Grammar help (velocity, Heather, anyone?)

Submitted by jimi on Sun, 2003-02-16 13:41

Now for grammar.

1. I always thought that when people's names ended with an s (eg James) when they were in possession of something it was spelt . However my English teacher a few years ago now told me to add another s, just as you would with anyone elses name . Ever since I've been confused and need help. Please.

2. When you have a big confusing sentences full of things I don't understand (such as verbs and nouns :p ) I need to know where to pluralise it. For instance: If the man from Unit 2 is in possession of a bathrobe, do I write "The man from Unit Two's bathrobe"?

3. Is alliteration the new black?

Comments

Submitted by Vietnow on Sun, 2003-02-16 14:01.

1. both are correct. james' and james's
2. as far as i know inanimate objects cannot be in possession so you don't add an apostrophe. i think this sentence makes Unit Two the possessor since it posesses the man.
3. huh?

Submitted by noizyboy on Sun, 2003-02-16 14:09.

assonance is the new alliteration

Submitted by noizyboy on Sun, 2003-02-16 14:20.

inanimate objects can take the possessive form...eg...

"...the company’s failure was due to..."

...but a construction using of is sometimes preferable: "the failure of the company was due to".

So, "the bathrobe of the man from Unit Two."

Submitted by Vietnow on Sun, 2003-02-16 14:38.

// inanimate objects can take the possessive form...eg...

now i'm confused. there is a rule when not to use it. can you clear this up?
also...should it be my mind's sedate or my minds sedate?

Submitted by noizyboy on Sun, 2003-02-16 15:34.

I'm not sure if there's a hard and fast rule on this one (velocity?) -- my understanding is that you'd use the 'of' construction where possible, as the normal apostrophe construction gives whatever you're talking about human qualities. eg (um, a bad one)...

We're going for a smoke at the house's back
We're going for a smoke at the back of the house

Sometimes, particularly when dealing with ships, companies and countries, the apostrophe version is ok.

Submitted by Heather on Sun, 2003-02-16 15:42.

//Sometimes, particularly when dealing with ships, companies and countries, the apostrophe version is ok.

Possibly anything that has a proper noun?

Submitted by noizyboy on Sun, 2003-02-16 15:52.

Oo, yes, that'll be it. I assume then that that would include sports teams?

(Hell -- sports teams -- any apostrophes I've missed in that seemingly harmless phrase?)

"The All Blacks' ball was stolen by a dog."
Or, is it (if I'm reading velocity correctly)...
"The All Blacks's ball was stolen by a dog."

Submitted by velocity on Sun, 2003-02-16 16:01.

//...should it be my mind's sedate or my minds sedate?

This one is actually a contraction, and not a possessive. Contractions ALWAYS use an apostrophe, thus clearly indicating the difference between it's and its (one of my bigger grammar peeves).

//I'm not sure if there's a hard and fast rule on this one (velocity?)

Both constructions would be technically grammatically correct, it mainly comes down to personal opinion as to which sounds the least awkward; just like it would be technically correct to say "that which off me is pissing," it may (and rightfully so) earn you some cocked eyebrows were you to use it.

Heather's right: the apostrophized version is more typically used with proper nouns, but it wouldn't be incorrect to use it with objects. One could say, "my trouser's pocket," but it sounds much more natural to say, "the pocket of my trousers." Conversely, if one is a fiction writer and uses the literary technique of personification, then the first option might be better.

Ah, grammar. My one true love. *swoon*

Submitted by Heather on Sun, 2003-02-16 16:06.

Looks like things get a bit more complicated when you introduce plurals. I'd go with "All Blacks' ball"

This highlights problems I've recently been having with subject-verb agreement; mainly when I'm referring to a group of people as a single entity.

"Everyone in the US Government is..."
"All the senators in the US Government are..."
"The US Government is..."?

"Everyone in the All Blacks is..."
"All the All Blacks are..."
"The All Blacks are..."?

