Glenn wrote:
>So, when *do* we use an apostrophe to indicate possession? ;-)
>
>Q: Is this reply being typed on.....
> a) Glenns computer
> b) Glenn's computer
> c) Glenns' computer
>
>A: ???
No, b). The apostrophe _is_ generally used to indicate possession,
though _never_ for "its", "ours", "yours" and "theirs".
>Q: If the answer is a).... How would we differentiate between the
> possessive "Glenns" and the plural "Glenns".
> "This reply is being typed on Glenns computer".
> "We have three Glenns on this list".
This is a non-problem.
>Q: If the answer is b).... How would we differentiate between the
> possessive "Glenn's" and the contraction of "Glenn is" ?
> "This reply is being typed on Glenn's computer".
> "Glenn's asking these questions".
By the context. The second example _could_ be made into a case of
possession: "Glenn's asking of these questions stimulated debate".
>Q: If the answer is c).... How would we differentiate between the
> singular possessive "Glenns'" and the plural possessive of all
> three Glenns on the list?
> "This reply is being typed on Glenns' computer".
> "This message is now being sent to all three Glenns' inboxes".
This was more fun on Arachne Chat using "Wiz" as our example. <g>
Coincidentally, there's a family of Glens in my village, and it's
more realistic to use a surname, so:
The Glens are farmers.
The Glens' farm is along Glebe Lane (it belongs to several Glens).
Dave Glen's car is blue (possession by one Glen).
Dave Glen's got two children (abbreviation for "Glen has").
Dave Glen's a good bloke (abbreviation for "Glen is"; bloke = guy).
Dave Glen has two PCs, both from the 1990s (indicate your intelligence and
cultured outlook by avoiding the use of apostrophes in "PCs", "1990s" etc).
Nouns terminating with an "s" may drop the additional "s", especially
when the following noun commences with an "s":
St. James' Square instead of St. James's Square (St. is the abbreviation
for "Saint").
>IMHO, Non-English speaking members of this list should now begin to see
>how "Utterly Stupid" the English language really is.
I find cross-browser inconsistencies more of a headache!
A century and more ago, when schools had narrower curricula, language
was at the core of education. For British pupils receiving thorough
schooling this included Greek and Latin -- allowing practitioners of
the new sciences to correctly coin additions to the language. All the
rules are still there to be discovered, as formulated and laid down by
the best brains of preceding generations. Good quality newspapers
regularly comment on current changes in the language, keeping us
interested and on our toes until gripped by old-fogeyism.
Cheers,
Jake
