|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.tolkien » English linguistic thread
| English linguistic thread [message #174845] |
So, 27 November 2005 21:25 |
|
Myself, I think my English is pretty good. Others think so too, since
I am asked to make translations for the webpage of a friend of mine in
both English and Dutch (from horrible Spenglish). This is much fun,
but it confronts me with the fact that I am not as fluent as I'd like
to think. My question is: when do I use an apostrophe? It is
"Tolkien's books", right? Is it "Tolkien's books pages"? And "Lewis'
books pages"? I feel really stupid. But I would be even more stupid
not to ask so please enlighten this linguistic-challenged person.
Thanks.
T'
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #174848 ] |
So, 27 November 2005 21:57 |
|
Taemon <Taemon [at] zonnet.nl> wrote:
> Myself, I think my English is pretty good.
It is indeed very good. I think the measure that shows how good your
English is, is the ability to make jokes. With Dutch humour of course!
:-)
> Others think so too, since
> I am asked to make translations for the webpage of a friend of mine in
> both English and Dutch (from horrible Spenglish). This is much fun,
> but it confronts me with the fact that I am not as fluent as I'd like
> to think. My question is: when do I use an apostrophe?
In general as a contraction, or to signify possession (as in your
example).
eg. Don't = Do not (the apostrophe replaces the 'o').
> It is "Tolkien's books", right?
Yes.
> Is it "Tolkien's books pages"?
"Tolkien's books' pages."
Though you might get people arguing over whether the pages belong to the
books or to Tolkien, or to both. The books are definitely Tolkien's. In
a way, it is often easier, and sounds better, to rephrase the sentence:
"The pages OF Tolkien's books" is how I would put it.
And note that "Tolkien's books" is often shorthand for saying "the books
written by Tolkien". Though if you mean specifically books that he
owned, then you would mean "the books owned by Tolkien". The context
should make clear which you mean.
> And "Lewis' books pages"?
Again, with a plural possessive apostrophe, put the apostrophe after the
's', making it "Lewis' books' pages".
I also think that "Lewis's books" is the proper way to use the
possessive apostrophe here. I believe there is also a pronunciation
argument where an apostrophe after an 's', rather than an apostrophe AND
and 's' after an 's' is favoured. But people do argue over this, so
don't worry too much about it.
What I've never been clear on is how to signify possession by a group of
people. For example, is it:
"Lewis and Tolkien's books"
OR
"Lewis's and Tolkien's books"
OR (where two people jointly have something)
"Smith and Brown's book"
(where the book was written by Smith and Brown together).
I think the golden rule is, if there is any chance of confusion, REWRITE
the sentence so it is clearer, and the correct meaning is transmitted.
> I feel really stupid. But I would be even more stupid not to ask so
> please enlighten this linguistic-challenged person. Thanks.
How does it work in other languages? Do they tie themselves in knots
over a simple apostrophe and where to put it? :-)
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #174849 ] |
So, 27 November 2005 22:25 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> Taemon <Taemon [at] zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> Myself, I think my English is pretty good.
> It is indeed very good. I think the measure that shows how good your
> English is, is the ability to make jokes. With Dutch humour of
> course!
> :-)
<blush> <bows> I actually always thought you are German but I Googled
you and it turns out you're not. I saw a picture, too. Aw, you're cute
;-)
>> Others think so too, since
>> I am asked to make translations for the webpage of a friend of mine
>> in both English and Dutch (from horrible Spenglish). This is much
>> fun, but it confronts me with the fact that I am not as fluent as
>> I'd like to think. My question is: when do I use an apostrophe?
> In general as a contraction, or to signify possession (as in your
> example).
Yes, it's the possession case I've trouble with. If I have the
contraction apostrophe wrong it's because I'm being hasty, not because
I don't understand the rule.
>> It is "Tolkien's books", right?
> Yes.
>> Is it "Tolkien's books pages"?
> "Tolkien's books' pages."
Dang.
> Though you might get people arguing over whether the pages belong to
> the books or to Tolkien, or to both. The books are definitely
> Tolkien's. In a way, it is often easier, and sounds better, to
> rephrase the sentence: "The pages OF Tolkien's books" is how I would
> put it.
Well, I would never use "Tolkien's books' pages" apart from this
example. But I need to know the rules. The case in point is about
people who might of might not want to meet each other on the basis of
pictures on the "model's page" ("models page"?). (No, it is not a
dating site.) So we have the company and the page. Is it "Company's
model's page"? I can easily rewrite it of course, but I want to know.
>> And "Lewis' books pages"?
> Again, with a plural possessive apostrophe, put the apostrophe after
> the 's', making it "Lewis' books' pages".