Submitted by iluvtheclean on Sun, 2003-02-16 16:12.

in my line of work, academic writing, if the word is not in the language of the writer (basically, if it aint english) the possessive is s' and no extra s is added.

like "Plotinus' view is that ...", "Athens' youth were"

otherwise open season on the ends-in-s words. but that's just my line of work ...

Submitted by Vietnow on Sun, 2003-02-16 17:50.

// Contractions ALWAYS use an apostrophe,

of course.

and for the first time i actually think it is a contraction rather than a possessive. my mind is sedate. i'd always interpreted it as posseessive. iNTEresting.

Submitted by manamana on Mon, 2003-02-17 09:21.

// "my trouser's pocket," but it sounds much more natural to say, "the pocket of my trousers."

There is nothing natural about the work trousers. heh sorry

Submitted by Heather on Mon, 2003-02-17 12:29.

I'd just say "my pocket" or "my trouser pocket". hmmm?

Submitted by velocity on Sun, 2003-02-16 14:25.

My boss actually gave me a shirt that says "Grammar Commander", how lame am I? And I wear it all the time, even lamer.

1. both are _not_ correct (sorry, Vietnow). If the possessive noun is a two-syllable word, no extra s is added (i.e., Dutchess' blue dress) If the word is one syllable, then an extra s is added (Kiss's last concert).

2. In your example, Jimi, you did it correctly. It's really as if his name is "the man from unit two", so you'd apostrophize at the end of his name, just as if you were saying Steve Jackson's bathrobe.

3. Assonance may be the new alliteration, but zeugma is the new assonance and synechdochy is slowly creeping up to be the new zeugma.

Submitted by noizyboy on Sun, 2003-02-16 14:42.

1. So, you would write "James's book is red."

2. Isn't it a bit ambiguous though? Makes it sound like the man fell out of the bathrobe that Unit Two was wearing.

3. ooo, I like those.

Submitted by Heather on Sun, 2003-02-16 14:43.

loquacity is out, erudition is in.

Submitted by noizyboy on Sun, 2003-02-16 14:43.

sorry, number 1 up there is a question, but I got all confused about where the question mark should go...

"James's book is red."?

?

Submitted by noizyboy on Sun, 2003-02-16 14:45.

Or just leave out the full stop altogether? hmmm.

Submitted by noizyboy on Sun, 2003-02-16 15:06.

Isn't it?

Just re-reading the above posts, actually thinking about abbreviations and apostrophes, and that one jumped out at me. It's a fantastic bit of odd English idiom. Is not it?

Submitted by Heather on Sun, 2003-02-16 15:16.

Ha! Good call. Actually, I was thinking the other day about my natural aversion to hanging prepositions and the fact that I don't even bat an eyelid when I write "really pissing me off". Pissing off me?

Submitted by Heather on Sun, 2003-02-16 15:17.

Ha! Good call. Actually, I was thinking the other day about my natural aversion to hanging prepositions and the fact that I don't even bat an eyelid when I write "really pissing me off". Pissing off me?

Submitted by limegreen on Sun, 2003-02-16 16:18.

It may just be a natural aversion to not end sentences with prepositions, but like a number of other random rules, it was introduced into English in the 19th Century by grammarians who were worried that English was too flexible. Latin, being a much better language in their opinion, had many more rules, so they just co-opted a whole bunch.
Apart from arguing one shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition, the argument for not splitting infinitives is another example of theses ad-on rules.

To go boldly where no man has gone before
cf. To boldly go where no man has gone before.

Bollocks to stupid grammar rules.
Can you work out why the second one works better?

Submitted by Heather on Sun, 2003-02-16 14:58.

Can we discuss semantics? My friend Xtian says that a sentence has to be a proposition in order to constitute a tautology, for example "this bachelor is unmarried". I don't think it matters; so I would refer to "the unmarried bachelor..." as a tautology, whereas my friend Xtian insists it is simply a redundancy.

Discuss.

