: The President of Russia and Russia's President.

We cannot usually put a possessive between another determiner and a noun. Instead, we use a structure with of + possessive (Swan p.443). Sentences 2 and 6 are therefore incorrect English. Sentence 7 is natural. The definite article defines its noun, and sentence 4 is therefore unnatural, though That is the book of Peter's that I was talking about is acceptable, as the definite article defines one of several of Peter's books.

So, That is the territory of Canada/ the European Union/the United Kingdom and That is Canada's/ the European's Union's/The United Kingdom's territory are possible as is That is Canadian/European Union/United Kingdom territory. In that last sentence, 'European Union' and 'United Kingdom' function adjectivally.

tunny
  • 5,527
  • 13
  • 31