> I also think that "Lewis's books" is the proper way to use the
> possessive apostrophe here. I believe there is also a pronunciation
> argument where an apostrophe after an 's', rather than an apostrophe
> AND and 's' after an 's' is favoured. But people do argue over this,
> so don't worry too much about it.
Aw! I want to KNOW! If the company is called, er, Chris, would it be
"Chris's model's page"?
> What I've never been clear on is how to signify possession by a
> group
> of people. For example, is it:
> "Lewis and Tolkien's books"
> OR
> "Lewis's and Tolkien's books"
> OR (where two people jointly have something)
> "Smith and Brown's book"
> (where the book was written by Smith and Brown together).
Yes, there is no elegant way for this in Dutch neither. I would go for
option two and three for both English and Dutch.
> I think the golden rule is, if there is any chance of confusion,
> REWRITE the sentence so it is clearer, and the correct meaning is
> transmitted.
Yes, but it's a translation and I have to use phrases the writer would
use. And the writer is one sweet but confused human being :-) Funny
business, translating. You have to feel as the writer feels. Not
always pleasant, but surely fun.
>> I feel really stupid. But I would be even more stupid not to ask so
>> please enlighten this linguistic-challenged person. Thanks.
> How does it work in other languages? Do they tie themselves in knots
> over a simple apostrophe and where to put it? :-)
Well, not in Dutch. Then again, my Dutch is far better than my English
:-) I hardly have those problems. Of course, the spelling rules have
changed thrice since I learned to spell but I tend to ignore that.
Thanks, Christopher. You're very helpful.
T.
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #174853 ] |
Mo, 28 November 2005 00:15 |
|
Taemon wrote:
>? It is
>"Tolkien's books", right?
>
Yep.
>Is it "Tolkien's books pages"?
>
Nope: it's "Tolkien's book's pages." (referring to some/certain pages
within Tolken's corpus.) Even though it looks and sounds awkward (it is)
there are times when a double posessive is correct.
>And "Lewis'
>books pages"?
>
Same as above.
>I feel really stupid.
>
The only stupid question is the one unasked.
For my money, the gormiest constructrion along these lines is "I'm a fan
of his..." (totally correct) meaning "I enjoy his work." This is what I
choose to call the double-dative which in English is totally over the
top; English has moved pretty far from declensions and they ring very
academic & very artificial in/on the ear. It's soooo much simpler to
say, "I enjoy his work."
Now as to the windy and fallacious gabberings on the so-called double
negative, i.e., "He ain't got no brains." Any conscious listener would
divine the speaker's intent immediately and have no need for
pseudo-intellectual discourse.
Pete H
--
The universe is largely unexplored.
NPR News item
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #174854 ] |
Mo, 28 November 2005 00:21 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>I also think that "Lewis's books" is the proper way to use the
>possessive apostrophe here. I believe there is also a pronunciation
>argument where an apostrophe after an 's', rather than an apostrophe AND
>and 's' after an 's' is favoured. But people do argue over this, so
>don't worry too much about it.
>
Christopher is correct her, but generally speaking, the phrase would be
spoken as though fully written and not contracted, thus: "Lewisiz
books." Again, this harks to the time when English was more inflected
than today and much modern pronunciaton reflects that. It's quite common
for the spoken form to reinsert phonemes in order to clarify ownership,
authorship, relationship, etc.
Pete H
--
The universe is largely unexplored.
NPR News item
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177008 ] |
Mo, 28 November 2005 16:09 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> Taemon <Taemon [at] zonnet.nl> wrote:
>> My question is: when do I use an apostrophe?
>
> In general as a contraction, or to signify possession (as in your
> example).
But never the possessive of a pronoun ("it's" is a contraction of "it is"
not something that belongs to "it").
>
>
>> Is it "Tolkien's books pages"?
>
> "Tolkien's books' pages."
Debatable. Any time you're tempted to put two apostrophe's in a phrase,
think hard (cf your comment about rewriting, later). They're pages
"about" Tolkien's books, not pages belonging to the books.
> "The pages OF Tolkien's books" is how I would put it.
The pages FOR Tolkien's books :-)
> I also think that "Lewis's books" is the proper way to use the
> possessive apostrophe here. I believe there is also a pronunciation
> argument where an apostrophe after an 's', rather than an apostrophe AND
> and 's' after an 's' is favoured. But people do argue over this, so
> don't worry too much about it.
The use of "Lewis'" has pretty much fallen out of favor.
> "Lewis's and Tolkien's books"
Definitely.
>
> "Smith and Brown's book"
>
> (where the book was written by Smith and Brown together).
Ouch! But yes.
> I think the golden rule is, if there is any chance of confusion, REWRITE
> the sentence so it is clearer, and the correct meaning is transmitted.
