[ابو بيشو]

Joint and separate possession
A distinction is made between joint possession (Jason and Sue's emails: the emails of both Jason and Sue), and separate possession (Jason's and Sue's emails: the emails of Jason, and the emails of Sue). Style guides differ only in how much detail they provide concerning these.[2] Their consensus: in joint possession only the last possessor has possessive inflection; in separate possession all the possessors have possessive inflection. But if any of the possessors is indicated by a pronoun, then for both joint and separate possession all of the possessors have possessive inflection (His and her emails; His, her, and Anthea's emails; Jason's and her emails; His and Sue's emails; His and Sue's wedding; His and Sue's weddings).
Note that in cases of joint possession the above rule does not distinguish between a situation in which only one or more jointly possessed items perform a grammatical role and a situation in which both one or more such items and a non-possessing entity independently perform that role. Although verb number suffices in some cases ("Jason and Sue's dog has porphyria") and context suffices in others ("Jason and Sue's emails rarely exceed 200 characters in length"), number and/or grammatical position often prevent a resolution of ambiguity:

• Where multiple items are possessed and context is not dispositive, a rule forbidding distribution of the possessive merely shifts ambiguity: Suppose that Jason and Sue had one or more children who died in a car crash and that none of Jason's children by anyone other than Sue were killed. Under a rule forbidding distribution of the joint possessive, writing "Jason and Sue's children [rather than "Jason's and Sue's children"] died in the crash" eliminates the implication that Jason lost children of whom Sue was not the mother, but it introduces ambiguity as to whether Jason himself was killed.

Moreover, in cases where only one item is possessed, the rule against distribution of the joint possessive introduces ambiguity (unless context happens to resolve it): Read in light of a rule requiring distribution, the sentence "Jason and Sue's dog died after being hit by a bus" makes clear that the dog belonged to Sue alone and that Jason survived or was not involved, whereas a rule prohibiting distribution forces ambiguity as to both whether Jason (co-)owned the dog and whether he was