Page 1 of 2
1. Charles' house OR 2. Charles's house
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 10:28 pm
by cftranslate
I mean
How do you pronounce and write:
Charles has a house
1. Charles' house
2. Charles's house
3. Charles house
Do you prronounce it /Charlsis house/?
Re: 1. Charles' house OR 2. Charles's house
Posted: Mon Jan 31, 2005 11:51 pm
by metal56
cftranslate wrote:I mean
How do you pronounce and write:
Charles has a house
1. Charles' house
2. Charles's house
3. Charles house
Do you prronounce it /Charlsis house/?
Of 1 and 2, when written and spoken, some of us use one, some use another. Bad news,eh?
The third is not a possessive, but would sound like 1.
2 is pronounced
Charlsis.
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:05 am
by Metamorfose
Hey Metal, I was taught that when it's a proper name ending in -s we should add another -s, so the choice between then is arbitrary?
José
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 1:10 am
by metal56
Metamorfose wrote:Hey Metal, I was taught that when it's a proper name ending in -s we should add another -s, so the choice between then is arbitrary?
José
Consistency is the key, Jose.
Forming Possessives
Showing possession in English is a relatively easy matter (believe it or not). By adding an apostrophe and an s we can manage to transform most singular nouns into their possessive form:
the car's front seat
Charles's car
Bartkowski's book
a hard day's work
Some writers will say that the -s after Charles' is not necessary and that adding only the apostrophe (Charles' car) will suffice to show possession.
Consistency is the key here: if you choose not to add the -s after a noun that already ends in s, do so consistently throughout your text.
http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/possessives.htm
Way to go, Jose.
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 10:19 am
by Metamorfose
Nice answer Metal and nice link too
I wonder what my old teachers would think about this
José
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 3:46 pm
by metal56
Metamorfose wrote:Nice answer Metal and nice link too
I wonder what my old teachers would think about this
José
Were they native?
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 3:56 pm
by Stephen Jones
Both 1 & 2 are correct..
Lynn Truss in "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" devotes six marvellous pages (p.54-60) to the particular problem.
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 7:37 pm
by metal56
Stephen Jones wrote:Both 1 & 2 are correct..
Lynn Truss in "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" devotes six marvellous pages (p.54-60) to the particular problem.
And I did it in one page.
Posted: Tue Feb 01, 2005 11:14 pm
by Metamorfose
Were they native?
Yes, Brazilian natives
I know that if I showed that consistency is the key and the rest is a matter of personal style, if I may say so, they would thrown their books at me in public square...
That's why I like it here, you do not only answer our queries you also show us the whies and becauses
José
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:11 am
by metal56
Metamorfose wrote:Were they native?
Yes, Brazilian natives
I know that if I showed that consistency is the key and the rest is a matter of personal style, if I may say so, they would thrown their books at me in public square...
That's why I like it here, you do not only answer our queries you also show us the whies and becauses
José
We do indeed. I think it is because most of us here are willing to admit that we are also still learning about our language.
BTW:
they would
throw their books at me in public square...
That's why I like it here, you do not only answer our queries you also show us the
whys and becauses
Another expression is:
the whys and wherefores.
Hope you don't mind the corrections.
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:32 am
by Metamorfose
Don't worry, any correction is welcome
I am
amongst the ones here who are in need of corrections and insights.
The 'whys and wherfores'=> This one is now in my glossary
Is that true that there's a kind of campaign for natives to properly use the apostrophe?
José
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:53 pm
by Andrew Patterson
Is that (sic) true that there's a kind of campaign for natives to properly use the apostrophe?
Yes, indeed there is, it's called the apostrophe protection society:
http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 5:34 pm
by Stephen Jones
Members of the apostrophe sociiety are those who can distinguish between the
whys and wherefores and the
why's and wherefore's.
Go on, take the plunge and see if you pass the entrance test
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:04 pm
by Metamorfose
Grammarian's hell awaits me!
José
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2005 9:34 pm
by Andrew Patterson
I notice that the sectionon examples of misuse in the apostrophe protection society has lots of examples of abbreviations with apostrophes. Surely this is a proper use. Sure it doesn't show possession or omission, but isn't it more important to show that the "s" is not part of the abbreviation.
eg MOT's while you wait. OK, abbreviations are usually upper case, and the "s" lower case, but this seems to have become standard use. When talking about lower case letters, it is the only way that we can mind our p's and q's without making them upper case. It would be very difficult to write about maths without this convention - x's, y's and z's.