LOL. Yes.
> How does it work in other languages? Do they tie themselves in knots
> over a simple apostrophe and where to put it? :-)
I always feel they must be simpler, but maybe I just like to think I grew up
speaking the world's most difficult language :-)
Can you imagine the French putting up with an apostrophe to permit dropping
letters? (OK, they do have a circumflex to indicate a dropped 's', but
that's as far as they go).
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177009 ] |
Mo, 28 November 2005 16:15 |
|
Noh Phu Ling wrote:
> Taemon wrote:
>
>>? It is
>>"Tolkien's books", right?
>>
> Yep.
>
>>Is it "Tolkien's books pages"?
>>
> Nope: it's "Tolkien's book's pages." (referring to some/certain pages
> within Tolken's corpus.) Even though it looks and sounds awkward (it is)
> there are times when a double posessive is correct.
I think you've just proved the point that if it's awkward, you should
rewrite it. I simply assumed that the "pages" were web pages - and
therefore not part of the books at all.
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177010 ] |
Mo, 28 November 2005 16:16 |
|
Taemon wrote:
> Aw! I want to KNOW! If the company is called, er, Chris, would it be
> "Chris's model's page"?
Well, to avoid the issue, we'd probably use "Chris's model page". You
wouldn't have to indicate either possession or plurality for the model or
models.
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177012 ] |
Mo, 28 November 2005 18:20 |
|
> Can you imagine the French putting up with an apostrophe to permit dropping
> letters? (OK, they do have a circumflex to indicate a dropped 's', but
> that's as far as they go).
Surely the French use the apostrophe to show the dropping of a vowel in,
for example, s'appeller and many other examples.
Norman
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177013 ] |
Mo, 28 November 2005 20:03 |
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
> Taemon wrote:
>> Aw! I want to KNOW! If the company is called, er, Chris, would it
>> be
>> "Chris's model's page"?
> Well, to avoid the issue, we'd probably use "Chris's model page".
> You
> wouldn't have to indicate either possession or plurality for the
> model or models.
I thought about that but I think it's awkward. It isn't a model page,
it's a page (a webpage this time ;-) ) with pictures of people on it.
Models. What about "models page at Chris.com"?
T.
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177014 ] |
Mo, 28 November 2005 19:41 |
|
Norman Silverstone wrote:
>
>> Can you imagine the French putting up with an apostrophe to permit
>> dropping
>> letters? (OK, they do have a circumflex to indicate a dropped 's', but
>> that's as far as they go).
>
> Surely the French use the apostrophe to show the dropping of a vowel in,
> for example, s'appeller and many other examples.
Ah, you're right. So they do. Never mind...
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177016 ] |
Mo, 28 November 2005 21:03 |
|
Taemon wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>> Taemon wrote:
>>> Aw! I want to KNOW! If the company is called, er, Chris, would it
>>> be
>>> "Chris's model's page"?
>> Well, to avoid the issue, we'd probably use "Chris's model page".
>> You
>> wouldn't have to indicate either possession or plurality for the
>> model or models.
>
> I thought about that but I think it's awkward. It isn't a model page,
> it's a page (a webpage this time ;-) ) with pictures of people on it.
> Models. What about "models page at Chris.com"?
That would work to, but really a page full of models, whether fashion
models, model trains, or mathematical models, would probably be "Chris's
Model page" on most websites.
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177018 ] |
Mo, 28 November 2005 23:18 |
|
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:03:42 -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:
> Taemon wrote:
>
>> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>>> Taemon wrote:
>>>> Aw! I want to KNOW! If the company is called, er, Chris, would it
>>>> be
>>>> "Chris's model's page"?
>>> Well, to avoid the issue, we'd probably use "Chris's model page".
>>> You
>>> wouldn't have to indicate either possession or plurality for the
>>> model or models.
>>
>> I thought about that but I think it's awkward. It isn't a model page,
>> it's a page (a webpage this time ;-) ) with pictures of people on it.
>> Models. What about "models page at Chris.com"?
>
> That would work to, but really a page full of models, whether fashion
> models, model trains, or mathematical models, would probably be "Chris's
> Model page" on most websites.
Lots of pedantic waffle. Surely it should be 'That would work too' and not
'to'. And that's my bit of waffle.
Norman
|
|
|
| Scandlish linguistic thread [message #177020 ] |
Di, 29 November 2005 00:44 |
|
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:25pif.16798$Lw5.1984 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> How does it work in other languages? Do they tie themselves in knots
> over a simple apostrophe and where to put it? :-)
Ah, you never should have asked. Now you've gone and spawned a
sub-thread on Scand linguistics. But, you wanted it, you got it.
