|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
rchristo10
Joined: 14 Jul 2009
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 4:38 am Post subject: An Interesting (?) Grammar Question for Pros |
|
|
You've probably all read the Elements of Style by E.B. White and Shrunk. But if you haven't, in it there's a part that explains that "Charles" (the Prince) is a proper noun, thus making it possessive would require more than simply adding an apostrophe (which would insinuate that we made the singular--non-proper--noun both plural and possessive), i.e. the possessive of Charles would not be Charles', but rather Charles's.
Now here's a problem that one of my co-workers asked me about and I thought you guys would know a lot better than me (as you can see from my poor writing):
First, "McDonald's" is a proper noun.*
So let's say the sentence was something like the one he showed me:
Burger King's burgers taste better than McDonald's.
Clearly, there's a comparative flaw because we need to compare burgers to burgers, not to a business--so the sentence would be grammatically wrong.
And of course we could change the sentence to:
Burger King's burgers taste better than those of McDonald's.
But, grammar also dictates that in such a case we could also put the last proper noun (descriptive, adj, or what have you) in the possessive and (if we choose) remove the object being compared if said object is understood. As in:
My hat is better than Sarah's.
Now, wouldn't that also insinuate that we could do the following as well:
Burger King's burgers taste better than McDonald's's.
Now, I know what you're thinking. And so was I, but I really don't know what to say.
I've read some places that people disagree with EOS's premises on the use of the apostrophe, but others still argue that his points remain 100%. And, I'll admit his apostrophe rule seemed to be followed to the letter for ages. But if he's still right, then wouldn't the example above qualify as a grammatically correct construction?
As you can tell, English and grammar are not my fields of expertise.
Any grammarians out there that can lend some assistance?
*I've looked it up and apparently McDonald's with an apostrophe is the official name, making it a proper noun.
Last edited by rchristo10 on Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
sml7285
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:32 am Post subject: Re: An Interesting (?) Grammar Question for Pros |
|
|
rchristo10 wrote: |
Burger King's burgers taste better than McDonald's (sic) [burgers]. |
Burgers at the end is implied... This is some basic SAT level grammar. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rchristo10
Joined: 14 Jul 2009
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:36 am Post subject: Re: An Interesting (?) Grammar Question FOR PROS |
|
|
sml7285 wrote: |
rchristo10 wrote: |
Burger King's burgers taste better than McDonald's (sic) [burgers]. |
Burgers at the end is implied... This is some basic SAT level grammar. |
Yes, but his book says the answer is wrong. And, understandably so. The implied theory doesn't hold up here because McDonald's is a proper noun on it's own--not in the possessive.
It would be similar to saying:
My hat is better than Sarah. If you get my drift.
Now, considering that the sentence is wrong. Can you lend some assistance with some less-than-basic SAT level grammar?
Last edited by rchristo10 on Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:45 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I guess that's one question I'd gladly get wrong.
That's why I hate getting all tied up in knots over someone's
idea of grammar rules.
McDonald's may be a proper noun, but Ronald was a right ugly clown. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
kimchikowboy

Joined: 24 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.eng-lang.co.uk/apostrophes.htm
The Economist style guide says "Try to avoid using Lloyd's (the insurance market) as a possessive; it poses an insoluble problem". There is no way in English to make a possessive of a word that already contains an apostrophe. The same problem is posed by several other organisations' names, and if the problem can't be avoided, you must grit your teeth and treat them as if they are called Lloyd, Sainsbury, or McDonald:
McDonald's employment practices
Sainsbury's recruitment drive
Lloyd's current difficulties |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
sml7285
Joined: 26 Apr 2012
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:14 am Post subject: Re: An Interesting (?) Grammar Question FOR PROS |
|
|
rchristo10 wrote: |
sml7285 wrote: |
rchristo10 wrote: |
Burger King's burgers taste better than McDonald's (sic) [burgers]. |
Burgers at the end is implied... This is some basic SAT level grammar. |
Yes, but his book says the answer is wrong. And, understandably so. The implied theory doesn't hold up here because McDonald's is a proper noun on it's own--not in the possessive.
It would be similar to saying:
My hat is better than Sarah. If you get my drift.
Now, considering that the sentence is wrong. Can you lend some assistance with some less-than-basic SAT level grammar? |
It's a possessive that is also a proper noun. Imagine if you will that there is a person named Joe. He calls his restaurant Joe's Joint. If you're talking about his burgers, you'd say "Joe's burgers" not "Joe's's burgers". The name is already a possessive; there's no reason why you'd double up on the possessive....