Oh, and while I'm here, I'd just like to say I'm sick of hearing people say "which begs the question" when they actually mean "which prompts the obvious question". It annoys me.

Oh, and I read an interesting gripe about the difference between "may have" and "might have". The author said that "may have" is used to indicate you don't yet know the cause for a particular outcome - ie "upon inspecting the body, it was determined that he may have committed suicide", and "might have" is used to indicate an outcome that didn't happen, but was a possibility "he might have died if he hadn't been discovered in time". I never thought about it before, but I realised that I'd been intuitively using these phrases correctly all my life. Wow, grammar just comes natural-like.

Submitted by noizyboy on Sun, 2003-02-16 15:18.

Xtian is right on that one I think. A tautology is, by definition, a proposition. Although, oddly enough, 'tautology' is derived from the greek word for 'redundant', so, there you go.

// I'd just like to say I'm sick of hearing people say "which begs the question"

You'd have enjoyed the latest list of 'banished words' from LSSU then. eg.

"MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT"
Nominated by many, including Angela Wood of Anchorage, Alaska, for over-use since the 2000 election. Generally used instead of ‘don’t underestimate’ or ‘understand,’” says John O’Connell of San Jose, California. Are listeners really going to mistake what the questioner is saying?
“Who’s mistaken, anyway?” asks Barb Keller of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.

[ external link ]

Submitted by Heather on Sun, 2003-02-16 16:14.

//Xtian is right on that one I think.
He's always been way more grammar-geeky than me. I think he studied.

//You'd have enjoyed the latest list of 'banished words' from LSSU then

Yeah, I've been endeavouring to avoid complaining about a lot of my other pet peeves, purely because they've ended up on this and similar lists. I figure that once it's acknowledged, there's no point me harping on about it. I actually disagree with a few on the list though... oooo, renegade linguistics officer..

Submitted by limegreen on Sun, 2003-02-16 17:15.

Just to take this slightly off topic ... but I thought this might find an interesting reception here.

Do you ever find aspects of the grammar checking in MS Word where it's wrong/misleading. Like it tells you that you are doing something wrong when you are not.

Submitted by noizyboy on Sun, 2003-02-16 17:17.

That's the first bit of functionality I turn off whenever I use Word (not that I think my grammar's great).

It's all so 1984 -- Microsoft deeming what's grammatically correct.

Submitted by Heather on Sun, 2003-02-16 17:20.

Grammar and spell checking are the first things I disable when I'm using Word. Can't stand them. I also switch off autoformat and autostyles. Word's too bloody clever for its own good. I'm not interested in a software package that constantly tries (and fails) to predict what I'm doing.

Submitted by Heather on Sun, 2003-02-16 17:24.

noizyboy, that's the second time today I've tripped over you in this thread. All I can think now is "Did it really take me three minutes to write that post??"

Submitted by noizyboy on Sun, 2003-02-16 17:32.

yeah, I've been finding my thunder stolen on occasion by dallying too long on my replies.

there must be some sort of term to describe the phenomenon (and, after pondering for about a minute, I've totally failed to come up with even one).

great minds though...

Submitted by limegreen on Sun, 2003-02-16 17:50.

I definitely kill grammar checking and autoformat (and use latex where I can). However, on occasion using others computers I have been mortified at some of things I've been told to change.

Speaking of 1984. I have often wondered the same about Encarta. The key test of this will be whether Upper Hutt becomes a "summer resort town".

Submitted by velocity on Sun, 2003-02-16 17:54.

As a writer, I hate Word. The way that word tries to format a document goes so totally against standard fiction submission guidelines. It's actually brought me to tears before trying to make it do what I want it to.

Submitted by Escy on Mon, 2003-02-17 14:02.

//there must be some sort of term to describe the phenomenon!

A synonymous thought.

Submitted by Heather on Mon, 2003-02-17 14:09.

//A synonymous thought.
nice. How about Synonymous Postsentiment?