Scand doesn't use apostrophes with genitives, except where they have
crept in as an Anglicism, and such usage grate's as much as the apostrophe a
few words earlier in this sentence. We do have the option to form a
genitive with an s appended, but there are, as in English, other ways to do
so. And since our plurals are not marked with an s, we don't have that
particular warrant for ambiguity.
In Weejun, "Peter's car" may be translated as "Peters bil". Or as "Peter
sin bil" ("Peter his [1] car"; I've seen this usage once in English, where a
map location in "Prince Caspian" seems to be marked "Miraz his castle"). A
third option is "Bilen til Peter" ("The car to Peter").
[1] Actually "sin" is the genitive of the reflexive pronoun, which has
fallen out of use in English. I saw a Lakota name, whose English
translation warranted an explanation. It was "Man Afraid Of His Horse".
The explanation induced me to consider the appropriate translation into
Weejun to be "Mann Redd For Hesten Hans" (not the reflexive), while without
the explanation it might as well have been "Mann Redd For Hesten Sin" ("Man
Afraid Of His Own Horse"). The explanation was that he was such a great
warrior that his enemies were afraid of his horse even when he was not
sitting on it. Apparently Lakota does have reflexives, if it has a
structure that lets us identify such a word-class.
Hrafn.
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177021 ] |
Di, 29 November 2005 00:51 |
|
"Noh Phu Ling" <pmhilton [at] mfx.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:438A3DF4.8020308 [at] mfx.net...
> Now as to the windy and fallacious gabberings on the so-called double
> negative, i.e., "He ain't got no brains." Any conscious listener would
> divine the speaker's intent immediately and have no need for
> pseudo-intellectual discourse.
I should think the sentence would change meaning drastically if you moved
the stress one word up. "He ain't got no BRAINS" would be synonymous to "He
hasn't got brains", while "He ain't got NO brains" would rather be
synonymous to "He does have SOME brains".
Rabe.
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177022 ] |
Di, 29 November 2005 01:31 |
|
Taemon wrote:
> My question is: when do I use an apostrophe? It is
> "Tolkien's books", right? Is it "Tolkien's books pages"? And "Lewis'
> books pages"? I feel really stupid. But I would be even more stupid
> not to ask so please enlighten this linguistic-challenged person.
> Thanks.
Once you have decided you need a possessive apostrophe, there is a very
simple way to work out where to put it.
1. Take the phrase "Tolkiens books"
2. Reverse it and insert the word "of" --> "books of Tolkien".
3. Identify the final letter in the new phrase (in this case, "n").
4. Go back to the original phrase and put the possessive apostrophe after
that letter ("n") --> Tolkien's books".
This has never let me down. Try it with "hobbits faces" and "childrens
parties" and you'll see how useful it is! No more worrying about whether
nouns are singular-or-plural-or-plural-but-not-ending-in-an-"s" etc.
As for "Lewis' books" - horrid-sounding, but correct. It's much nicer as
"Lewis's books" which is also correct. When deciding whether to add the
"s", be guided by what you think sounds better.
Next lesson ... its/it's. ;)
--
Speaking Clock
|
|
|
| Re: Scandlish linguistic thread [message #177026 ] |
Di, 29 November 2005 09:03 |
|
"Raven" <jonlennart.beck.god [at] damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> wrote in
news:D7Nif.625$v02.475 [at] news.get2net.dk:
> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spamgard [at] blueyonder.co.uk> skrev i en
> meddelelse news:25pif.16798$Lw5.1984 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>> How does it work in other languages? Do they tie themselves in knots
>> over a simple apostrophe and where to put it? :-)
>
> Ah, you never should have asked. Now you've gone and spawned a
> sub-thread on Scand linguistics. But, you wanted it, you got it.
Tolkienboksidor (Swedish)
--
Mästerkatten
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177028 ] |
Di, 29 November 2005 14:15 |
|
Norman Silverstone wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:03:42 -0400, Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>> Taemon wrote:
>>
>>> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Taemon wrote:
>>>>> Aw! I want to KNOW! If the company is called, er, Chris, would it
>>>>> be
>>>>> "Chris's model's page"?
>>>> Well, to avoid the issue, we'd probably use "Chris's model page".
>>>> You
>>>> wouldn't have to indicate either possession or plurality for the
>>>> model or models.
>>>
>>> I thought about that but I think it's awkward. It isn't a model page,
>>> it's a page (a webpage this time ;-) ) with pictures of people on it.
>>> Models. What about "models page at Chris.com"?
>>
>> That would work to, but really a page full of models, whether fashion
>> models, model trains, or mathematical models, would probably be "Chris's
>> Model page" on most websites.
>
> Lots of pedantic waffle. Surely it should be 'That would work too' and not
> 'to'. And that's my bit of waffle.
