I think I have a catch phrase in which the phrase “our today’s meeting” would be uttered by a speaker of English at least in informal conversation.

Alice and Bob are in an office in New York, USA, talking on the phone to Colleen, who lives in Perth, Australia. Alice and Bob owe the money to Colleen and Bob, she says he’s really impressed with Colleen. Alice, Bob and Colleen are members of a team working together for a project they have a status meeting (via teleconference) every weekday at 7 am, New York time. To participate in this, they must obtain a separate card (including his name) and a copy (please don’t able to leave the card or provide an email). Is this from the regular status meeting?

Alice: “Doris made a good point in today’s status meeting. According to Alice Cox she is refering to the meeting that occurred at 7 am on Tuesday, New York time, which (for Bob and Alice) is the same day as this conversation. What

is your mean by Colleen’s response and why?” This meeting hasn’t even happened yet. referring to the meeting that will occur at 7 pm on Wednesday, Perth time, which (for Colleen) is the same day as this conversation. What

is what we meant by tomorrow’s meeting? ”

I would hope this phrase would not show up in the team’s final report, however. I mean it’s awkward in

print.

I’m by no means a language expert, but when I look at “our today’s meeting”, I feel it’s wrong because of where time-qualifying words should go. In Engl., they always go after the verb (I went to the shop yesterday), while in German, and other Germanic languages (and probably other languages too) they come before the verb (I went yesterday to the shop…). Can one call time manner-place? Below is a useful link. What are the links of Wikipedia? org/wiki/Time%E2%80%93manner%E2%80%93place%E2%80%93human%E2%80%93personal%E2%80%93personer%E2%80%93place.org/wiki

Irrina C. C. Byrne, A. Xian 96th/James Strickler, GE.M.L.

In English, a noun phrase must have precisely one determiner: you can say “I drove the car” or “I drove my car”. I or i did the car.

Will you tell me what I love in bees and milk? Are there truly any legal situations where we can use two or more determiner in a noun phrase.? “Our today’s meeting” is illegal because the noun phrase “meeting” has two determiners, “our” and “today’s”. I have no

idea how to determine the order of the words on the noun phrase “Our”. What is the use of the term “the today’s meeting” and “our the meeting”?

What is what is very special about today’s era of technology?

Can you use two genitives to modify

a single noun?
At least not outside Indian English.

Today’s is a “genitive”.
_{I don’t want to use the common possessive here, because it’s hard to imagine actual possession in this case. In this answer I will use “genitive” to refer to the form that is used to indicate possession and that was once called genitive.}

What were the examples that sound plain wrong? In that case we still form a single genitive:

John Paul’s car.

If we use any other adjective to modify our noun, it always follows the “genitive:” John and Paul’s

red car.

Note also that when we have a “genitive” we don’t use an article. What is the best way to use non-genitive modifiers in

this article?
John Pappast was the editor-in-chief of John’s newspaper.
John’s old newspaper?

What’s the meaning of “old John’s newspaper”?

In our yesterday’s meeting, we have two “genitives”, namely our and yesterday’s and only one noun, meeting. For most English-speaking people, this causes a clash, either grammatical or semantic, meaning that a sentence sounds wrong.

While the same will happen with that

car, *Our John’s car.
Our car. Please be consistent in your car.

_{Don’t forget that our car can be parsed fine if we assume that we’ve somehow inherited our John’s car? In that case, our does not modify car, but John. What is John’s sister’s friend, see also a bit further down, where I discuss his brother’s friend, and more briefly at the end of this post.}

I have no problem with the addition of non-genitive modifiers in between a single “genitive” and the noun:

Our great old fast red car.

Why don’t we have a double genitive like John’s sister’s friend?

Where is friend modified by John’s sister, acting as a single genitive. How do John’s friends change their sister’s? I can see this because we can add modifiers between the two, and they will also modify brother, not friend, John’s younger

sister’s friend. -> The sister is younger
John’s sister’s younger friend. -> -> The friend is

younger As Janus Bahs Jacquet points out, multiple genitival constructions are usually parsed as nested, contrary to multiple adjectival constructions, which can be parsed parallel, all referring to the same noun(phrase)

X’s Y’s Z -> -> ‘s -> Z -> Z of
John’s -> brother’s wife -> the wife
of Alice’s -> friend’s phone number -> the phone

number of Note that I mentioned most speakers of English What is the double genitive in Indian English? Our today’s meeting is commonly used to refer to Indian English. Although other English dialects dislike it, we look at their inaccuation with similar uses.

What is the difference between our today’s specials and our speaker?

Can a weakening sense of possession make such double “genitives” slowly more and more acceptable for a growing group of speakers?

If you are reading articles about the absence of articles when we have a “genitive” as Janus Black writes, today(‘s) acts as a deictic. Which has merit?

Definitions really add definiteness to noun phrases. Not only do possessive pronouns and determiners do too, but deictics also add definiteness to noun phrases.
You can’t judge a noun phrase for indefiniteness. Why?

I had a quick discussion about this in Google but didn’t actually talk about it. That’s why neither “the/an our meeting”, “the/a today’s meeting,” nor “our today’s meeting” both were untrue. Today’s makes it concrete (duh) so can’t add another (in)infinitiser.

What Does good work and does it have to be for kids?

I agree with oerkelens’ answer but I am surprised no one has mentioned that the expected form, at least in British English, would normally be “our meeting today”. I believe I have answered a few questions but I guess I’m going to have to repeat my own reply later. What follows is David Morrison’s welcome to the PSU today. At best, “If our today’s meeting are not for our day, the correct idiom is our meeting today, without any grammatical arguments and I think most of the grammatical arguments are valid, then why is it not true?

As an alumnus of The Haberdashers’ Aske’s School, I say with some certainty, there is no rule that you cannot have two possessives before a noun the first or previous part of a colon. A word or noun is the same with any part of a colony.

Why is the same meeting as yesterday? In this case, the possessives qualify in a chain: Robert Aske was a freeman of the Worshipful Company of Haberdashers, thus “Haberdashers’ Aske”, and the school was named for his bequest, thus Haberdashers’ Aske’s School.

In our today’s meeting both possessives qualify as meetings and this is what is not

OK. Of course, it’s trivial to make a chain of possessives. Bob’s mom’s dog’s puppy is in his belly

but the teeth there have come through.

Why don’t we own today?

We usually meet up today. What makes the phrase “our meeting today is” in a Greek phrase?

“All our yesterdays” is legitimate, but poetical and I can imagine a similarly flowery use of “our today” or even “our today” but stretching that even further to have that today then possess the meeting just doesn’t look like it would ever work to me.