plural possessive question

[Patricia M Godfrey pmgodfrey@xxxxxxxx]

You have raised a very interesting point, at least to a gerund-grinder
like me. Seriously, in general you are perfectly right: plural nouns used
"attributively" before other nouns are almost always possessives.(I
prefer the more sophisticated name `genitive,' because it shortcircuits
the argument that some aren't possessive, but denote "to" or "for"; this
case expresses other relations besides possession.) So workers' party,
mechanics' liens (those of more than one mechanic), electricians' union,
wasps' nest. Singular nouns can be used as plain attributives: road map,
star catalogue. And there are a few cast-iron idioms where what looks
like a plural noun is used attributively to prevent confusion when the
singular noun is identical to the adjective, but a slightly different
meaning is intended. Electronics engineers are many; only R2-D2 or Cmdr.
Data would be an electronic engineer. Likewise scissors grinder
(`scissors' is invariable)
	But the case you cite is somewhat different. The `noun' in question is
actually a noun phrase itself containing a genitive. In Latin, there
would be no problem: you would have a perfectly legitimate double
genitive: sententia tribunalis [genitive] appelationum [gen. pl]. In a
romance language, of course, you can only use the `of' construction,
since modern romance languages have fewer declined forms even than
English: la décision de la cour de cassation.
	So we have two considerations here: 1) Is it legitimate to disregard the
`genitivity' of the nouns here and treat them as simply attributive? I
would say no. English has few enough inflections, and loosing any more
will make the language less fit for precise thought.
2) If we keep the genitive, what form should we use? Fowler (i.e., H. W.
Fowler, in  2d ed., rev. by Sir
Ernest Gowers, OUP, 1968--the copy editor's bible) offers two helpful
comments. He first points out that plural genitives of proper names are
formed by the addition of apostrophe alone: the Joneses' house, the
Rogerses' party. So one might construe "the Circuit Court of Appeals" as
a proper noun in the plural, and make its genitive simply "the Circuit
Court of Appeals' decision." (What is dangerous about this is that the
apostrophe by itself has no sound. That is why it so often gets lost:
"the boy's hat," "the boys' hats," and "the boys lost their hats" all
SOUND the same.) On the other hand, in the same essay ("Possessive
puzzles," pp. 466-67), he advocates using the full apostrophe and ess
with the name of the newspaper (morphologically plural, but semantically
singular): in the Times's opinion. Or, of course, to use the `of'
genitive: the opinion of The Times. I would incline to the last
myself, but I might not change "Court of Appeals' decision" if the writer
had otherwise manifested some Sprachgefühl.
Patricia