??? One little slip of the finger and you have to rant about "pedantic
waffle"? I'm trying to say that Taemon's worrying about nothing.
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177032 ] |
Di, 29 November 2005 20:26 |
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
>: The use of "Lewis'" has pretty much fallen out of favor.
>:
>: > "Lewis's and Tolkien's books"
>:
>: Definitely.
Now I really hate to argue with you guys, (as I hate Toulouse).
But way back in school I was taught, in essence, that the book of Tolkien
would be Tolkien's book, but the book of Lewis would be Lewis' book.
Is the "falling out of favour" referring to /noone cares for the [possesions
of people whose names end on s being ...s']/ anymore' or is it indeed dead
by "law"?
--
____________________
Peter Andersen
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177034 ] |
Di, 29 November 2005 20:34 |
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
> That would work to, but really a page full of models, whether
> fashion
> models, model trains, or mathematical models, would probably be
> "Chris's Model page" on most websites.
I bow for the voice of the majority and my own linguistic savy.
"Chris' model page" it is. Thanks everyone!
T.
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177035 ] |
Di, 29 November 2005 20:36 |
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
> Norman Silverstone wrote:
>> Lots of pedantic waffle. Surely it should be 'That would work too'
>> and not 'to'. And that's my bit of waffle.
> ??? One little slip of the finger and you have to rant about
> "pedantic waffle"? I'm trying to say that Taemon's worrying about
> nothing.
I think Norman is joking. As for me, I'll have you know I'm really
relieved to have my question answered :-)
T.
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177036 ] |
Di, 29 November 2005 20:38 |
|
Speaking Clock wrote:
> Taemon wrote:
>> My question is: when do I use an apostrophe?
> Once you have decided you need a possessive apostrophe, there is a
> very simple way to work out where to put it.
I don't always know if I need an apostrophe, is my problem. But your
trick is a good one, thanks.
> Next lesson ... its/it's. ;)
Now THAT one I always thought simple :-) I sometimes misspell when
I'm careless, but it's really easy to understand.
T.
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177037 ] |
Di, 29 November 2005 20:40 |
|
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:26:11 +0100, Peter Andersen wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>>: The use of "Lewis'" has pretty much fallen out of favor.
>>:
>>: > "Lewis's and Tolkien's books"
>>:
>>: Definitely.
>
> Now I really hate to argue with you guys, (as I hate Toulouse).
> But way back in school I was taught, in essence, that the book of Tolkien
> would be Tolkien's book, but the book of Lewis would be Lewis' book.
>
> Is the "falling out of favour" referring to /noone cares for the [possesions
> of people whose names end on s being ...s']/ anymore' or is it indeed dead
> by "law"?
Could it be that the apostrophe after the 's' applies when dealing with
the plural possessive form and that the apostrophe before the 's' is for
the singular form. For example if something belongs to Lewis then it is
Lewis's but if there is a group of people all called Lewis and it belongs
to the group then it is Lewis'.
Norman
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177038 ] |
Di, 29 November 2005 20:54 |
|
Norman Silverstone <norman [at] littletank.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:26:11 +0100, Peter Andersen wrote:
>
>> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>>>> The use of "Lewis'" has pretty much fallen out of favor.
>>>>
>>>>> "Lewis's and Tolkien's books"
>>>>
>>>> Definitely.
>>
>> Now I really hate to argue with you guys, (as I hate Toulouse).
>> But way back in school I was taught, in essence, that the book of
>> Tolkien would be Tolkien's book, but the book of Lewis would be
>> Lewis' book.
>>
>> Is the "falling out of favour" referring to /noone cares for the
>> [possesions of people whose names end on s being ...s']/ anymore' or
>> is it indeed dead by "law"?
>
> Could it be that the apostrophe after the 's' applies when dealing
> with the plural possessive form and that the apostrophe before the
> 's' is for the singular form. For example if something belongs to
> Lewis then it is Lewis's but if there is a group of people all called
> Lewis and it belongs to the group then it is Lewis'.
I believe so. That argument was used in the furore around the absence
(or maybe the wrong placement) of the apostrophe in the title of the
film "Bridget Jones Diary".
Though the plural of both Jones and Lewis might be Joneses and Lewises,
respectively.
Here a rather silly example:
"The softnesses' softness".
A better example might be:
"The mistresses' lovers were most upset when they went on strike."
Kind of sets your teeth on edge. And I can't remember whether in this
case "mistresses's" is allowed, because there is no possibility for
confusing it with the singular form. Like saying "the children's toys".
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177039 ] |
Di, 29 November 2005 21:21 |
|
>>> Lots of pedantic waffle. Surely it should be 'That would work too'
>>> and not 'to'. And that's my bit of waffle.
