Grammarians help please!

[TheOtherAgentJohnson]

I'm not sure if this is the right board, but I'm hoping to send a bat signal to someone who can help with a very specific grammar query.

When I was at university a hundred years ago, I was on a committee. The committee positions were representatives: Actors' Rep, Directors' Rep etc.

I remember one meeting where the actors' rep, who was an English student, was arguing that we could put the apostrophe before the s: Actor's Rep.

I think he had a specific term for the singular possessive construction in this context, where the "actor" is a single actor, yet the "actor's rep" title implies plural actors are being represented.

Is this a thing, or have I completely misremembered?

I don't know if this makes any sense. Google is not helpful.

"Actor's rep" represents one actor only. "Actors' rep" represents more than one actor.

Agree.

Rep for Jane the actor (singular) ie actor’s rep
rep for all the actors in this theatre (plural) is actors’ rep

I don't think I'm making myself clear unforch (this is why I can't google it).

This English student was arguing for the singular possessive, as in The Actor's Rep, where the "actor" in this case is like a conceptual actor representing all actors. I'm sure he had a specific, recherché grammatical term for this.

Ah he thinks it’s a collective noun.

Theoretically he may be correct if he is using it as a collective noun, but it is not mainstream normal communication protocol, therefore he may be technically correct but it's an edge case and the alternative is better. Curious as to why you need to know? (Totally up for idle curiosity but also I have curiosity ...)

No, he doesn't think it's a collective noun (or he didn't, this was twenty years ago). There is no way he didn't know the correct grammatical forms, this was a very nerdy, very intellectual group. He was an English student and used a very specific, but very obscure term for this particular construction. At least, that's how I remember it.

ETA: it stuck in my head because I remember he said something like he wanted to revive this old-fashioned construction where the singular possessive represents a group. Or something like that. But there was a term for it. I think.

Maybe I should track him down and ask. He'd think I was nuts, but we were all nuts then too.

@Abthdust I'm actually writing something where there's a scene with a committee, and I thought it would be funny to add this detail in. It's driving me bananas not being able to remember.

I know exactly what you mean, but can’t remember the term, ‘the something or other whole’, I think. It’s going to annoy me now.

It sounds like the same idea behind Mother's Day i.e. a day for anyone who is a mother. Or Woman's Hour (rather than Women's Hour).

I don't know what it's called though and FWIW I would definitely use Actors' Rep.

I'm sure that this is absolutely legit. It makes perfect sense to use the singular possessive form in cases like this, as a complement to the usage in which we use a singular noun to stand for a whole class of entities. The clearest examples that come to my mind are the Fisherman's Friend ( a disgusting sweet, but a useful exemplar) and the Ploughman's lunch so favoured by 70s and 80s pubs.

Unfortunately I have zero knowledge of what technical term was invented by the obsessively cataloguing grammarians who name these conventions.

(It's not an obligatory practice, of course, and "actors' rep" is prob more common and prosaic. But it is definitely a thing.

Yes, Mother's Day, Woman's Hour and Fisherman's Friend are good examples of this. We all know this means that they are for all mothers, women and fishermen, despite the singular noun.

But what the hell is the term? Argh.

All I've managed to find so far by googling is that this use of a singular noun to refer to the whole class of people/things that instantiate the noun is called the "generic singular noun".

Can't find a term for the associated singular possessive though.

Is it a genitive case thing? (Sorry, this has been bugging me! LOL)

I'm so delighted people are still thinking about this.

I found this on the wiki about English possessives, which more neatly expresses the type of thing we're talking about:

Expressing for
Sometimes the possessive expresses for whom something is intended, rather than to whom it physically belongs:

• women's shoes
• children's literature

These cases would be paraphrased with for rather than of (shoes for women).

So we're looking for that, but using the singular form of the noun.

Okay, is it the generic singular genitive?

The AI bot on Grammarly thinks it might be.

Cannot believe I am doing this for one throwaway line (at least I can convince myself that I am actually working...).

That sounds likely! And to be fair, there are only about four people in the world who would even know (as you have just established).

I think I get what you mean - conceptually, at least. (Don't know the term you're after.)

If you imagine someone who was known to be a friend or mentor providing help and support to lots of jobbing and struggling actors (rather than an official representative) then people might start to call him "Fred - the actor's friend". Obviously it refers to many actors not one, but placing the apostrophe after the s wouldn't convey the right message. So I think I see what your friend was driving at.

What a fascinating thread! Thank you for posting, everyone. It’s good to know there are others out there who can be as obsessive as I about such ridiculous things

Maybe similar to ‘synecdoche’ where the part represents the whole? I’m thinking of ‘boots on the ground’ to represent ‘army’

Thanks all, this has been fun!

I have no doubt this is going to make all the difference to the scene...

Actor's rep implies you only represent one actor. So no, it should be an apostrophe at the end.

Same with directors, cleaners, Zumba teachers. If you represent multiple people then it's always at the end.

I think you’ve misread the thread.

Gawd I didn't sleep last night so I apologise! But I'm saying the same as loads of others?