"The writers and teachers' wages were stagnant."

[garbonzo607]

"The writers and teachers' wages were stagnant."

Vs.

"The wages of the writers and teachers were stagnant."

I read that the latter way is better, but can someone help me understand why? What other sentences should you write like that, etc.?

Should possessive nouns be avoided where possible, or is it unrelated?

I appreciate it.

 

[Handley_Page]

"The writers and teachers' wages were stagnant."

Vs.

"The wages of the writers and teachers were stagnant."

I read that the latter way is better, but can someone help me understand why? What other sentences should you write like that, etc.?

Should possessive nouns be avoided where possible, or is it unrelated?

I appreciate it.

Are you saying that each of those groups are suffering problems with wages ?

"Both the writers and teachers' wages were stagnant."

 

[ElectricBlue]

Are you writing about people, or a dry economic analysis of wages? Needs more context, but on face value I would use the first sentence, because to me people are more important than wages.

But you might be writing an analysis of wage movements - I can't tell from a single sentence.

 

[Voboy]

I avoid passive voice wherever I can, in every kind of writing I do. It often jars people when doing official writing or work emails; they're conditioned to expect psssive voice.

That said, it's a tough sentence. I'd find some third way, though as others are pointing out we need more context.

 

[oggbashan]

My problem is not with the sentence construction but with the word 'stagnant'.

I would use another word - writers and teachers pay was frozen, unchanging, depreciating...

 

[SimonDoom]

I think the first is fine, but you need an apostrophe after writers, because they do not jointly possess the wages.

 

[LeandraNyx]

I have a lot of problems with both sentences, but I agree that in a contest between the two, the second option would win. Generally, I like to tell readers what I am describing before I describe it. You're describing wages--explaining that they are both "the teachers' and writers'" and that they are "stagnant"--so "wages" should come before its descriptors. Grammatically speaking, you could write it either way, that's just my personal preference. I hate when I read a sentence and am halfway through before I know what we're talking about and why.

 

[CarlusMagnus]

I have a lot of problems with both sentences, but I agree that in a contest between the two, the second option would win. Generally, I like to tell readers what I am describing before I describe it. You're describing wages--explaining that they are both "the teachers' and writers'" and that they are "stagnant"--so "wages" should come before its descriptors. Grammatically speaking, you could write it either way, that's just my personal preference. I hate when I read a sentence and am halfway through before I know what we're talking about and why.

I'd write

"The writers' wages and the teachers' were stagnant."

And I'd carefully consider Ogg's suggestion. Nevertheless, there's something to be said for "stagnant". It makes the sentence mimic the wages.

 

[CarlusMagnus]

I'd write

"The writers' wages and the teachers' were stagnant."

And I'd carefully consider Ogg's suggestion. Nevertheless, there's something to be said for "stagnant". It makes the sentence mimic the wages.

Note edited in later: And by the way, you're not using the passive voice, in spite of what someone suggested. That would be something like "The writers' and teachers' wages had not been raised for a long time."

The verb "were" is form of "to be", which is a linking verb. It doesn't have a passive voice.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

The writers and teachers hadn't seen a pay raise in a long time. They were starting to get pissed.

Management's first real clue was the brick hurled through the big plate glass window of the executive lounge.

 

[SecondCircle]

First one sounds odd even when it is spoken. That's why, I think. When you start by saying "The writers", for the briefest of of seconds it sounds like it doesn't signify possession. Even when you add "and the teachers'", it still doesn't sound possessive yet when spoken. It isn't until we reach "wages", which is what they possess, that we discover that it's possessive. Even if it is punctuated correctly, and I can "see" the possession on the page, my mind often doesn't operate that slowly. In a sense, when I'm reading, I hear it in my head. So at first it just sounds like we are referring to the actual writers and teachers themselves.

If it were my sentence, I'd reword it. Just because if I were to read it aloud or in my head, it doesn't necessarily flow well. It isn't too incredibly odd, but is just enough that it makes me stumble when strolling along in the story. If that makes sense.

 

[Paul_Chance]

"The writers and teachers' wages were stagnant."

Vs.

"The wages of the writers and teachers were stagnant."

I read that the latter way is better, but can someone help me understand why? What other sentences should you write like that, etc.?

Should possessive nouns be avoided where possible, or is it unrelated?

I appreciate it.

1. Since you're talking about groups do not use the possessive noun.
2. The first is structurally correct for a compound subject-predicate statement.
3. Check your tense. Are you talking about a condition that once existed (were) or is existent (are).
4. The second would also be good with one minor change - drop the second "the".

"The wages of writers and teachers were stagnant."

Compound subject - "the wages of writers and teachers" or "writers and teachers wages"
Predicate - "were stagnant".