>> ??? One little slip of the finger and you have to rant about
>> "pedantic waffle"? I'm trying to say that Taemon's worrying about
>> nothing.
>
> I think Norman is joking. As for me, I'll have you know I'm really
> relieved to have my question answered :-)
>
> T.
Ah! a breath of fresh air and a recognition of humour. Thanks.
Norman
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177041 ] |
Di, 29 November 2005 22:03 |
|
Taemon schreef:
(snip)
> My question is: when do I use an apostrophe? It is
> "Tolkien's books", right? Is it "Tolkien's books pages"? And "Lewis'
> books pages"? I feel really stupid. But I would be even more stupid
> not to ask so please enlighten this linguistic-challenged person.
> Thanks.
>
T., maybe your question already has been answered, to be sure I'd have
to read the whole thread. Anyway, these are a Dutch business-firm's
rules for the apostrophe in English writing:
'Unlike Dutch, English uses an apostrophe for possessives, eg:
The Kenyan representative's argument was very strong. (One
representative)
The Kenyan representatives' argument was very strong. (Two
representatives)
Prince Charles' speech, James' proposal, Jesus' disciple, St Thomas'
Hospital
But not for plurals, eg: stereos, skis, photos
This is also true for plural abbreviations, eg:
NGOs
MPs
And decades, eg:
the 1980s
However, an apostrophe should be used for unusual plurals of letters,
eg:
a's and b's, x's and y's'
Succes,
H.
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177044 ] |
Di, 29 November 2005 22:28 |
|
Norman Silverstone wrote:
>: Could it be that the apostrophe after the 's' applies when dealing
>: with the plural possessive form and that the apostrophe before the
>: 's' is for the singular form. For example if something belongs to
>: Lewis then it is Lewis's but if there is a group of people all
>: called Lewis and it belongs to the group then it is Lewis'.
Yes, usually so, but not in the case of Lewis' books, I'd never spell it
Lewis's books. I can't recall ever seeing an "s's" in a written published
work
--
____________________
Peter Andersen
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177052 ] |
Mi, 30 November 2005 03:37 |
|
Raven wrote:
>
> I should think the sentence would change meaning drastically if you moved
>the stress one word up. "He ain't got no BRAINS" would be synonymous to "He
>hasn't got brains", while "He ain't got NO brains" would rather be
>synonymous to "He does have SOME brains".
>
>
>
In common American usage, both statements come out "He's dumb." The
first, "no BRAINS" implies lacking in common sense, practicality or
foresight and might possibly be only a temporary state. Opposite to what
you had anticipated, the second, "NO brains" actually intensifies the
speaker's intended meaning that the person is possibly beyond
stupid/careless/negligent/impractical.
Pete H
--
The universe is largely unexplored.
NPR News item
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177055 ] |
Mi, 30 November 2005 12:34 |
|
Henriette wrote:
> Taemon schreef:
>> My question is: when do I use an apostrophe?
> T., maybe your question already has been answered, to be sure I'd
> have
> to read the whole thread. Anyway, these are a Dutch business-firm's
> rules for the apostrophe in English writing:
<snip>
I found that Speaking Clock's trick really worked for me. This is the
trick:
==============================
1. Take the phrase "Tolkiens books"
2. Reverse it and insert the word "of" --> "books of Tolkien".
3. Identify the final letter in the new phrase (in this case, "n").
4. Go back to the original phrase and put the possessive apostrophe
after
that letter ("n") --> Tolkien's books".
==============================
This will keep me from accidentally putting apostrophes were they
don't belong, as in plurals. Thine addition is also very welcome, my
lady. My gravest thanks <bows>.
T.
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177058 ] |
Mi, 30 November 2005 14:35 |
|
Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
> Norman Silverstone <norman [at] littletank.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 20:26:11 +0100, Peter Andersen wrote:
>>
>>> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The use of "Lewis'" has pretty much fallen out of favor.
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lewis's and Tolkien's books"
>>>>>
>>>>> Definitely.
>>>
>>> Now I really hate to argue with you guys, (as I hate Toulouse).
>>> But way back in school I was taught, in essence, that the book of
>>> Tolkien would be Tolkien's book, but the book of Lewis would be
>>> Lewis' book.
>>>
>>> Is the "falling out of favour" referring to /noone cares for the
>>> [possesions of people whose names end on s being ...s']/ anymore' or
>>> is it indeed dead by "law"?
It's not dead by law, it's simply considered normal practice to use
"Lewis's". Note, that though I said "definitely" (at least I think that
was me you quoted - the quoting levels don't work!) to Christopher's use of
"Lewis's" it's not what _I_ would use. I always say "Lewis'" or "James'" -
which is the way I was taught to (sic - I think I can get away without the
second 'o' there Norman - sorry for not recognizing the joke).