It's the same with McDonald's. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rchristo10
Joined: 14 Jul 2009
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:39 am Post subject: Re: An Interesting (?) Grammar Question FOR PROS |
|
|
sml7285 wrote: |
rchristo10 wrote: |
sml7285 wrote: |
rchristo10 wrote: |
Burger King's burgers taste better than McDonald's (sic) [burgers]. |
Burgers at the end is implied... This is some basic SAT level grammar. |
Yes, but his book says the answer is wrong. And, understandably so. The implied theory doesn't hold up here because McDonald's is a proper noun on it's own--not in the possessive.
It would be similar to saying:
My hat is better than Sarah. If you get my drift.
Now, considering that the sentence is wrong. Can you lend some assistance with some less-than-basic SAT level grammar? |
It's a possessive that is also a proper noun. Imagine if you will that there is a person named Joe. He calls his restaurant Joe's Joint. If you're talking about his burgers, you'd say "Joe's burgers" not "Joe's's burgers". The name is already a possessive; there's no reason why you'd double up on the possessive....
It's the same with McDonald's. |
OK, I agree. But apparently the grammarian community doesn't. I did a little searching around and they all agree that as written:
Burger King's burgers are better than McDonald's.
Which, in agreement with your rule, would rule out the need for a double possessive is 100% incorrect grammar.
I'm not disagreeing with you--in terms of commonsense. But the test is not simply about audience. In writing, there's nothing wrong with sentence fragments and gauging the audience's competency. Right? But on a test, it's a bit different; grammar-wise the sentence is wrong.
I'm just asking about the use of apostrophe, not the merits of whether this sentence is correct or not--it's pretty well understood that it's not. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rchristo10
Joined: 14 Jul 2009
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
kimchikowboy wrote: |
http://www.eng-lang.co.uk/apostrophes.htm
The Economist style guide says "Try to avoid using Lloyd's (the insurance market) as a possessive; it poses an insoluble problem". There is no way in English to make a possessive of a word that already contains an apostrophe. The same problem is posed by several other organisations' names, and if the problem can't be avoided, you must grit your teeth and treat them as if they are called Lloyd, Sainsbury, or McDonald:
McDonald's employment practices
Sainsbury's recruitment drive
Lloyd's current difficulties |
Damn. I wonder how many legal problems this could cause in contract law. Good Lord. Thanks though.
I wonder if legalese also asserts such an idea. Anyways, thanks a great deal. Off to go figure it out. Gotta let my friend know tomorrow. Thanks bunches! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rchristo10
Joined: 14 Jul 2009
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
OK just to update you guys:
So far I've checked 7 websites & books/ manuals:
Harvard's Writing Website
Oxford's Writing Website
Cambridge's Writing Website
Chicago Manual of Style
The Little, Brown Handbook
Tips on Writing from the US Supreme Court website
Oxford Dictionary
And skimmed some articles:
"The Possessive apostrophe: The development and decline of a crooked mark" Skiar (1976)
"Do's, Don'ts, and Maybes: Legal Writing Punctuation--Part III" G Lebovits--NY State Bar Association Journal (2008).
Wow, it's amazing how much people argue over the use of apostrophes, but all pretty much seem to agree that rewording in this case is the only option. None of these so far suggest ignoring it. Honestly, not too surprised the Economist wouldn't mind ignoring--it's not like they're really set up to be sued.
Dang, I never knew English could be this hard. People have been arguing since 1976 (likely before) over a little flashy dot.
This is why I'll never teach English. I don't think I could handle it. So props to you guys! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
FMPJ
Joined: 03 Jun 2008
|
Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:22 pm Post subject: Re: An Interesting (?) Grammar Question for Pros |
|
|
sml7285 wrote: |
rchristo10 wrote: |
Burger King's burgers taste better than McDonald's (sic) [burgers]. |
Burgers at the end is implied... This is some basic SAT level grammar. |
You are dead wrong (on the SAT and otherwise)--if burgers is implied, then they belong to "McDonald," which is wrong, since the chain's name is "McDonald's," not "McDonald."
I'd avoid the problem, myself, by writing "Burger King's burgers taste better than those at McDonald's," but that's just a kluge. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
The Cosmic Hum

Joined: 09 May 2003 Location: Sonic Space
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:36 am Post subject: Re: An Interesting (?) Grammar Question for Pros |
|
|
FMPJ wrote: |
sml7285 wrote: |
rchristo10 wrote: |
Burger King's burgers taste better than McDonald's (sic) [burgers]. |
Burgers at the end is implied... This is some basic SAT level grammar. |
You are dead wrong (on the SAT and otherwise)--if burgers is implied, then they belong to "McDonald," which is wrong, since the chain's name is "McDonald's," not "McDonald."