 

[SimonDoom]

1. Since you're talking about groups do not use the possessive noun.
2. The first is structurally correct for a compound subject-predicate statement.
3. Check your tense. Are you talking about a condition that once existed (were) or is existent (are).
4. The second would also be good with one minor change - drop the second "the".

"The wages of writers and teachers were stagnant."

Compound subject - "the wages of writers and teachers" or "writers and teachers wages"
Predicate - "were stagnant".

I'm not familiar with the first rule, ie., don't use a possessive noun with a group. What's that based on?

The subject isn't compound. It consists of one plural noun -- "wages" -- and "of writers and teachers" or "writers' and teachers'" are phrases that modify the noun.

I like your suggestion best -- go for the second option and get rid of "the". Sounds much better. It only would be a problem if it was important to clarify that we were talking about some particular group of teachers and writers.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

If it was a headline for a story, grammar seldom matters.

 

[Bramblethorn]

"The writers and teachers' wages were stagnant."

Vs.

"The wages of the writers and teachers were stagnant."

I read that the latter way is better, but can someone help me understand why? What other sentences should you write like that, etc.?

Should possessive nouns be avoided where possible, or is it unrelated?

This is subjective, but IMHO the second option is better.

People reading a long sentence will start parsing (processing/interpreting) before they've finished reading the sentence. When I'm reading the second option, that process looks something like this:

"The wages" - okay, this is going to be something about wages.
"The wages of the writers" ...the wages we're talking about are those of writers.
"The wages of the writers and teachers" -...minor amendment, we're talking about wages for writers and teachers.
"The wages of the writers and teachers were stagnant." ...and those wages are stalled. Okay, I'm at the end of the sentence, I understood it, I can go straight on to the next.

But with the first option:

"The writers" - this sentence is talking about writers.
"The writers and teachers"... it's talking about writers and teachers.
"The writers and teachers' wages" - oh, no, it's not talking directly about writers and teachers! I thought they were going to be the subject of the sentence, but actually they're just a modifier on the real subject, "wages".

So when I'm almost at the end of the sentence, I have to pause and re-interpret the early bits. If you do that a lot, it's going to be tiring and annoying for me as a reader.

As others have noted, "writers" should be apostrophised there as "writers' ". That improves things; if I catch the apostrophe it tells me right away that "writers' " is a modifier to something coming up, not the subject in its own right. But apostrophes are easy to miss. Leading with "wages" avoids the problem altogether.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Here's a nice little post that explains the use of writers and writer's. The latter form is singular possessive. It refers to a single writer possessing something.

http://peevishpen.********.com/2007/06/writers-writers-or-writers.html?m=1

It obviously puzzles enough people that it has a lot of articles online about it.

 

[SimonDoom]

Here's a nice little post that explains the use of writers and writer's. The latter form is singular possessive. It refers to a single writer possessing something.

http://peevishpen.********.com/2007/06/writers-writers-or-writers.html?m=1

It obviously puzzles enough people that it has a lot of articles online about it.

That link didn't work.

I'm genuinely curious. It's the grammar geek in me.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'd think this should be the one:

"http://peevishpen.********.com/2007/06/writers-writers-or-writers.html"

the ******** should be replaced by the words "blog" and "spot" combined... apparently, that's a forbidden word here

Thanks for that explanation. It worked with that fill-in.

I'd say that article supports my view that it should be written "writers' and teachers' wages." Apostrophes after both words. It's not at all like a "writers group" where one can omit the apostrophe.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I avoid passive voice wherever I can, in every kind of writing I do. It often jars people when doing official writing or work emails; they're conditioned to expect psssive voice.

Passive isn't always bad. For example, "they're conditioned to expect passive voice" is a perfectly good use of passive; reworking to "somebody has conditioned them to expect passive voice" would be unwieldy and would offer no benefit.

Passive becomes a problem when it's used to obscure responsibility: "Mistakes were made" is a classic example. (Who made the mistakes? Not telling.)

 

[sr71plt]

Of the two (either of which is correct), publishers would most likely prefer the second, because at no time does it challenge where the meaning of the sentence might be going.

 

[legerdemer]

"The writers and teachers' wages were stagnant."

Vs.

"The wages of the writers and teachers were stagnant."

I read that the latter way is better, but can someone help me understand why? What other sentences should you write like that, etc.?

Should possessive nouns be avoided where possible, or is it unrelated?

I appreciate it.

The first sentence requires one more apostrophe to indicate what the second one already does. As it currently stands, the first says that the writers are stagnant and the teachers' wages are stagnant.

Thus, the correct version of the first would be: "The writers' and teachers' wages were stagnant."

 

[garbonzo607]

Thank you guys. It makes sense to put the description of the object beforehand. I will remember that now.