The Grammarnator is, as a section of A Tale of Two Cities puts it, “recalled to life” by a letter to the Insider from reader Mark: “I like the Grammarnator column and would like you to ask him a question: July 4th issue of Concord Monitor front page contains a title, “Bills’ fates hang on Hassan” . . . Is this proper grammar? Strikes me as poorly worded. Is it really plural and possessive?”
A most interesting question, Mark, and I thank you for stimulating the little grey cells. This would be easy if Hassan were quarterbacking in Buffalo. There is then no disputing the correctness then of “Bills’ fate hangs on Hassan.” She is, however, the governor of New Hampshire, and the bills in question are legislative acts facing potential vetoes. Aha! I almost typed “suggesting a potential veto,” and in that difference lies my answer.
But let’s approach the subject indirectly by imagining yet some other scenario. We read all the time that the population of honeybees is declining. Suppose we saw this in print: “Scientists are still hopeful that a way can be found to forestall what seems to be the bees’ eventual fate.” Should that be “the bees’ eventual fates?”
No. Although each bee, like us, dies his or her own death, we are talking about the species-wide fate – the disappearance of all honeybees – and the plural possessive can be understood to represent a single collective entity.
This is not the case with the bills on the governor’s desk. Some may be vetoed. Some may not be. Each will be considered on its own merits, and a separate veto message will be composed for each one that she sends back to the legislature. Each bill has its own fate. If there are five bills, there are five fates. Hence, the unpleasant sounding consecutive double plurals (bills’ fates) strike me as grammatically and logically correct.
Anyone who disagrees with this interpretation is invited to respond. In the meantime, I will probably be back next week with another column about recent apostrophe use I’ve been noting.
