Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Those Russian Rocket's
37 views
Skip to first unread message
Daniel James
Oct 13, 2012, 9:34:04 AM10/13/12
to
From : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19933989
French Guiana is Soyuz' "European" launch site
"Soyuz'"??? What was wrong with "Soyuz's".
Do I take it that it's now permissible to form a possessive of a word
by adding just an apostrophe to its end, rather than an apostrophe and
an "s"?
Cheers,
Daniel.
French Guiana is Soyuz' "European" launch site
"Soyuz'"??? What was wrong with "Soyuz's".
Do I take it that it's now permissible to form a possessive of a word
by adding just an apostrophe to its end, rather than an apostrophe and
an "s"?
Cheers,
Daniel.
Peter Duncanson
Oct 13, 2012, 1:09:58 PM10/13/12
to
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:34:04 +0100, Daniel James <dan...@me.invalid>
wrote:
>From : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19933989
>
> French Guiana is Soyuz' "European" launch site
>
>"Soyuz'"??? What was wrong with "Soyuz's".
>
There's nothing wrong with "Soyuz's" if you prefer to pronounce it that
way.
>Do I take it that it's now permissible to form a possessive of a word
>by adding just an apostrophe to its end, rather than an apostrophe and
>an "s"?
>
Words ending in an "s" sound sometimes have just the apostrophe,
particularly if, as with Soyuz, they are names.
This says:
http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node22.html#SECTION00063000000000000000
The basic rule is simple enough: a possessive form is spelled with
's at the end.
....
There are three types of exception. First, a plural noun which
already ends in s takes only a following apostrophe:
the girls' excitement
my parents' wedding
both players' injuries
the Klingons' attack
the ladies' room
two weeks' work
This is reasonable. We don't pronounce these words with two esses,
and so we don't write two esses: nobody says *the girls's
excitement. But note that plurals that don't end in s take the
ordinary form: see the cases of children and women above.
Second, a name ending in s takes only an apostrophe if the
possessive form is not pronounced with an extra s. Hence:
Socrates' philosophy
Saint Saens' music
Ulysses' companions
Aristophanes' plays
Same reason: we don't say *Ulysses's companions, and so we don't
write the extra s.
The final class of exceptions is pronouns.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe)
wrote:
>From : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19933989
>
> French Guiana is Soyuz' "European" launch site
>
>"Soyuz'"??? What was wrong with "Soyuz's".
>
way.
>Do I take it that it's now permissible to form a possessive of a word
>by adding just an apostrophe to its end, rather than an apostrophe and
>an "s"?
>
particularly if, as with Soyuz, they are names.
This says:
http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node22.html#SECTION00063000000000000000
The basic rule is simple enough: a possessive form is spelled with
's at the end.
....
There are three types of exception. First, a plural noun which
already ends in s takes only a following apostrophe:
the girls' excitement
my parents' wedding
both players' injuries
the Klingons' attack
the ladies' room
two weeks' work
This is reasonable. We don't pronounce these words with two esses,
and so we don't write two esses: nobody says *the girls's
excitement. But note that plurals that don't end in s take the
ordinary form: see the cases of children and women above.
Second, a name ending in s takes only an apostrophe if the
possessive form is not pronounced with an extra s. Hence:
Socrates' philosophy
Saint Saens' music
Ulysses' companions
Aristophanes' plays
Same reason: we don't say *Ulysses's companions, and so we don't
write the extra s.
The final class of exceptions is pronouns.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe)
John M Ward
Oct 13, 2012, 1:21:22 PM10/13/12
to
In article <gd7j789trjqf0fhp6...@4ax.com>,
That was one of the best essays on esses I have encountered, and has
been saved within my permanent files's storage area.
--
John M Ward, posting from the Apihna Arms' Comfy Chair
My "Fun with English" web page can now be found at:
www.john-ward.org.uk/personal/john/english
Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:34:04 +0100, Daniel James <dan...@me.invalid>
> wrote:
[All snipped]
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:34:04 +0100, Daniel James <dan...@me.invalid>
> wrote:
That was one of the best essays on esses I have encountered, and has
been saved within my permanent files's storage area.
--
John M Ward, posting from the Apihna Arms' Comfy Chair
My "Fun with English" web page can now be found at:
www.john-ward.org.uk/personal/john/english
Odysseus
Oct 13, 2012, 10:07:01 PM10/13/12
to
<snip>
universal agreement. But there is a grey area among disyllabic names,
wherein I suppose the best policy is just to signify one's own
pronunciation. S-dropping is sometimes recommended for those of
classical and biblical origin -- _Zeus'_, _Moses'_, _Jesus'_, &c. -- but
I don't think these are universally so pronounced; indeed some, e.g.