>> Could it be that the apostrophe after the 's' applies when dealing
>> with the plural possessive form and that the apostrophe before the
>> 's' is for the singular form. For example if something belongs to
>> Lewis then it is Lewis's but if there is a group of people all called
>> Lewis and it belongs to the group then it is Lewis'.
>
> I believe so. That argument was used in the furore around the absence
> (or maybe the wrong placement) of the apostrophe in the title of the
> film "Bridget Jones Diary".
>
> Though the plural of both Jones and Lewis might be Joneses and Lewises,
> respectively.
It should be, as in "keeping up with the Joneses". Leaving out an
apostrophe on "Bridget Jones Diary" is simply inexcusable - it implies the
author was incapable of figuring out _where_ the apostrophe goes so just
gave up. I'm guessing though that the actual argument was over the number
of s's. I just checked the online listings for my local library, and it's
listed as both "Bridget Jones' Diary" (only the audio book), "Bridget
Jones's Diary" (the novel and video). The soundtrack CD is listed as
"Bridget Jone's Diary" but that had to be a typo!
Interestingly, the sequel "Bridget Jones: the edge of reason" is "Bridget
Jones l'âge de raison" in French!. Somebody else who was humor impaired, I
think...
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #177073 ] |
Mi, 30 November 2005 23:54 |
|
"Noh Phu Ling" <pmhilton [at] mfx.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:438D1081.7000209 [at] mfx.net...
> Raven wrote:
> > I should think the sentence would change meaning drastically if you
> >moved the stress one word up. "He ain't got no BRAINS" would be
> >synonymous to "He hasn't got brains", while "He ain't got NO brains"
> >would rather be synonymous to "He does have SOME brains".
> In common American usage, both statements come out "He's dumb." The
> first, "no BRAINS" implies lacking in common sense, practicality or
> foresight and might possibly be only a temporary state. Opposite to what
> you had anticipated, the second, "NO brains" actually intensifies the
> speaker's intended meaning that the person is possibly beyond
> stupid/careless/negligent/impractical.
To my ears, that latter meaning would be if both the last two words were
stressed: "He ain't got NO BRAINS!"
Corbeau.
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #179369 ] |
Fr, 02 Dezember 2005 20:02 |
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
>: It should be, as in "keeping up with the Joneses". Leaving out an
>: apostrophe on "Bridget Jones Diary" is simply inexcusable - it
>: implies the author was incapable of figuring out _where_ the
>: apostrophe goes so just gave up. I'm guessing though that the
>: actual argument was over the number of s's. I just checked the
>: online listings for my local library, and it's listed as both
>: "Bridget Jones' Diary" (only the audio book), "Bridget Jones's
>: Diary" (the novel and video). The soundtrack CD is listed as
>: "Bridget Jone's Diary" but that had to be a typo!
I'm all up there with the [ses'], but I still think that the [s's] is dead
wrong.
I just don't buy'em. In my recollection (as far as I remember being taught,
although english is not my native language): The "...s's" endings is a
mishab. It's just plain wrong - (wrong, I tell yee).
I may, of course , be wrong. But I somehow feel rather strongly about this,
(as you should've guessed by now).
Besides... I still can't remember ever coming across any [s's, fx. Jones's]
in a _published work_.
--
____________________
Peter Andersen
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #179371 ] |
Sa, 03 Dezember 2005 03:51 |
|
Peter Andersen wrote:
>Besides... I still can't remember ever coming across any [s's, fx. Jones's]
>in a _published work_.
>
>
>
>
This usage will sometimes appear in a commercial context, frequently in
conversation, almost never in a formal context. It is, however, one of
those nifty gray areas where being correct or not corect is subject to
some degree of leeway; while some grammarians will consider it "correct
but to be avoided if possible," others will say simply "incorrect."
As the man says, your mileage may vary.
Pete H
--
The universe is largely unexplored.
NPR News item
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #179373 ] |
Sa, 03 Dezember 2005 08:10 |
|
Noh Phu Ling wrote:
It is, however,
>: one of those nifty gray areas where being correct or not corect is
>: subject to some degree of leeway; while some grammarians will
>: consider it "correct but to be avoided if possible," others will say
>: simply "incorrect."
That sounds about right.
Grammar is one of those crazy topics, where if enough people are wrong, they
are suddenly right. (and I am one of those sticklers, who just cannot seem
to let go: my loss).
The true test to ['] placement is, of course, does it convey or confuse the
intended message. I am not sure if it were intentional or not, but the
"being correct or not corect" is a beautiful example of not confusing
anything; the message is clear as morning dew.
