mel wrote:
>* Hi Terri, could you allow for the odd mistake?<
Hi Mel. How odd do you think your mistakes will be? I
would enjoy the challenge.
>I will start to post in dialect, a mixture of broad lowland
Scots and Glasgow slang if you like, and that will really
confuse everyone?<
Your offer is most gracious, but I'll continue to remark
on errors in standard English, thank you very much. Mangled
Anguish is enough of a headache to decipher without
attempting to render dialects into comprehensible language.
Clarence Verge:
>I'm wrong again - but that's ok. Terri is the Grammar
Sherrif. She let me get away with spelling grammar
"grammer". I knew better in that case but just didn't see
it.<
*AHEM* "Sheriff"
OOOPS! You skated on "grammer". I missed it entirely.
Guess I need the corrective lenses I suggested you might
get. *SIGH*
Glenn commented:
> 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
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". <
A is not the correct choice. Your first example is an
improper construction. It clearly needs a possessive form.
Your second example is correct useage.
> 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". <
B is correct. The context of the possessive within the
sentence provides differentiation. To say "This reply is
being typed on Glenn is computer." would be nonsense.
Clearly, the possessive form and not the contraction is
intended here.
> 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". <
Your first example is of the plural possessive, not the
singular. "Glenn's" is the proper form for that context.
If all three Glenns owned the computer in concert, then
the correct form would be "the Glenns' computer". Again,
the correct possessive form is determined by how it is used
in the sentence.
******************
Strunk & White, in THE ELEMENTS OF STYLE, have this to say
about possessives:
* Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's.
* Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,
* Charles's friend
* Burns's poems
* the witch's malice
* This is the usage of the United States Government Printing
Office and of the Oxford University Press.
* Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in
es and is, the possessive Jesus', and such forms as for
conscience' sake, for righteousness' sake. But such forms as
Achilles' heel, Moses' laws, Isis' temple are commonly
replaced by
* the heel of Achilles
* the laws of Moses
* the temple of Isis
* The pronominal possessives hers, its, theirs, yours, and
oneself have no apostrophe.
**************************
back to Glenn:
>IMHO, NonEnglish speaking members of this list should now
begin to see how "Utterly Stupid" the English language
really is. <
Admittedly, many English constructions do seem very
arbitrary. But they've grown that way over many centuries.
We're stuck with them. You going to try starting a language
revolution?
How come you've capitalized so many words and where're
the hyphens? The use of quotation marks therein is
questionable, but not strictly incorrect.
> Go ahead Terri, Point out the mistakes in the above
sentence (and this one). <
Sure like to play with capitalization, don't you? You
need an additional comma, too.
L.D. Best wrote:
>If you can understand what I'm trying to say, that's good.
Don't pick me apart with grammatical rules I used to teach.
"I" know the rules but most certainly don't have the time to
read for grammar or spelling when it comes to posts here. <
You have the time to read and respond to postings on
this list. I wouldn't have thought scanning for
misspellings and incorrect useage before you post took a
whole lot more time. I don't understand why posting to the
list is any less worthy of attention to detail than are
other endeavors. Surely clarity of communication is
paramount?
>I'd have written a shorter response but I didn't have time.
<
That's too bad. It'd be interesting to see what you'd
write when you're not pressed. "!" perhaps?
Terri
Official Grammar Sheriff