I'd avoid the problem, myself, by writing "Burger King's burgers taste better than those at McDonald's," but that's just a kluge. |
Dead wrong...really?
http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/our_story/our_history.html
This is a non-issue...context is key...burgers is implied...both prescriptively and descriptively.
The fact that some grammarian has gone to the trouble to point out a prescriptive rule that could in fact make that wrong...well...grammar is a bitch...and so are some grammarians.
Yes...there are rules that could make it wrong...but there are also rules that make it right.
The rules that make it right...are following common sense context and the urge to let grammar be used as a tool for useful communication.
The rule that makes it wrong...is nonsensical...and only in the most obscure context could it be made useful.
Anyway...just saying. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
FMPJ
Joined: 03 Jun 2008
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have no idea what your point is, sorry. The company is called "McDonald's" and that is a proper noun. Pretty clear cut. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rchristo10
Joined: 14 Jul 2009
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:13 pm Post subject: Re: An Interesting (?) Grammar Question for Pros |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
FMPJ wrote: |
sml7285 wrote: |
rchristo10 wrote: |
Burger King's burgers taste better than McDonald's (sic) [burgers]. |
Burgers at the end is implied... This is some basic SAT level grammar. |
You are dead wrong (on the SAT and otherwise)--if burgers is implied, then they belong to "McDonald," which is wrong, since the chain's name is "McDonald's," not "McDonald."
I'd avoid the problem, myself, by writing "Burger King's burgers taste better than those at McDonald's," but that's just a kluge. |
Dead wrong...really?
http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/our_story/our_history.html
This is a non-issue...context is key...burgers is implied...both prescriptively and descriptively.
The fact that some grammarian has gone to the trouble to point out a prescriptive rule that could in fact make that wrong...well...grammar is a bitch...and so are some grammarians.
Yes...there are rules that could make it wrong...but there are also rules that make it right.
The rules that make it right...are following common sense context and the urge to let grammar be used as a tool for useful communication.
The rule that makes it wrong...is nonsensical...and only in the most obscure context could it be made useful.
Anyway...just saying. |
Why did you send the homepage of McDonald's? The name of the company is McDonald's; it's a name and it's not in the possessive. Besides even if it were, we would still have a problem trying to figure out the possessive object:
McDonald's...burgers, soft drinks, fries, workers, buildings, patrons, cockroaches?
McDonald's is just a name. So now those grammarians you hate so much have to deal with those non-grammarians' stupidity.
My question has now turned to how does this work in court? So, I'm looking for some articles related to the incident back in the day when McDonald's (yes, a proper noun--not possessive) had to dish out a load of cash after being sued for hot coffee.
It's amazing that you professional English buffs aren't lending your skills in such industries as law and the like. I'd imagine that they'd need your help. This kind of apostrophe problem is amazing...kkkk. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
FMPJ
Joined: 03 Jun 2008
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's almost as amazing as someone who actively professes to have no interest in grammar spending time in a thread about grammar. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
The Cosmic Hum

Joined: 09 May 2003 Location: Sonic Space
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:22 am Post subject: Re: An Interesting (?) Grammar Question for Pros |
|
|
rchristo10 wrote: |
Why did you send the homepage of McDonald's? The name of the company is McDonald's; it's a name and it's not in the possessive. |
Ok...then what is the apostrophe doing in the name...is it a status symbol?
Quote: |
Besides even if it were, we would still have a problem trying to figure out the possessive object:
McDonald's...burgers, soft drinks, fries, workers, buildings, patrons, cockroaches? |
Why is that a problem...context is the answer.
And that is why I attached the link.
You can easily see that McDonald's Hamburgers is a recognizable sign seen by millions for years on end.
Which is why the sentence you asked about could easily have the hamburgers implied...get it?
Quote: |
McDonald's is just a name. So now those grammarians you hate so much have to deal with those non-grammarians' stupidity. |
So what stupidity is that?
Again..what is the problem that isn't solved by context?
Quote: |
It's amazing that you professional English buffs aren't lending your skills in such industries as law and the like. I'd imagine that they'd need your help. This kind of apostrophe problem is amazing...kkkk. |
I guess my question for you is...what is the problem?
Did someone have a problem understanding the language or inherent message because of this?
Don't get me wrong...no one is arguing that McDonald's isn't a name of a restaurant...but now that you are focusing on law or the letters in the law...then obviously one would need to be careful when writing a contract...but that would be easily enough done. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|