--
____________________
Peter Andersen
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #179381 ] |
Sa, 03 Dezember 2005 13:58 |
|
Peter Andersen wrote:
>
>
> the message is clear as morning dew.
>
Would that native speakers of English understood the nuances of
communication and their own language as well as some like yourself who
have come to it as a second language.
Pete H
--
The universe is largely unexplored.
NPR News item
|
|
|
| Re: English linguistic thread [message #179388 ] |
Fr, 02 Dezember 2005 21:14 |
|
Peter Andersen wrote:
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>: It should be, as in "keeping up with the Joneses". Leaving out an
>>: apostrophe on "Bridget Jones Diary" is simply inexcusable - it
>>: implies the author was incapable of figuring out _where_ the
>>: apostrophe goes so just gave up. I'm guessing though that the
>>: actual argument was over the number of s's. I just checked the
>>: online listings for my local library, and it's listed as both
>>: "Bridget Jones' Diary" (only the audio book), "Bridget Jones's
>>: Diary" (the novel and video). The soundtrack CD is listed as
>>: "Bridget Jone's Diary" but that had to be a typo!
>
> I'm all up there with the [ses'], but I still think that the [s's] is dead
> wrong.
> I just don't buy'em. In my recollection (as far as I remember being
> taught, although english is not my native language): The "...s's" endings
> is a mishab. It's just plain wrong - (wrong, I tell yee).
> I may, of course , be wrong. But I somehow feel rather strongly about
> this, (as you should've guessed by now).
> Besides... I still can't remember ever coming across any [s's, fx.
> Jones's] in a _published work_.
What? "Bridget Jones's Diary" isn't a published work? Really, it's
considered perfectly proper even by English English teachers to use
"Jones's". I'm not sure it was ever wrong, though I was taught the same
way you were.
--
derek
|
|
|
| Re: Scandlish linguistic thread [message #179396 ] |
So, 04 Dezember 2005 19:28 |
|
Raven wrote:
> Scand doesn't use apostrophes with genitives, except where they have crept
> in as an Anglicism
Unless, of course, the word ends in an s, z or x ("Tarjei Vesaas'
debutantpris").
> In Weejun, "Peter's car" may be translated as "Peters bil". Or as "Peter
> sin bil" ("Peter his [1] car"; I've seen this usage once in English, wher=
e a
> map location in "Prince Caspian" seems to be marked "Miraz his castle"). =
A
> third option is "Bilen til Peter" ("The car to Peter").
A fourth option is "Bilen hans Peter", in some dialects at least. And
a fifth is "Bilen =E5t Peter", particularly if the car in question was
hungry.
--
Arvind
|
|
|
| Re: Scandlish linguistic thread [message #179397 ] |
So, 04 Dezember 2005 19:49 |
|
"TT Arvind" <ttarvind [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1133720884.456870.128840 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Raven wrote:
>> Scand doesn't use apostrophes with genitives, except where they have
>> crept in as an Anglicism
>
> Unless, of course, the word ends in an s, z or x ("Tarjei Vesaas'
> debutantpris").
In Swedish I think the general recommendation is not to use the apostrophe
even in such cases, unless it's needed to avoid misunderstanding.
--
Mästerkatten
|
|
|
| Re: Scandlish linguistic thread [message #179400 ] |
Mo, 05 Dezember 2005 01:28 |
|
"TT Arvind" <ttarvind [at] hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1133720884.456870.128840 [at] g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Raven wrote:
> > Scand doesn't use apostrophes with genitives, except where they have
> > crept in as an Anglicism
> Unless, of course, the word ends in an s, z or x ("Tarjei Vesaas'
> debutantpris").
True enough. Though I would pronounce that as "Tarjei Vesaas sin
debutantpris", to make the genitive clear.
> A fourth option is "Bilen hans Peter", in some dialects at least. And
> a fifth is "Bilen åt Peter", particularly if the car in question was
> hungry.
Sure enough. Not in my dialect though. Of course, in pronunciation
there is no difference between "bilen hans Peter" and "bilen Hans Peter".
BTW, it cheers my heart to see the pun-master so proficient in my
language that you now make quite exquisite puns in it.
Annankákai.
|
|
|
| Re: Scandlish linguistic thread [message #179403 ] |
Mo, 05 Dezember 2005 13:00 |
|
TT Arvind <ttarvind [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
Where have you learnt swedish anyway? I mean there doesn't seem to any
end to this. I can live with Tamil, Hindi, Urdu and English, but Swedish
is just too much:)
In the first place that language has caused me so much
pain first in school and then again in the university. It's compulsory
here and I just am not very good at it.
Next you will tell us that you speak fluent French also.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Mai 24 13:12:24 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,09662 Sekunden |