I was trying to think of something that conveys the annoyance of submitting a post and discovering someone's beaten you to it. I think "whiplash posting" sounds cool.

Submitted by Escy on Mon, 2003-02-17 14:34.

An anticlimactic submission.

Submitted by jimi on Mon, 2003-02-17 19:03.

I hate those bloody cellphones that guess what you want to write. I can't believe how shit they are!! It's like "No, I didn't want to write 'My buggy mum wall over'"....

Submitted by Heather on Mon, 2003-02-17 19:10.

//'My buggy mum wall over'
OK, hands up all those who tried this phrase on their cellphones just to see if they could come up with something meaningful.

Guilty.

Submitted by Heather on Mon, 2003-02-17 19:15.

ooo, that reminds me of Word again. There was this guy at my old work whose name was always highlighted by the spellchecker. Word kept on wanting to change his name to "Grease Beastly".

Submitted by noizyboy on Mon, 2003-02-17 19:21.

well, I for one am intrigued. Jimi, what were you trying to txt?

Submitted by noizyboy on Mon, 2003-02-17 19:29.

Good old Word Spellcheck. It doesn't even recognise 'spellcheck' as a valid word.

whiplash posting -- that's cool, and easier to spell than Synonymous Postsentiment. I think I'll run with that one.

Submitted by jimi on Mon, 2003-02-17 19:50.

Ok, ok, I admit. I was just using that as an example. What's more, I must be one of the last people on Earth who refuses to be budged and buy a cellphone.

But believe me, there has been sillier sentences than that on my friends' phones. Hey Noizy, can I get your email ad? I would like to talk about my continuing net/tech probs. Cheers.

Submitted by teina on Mon, 2003-02-17 19:52.

Word spellchecker ..."Teen herder" ...every fucking time.

Submitted by Vietnow on Mon, 2003-02-17 20:02.

// Word kept on wanting to change his name to "Grease Beastly".

easy enough to fix. right click on the word (or ctrl click on mac) and click "add". it's good for maori words. microsoft doesn't like maori words.

Submitted by noizyboy on Mon, 2003-02-17 22:41.

jimi, yep -- you can track down my email via the website on my profile

Submitted by jimi on Mon, 2003-02-17 22:56.

Don't be scared of an email address that looks like a virus.

Submitted by noizyboy on Mon, 2003-02-17 23:22.

if it can get through my plethora of firewalls, virus checkers and spam washers, I'll consider it trustworthy. ;)

Submitted by noizyboy on Mon, 2003-02-17 23:23.

// Teen herder

Now that's funny. And, if posts on other parts of this site are anything to go by, somehow apt.

Submitted by Megaccino on Sun, 2003-02-16 17:37.

We were having this conversation in chat recently...
What is the plural of Ho?
Hoes? Hos? Ho's? ok, definately not the last one. Anyone have any ideas??

Also, amazing fact of the day... Meringue is spelt "Meringue"!

Submitted by limegreen on Sun, 2003-02-16 17:57.

I think it has to be "hoes".
I did once know a rule for whether you add -es or -s to make a plural but I don't remember anymore. Plural of veto is vetoes, which confirms the -es I think.

I think kosher has to be the word that the spelling surprised me for most. But if you have no contact with Jewish culture, and learn it from context it's not that surprising. I still remember the small ephiphany I had reading Chaim Potok and putting two and two together.

Submitted by robyn on Sun, 2003-02-16 18:16.

This is an excellent question and one that I have spent many sleepless night pondering.

The -es plural in English is irregular. Words that end in o normally just have an s put on the end, e.g. albinos, casinos, flamingos, zeros.

The trouble with pluralising ho as hoes, it that confuses it with the garden tool hoe and its plural hoes.

Fo' example: "I will get the hoes to do the gardening."
Does this mean that you are going to get your two girlfriends to do the gardening, or does it mean that you will be fetching two long handled tools to assist you?

Dictionary.com gives the plural as hos, and I'm cool with that.

[ external link ]