_Thomas'_ I think, are less often heard that way than with the final
/@z/. And it's my impression that monosyllables almost always get this
additional S, as in _James's_.
--
Odysseus
>
> Second, a name ending in s takes only an apostrophe if the
> possessive form is not pronounced with an extra s. Hence:
>
> Socrates' philosophy
> Saint Saens' music
> Ulysses' companions
> Aristophanes' plays
>
> Same reason: we don't say *Ulysses's companions, and so we don't
> write the extra s.
Those examples are all polysyllabic, with which I'd expect nearly
> Second, a name ending in s takes only an apostrophe if the
> possessive form is not pronounced with an extra s. Hence:
>
> Socrates' philosophy
> Saint Saens' music
> Ulysses' companions
> Aristophanes' plays
>
> Same reason: we don't say *Ulysses's companions, and so we don't
> write the extra s.
universal agreement. But there is a grey area among disyllabic names,
wherein I suppose the best policy is just to signify one's own
pronunciation. S-dropping is sometimes recommended for those of
classical and biblical origin -- _Zeus'_, _Moses'_, _Jesus'_, &c. -- but
I don't think these are universally so pronounced; indeed some, e.g.
_Thomas'_ I think, are less often heard that way than with the final
/@z/. And it's my impression that monosyllables almost always get this
additional S, as in _James's_.
--
Odysseus
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Oct 14, 2012, 6:31:05 AM10/14/12
to
In article
<odysseus1479-at-23...@news.eternal-september.org>, on
Sat, 13 Oct 2012, Odysseus <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote
[]
have found an alternative solution to the problem: their ground has been
St. James's Park (with, even locally, variation on whether it's
pronounced Jameses or James, and I think similarly varied punctuation)
for longer than anyone can remember. (The name comes from the district,
which I think got its name from a church in the area.)
Due to a recent sponsorship deal, it is now called, officially,
something like "the Sports Direct Stadium". (I may have the name of the
company wrong - see next paragraph.)
But, of course, _nobody_ locally refers to it by the new name; the
Magpies will remain at St. James's! (With the local accent, in
comparison with which such niceties are insignificant: for a start,
there's no R in Newcastle, it's a short a.) Much in the same way few New
Yorkers refer to Broadway by its numerical name.
P. S. My spell checker suggested James's for Jameses.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
So, Heresy be damned (well, it would be, wouldn't it?).
Radio Times 24-30 July 2010 (page 24)
<odysseus1479-at-23...@news.eternal-september.org>, on
Sat, 13 Oct 2012, Odysseus <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote
[]
>/@z/. And it's my impression that monosyllables almost always get this
>additional S, as in _James's_.
>
Of course, Newcastle United (a football company in north-east England)
>additional S, as in _James's_.
>
have found an alternative solution to the problem: their ground has been
St. James's Park (with, even locally, variation on whether it's
pronounced Jameses or James, and I think similarly varied punctuation)
for longer than anyone can remember. (The name comes from the district,
which I think got its name from a church in the area.)
Due to a recent sponsorship deal, it is now called, officially,
something like "the Sports Direct Stadium". (I may have the name of the
company wrong - see next paragraph.)
But, of course, _nobody_ locally refers to it by the new name; the
Magpies will remain at St. James's! (With the local accent, in
comparison with which such niceties are insignificant: for a start,
there's no R in Newcastle, it's a short a.) Much in the same way few New
Yorkers refer to Broadway by its numerical name.
P. S. My spell checker suggested James's for Jameses.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
So, Heresy be damned (well, it would be, wouldn't it?).
Radio Times 24-30 July 2010 (page 24)
Daniel James
Oct 14, 2012, 3:13:48 PM10/14/12
to
In article
<odysseus1479-at-23...@news.eternal-september.org>,
of the normal rule ... and it is easier to speak those possessives in
that way ... but I would always say (and write) Zeus's.
But then, Zeus isn't noted for being all that biblical ...
> ... indeed some, e.g. _Thomas'_ I think, are less often heard that
with the final "siz" syllable, but often not written that way. Whenever
I travel along the embankment at Westminster and look across the river
and see "St.Thomas' Hospital" I cringe.
> And it's my impression that monosyllables almost always get this
> additional S, as in _James's_.
I have heard people say, for example: "St.James' Park" ... but
strangely I don't recall seeing it written that way. James seems to get
the opposite treatment from Thomas, in this respect.
At least, in my, Daniel James's, experience.
Cheers,
Daniel.
<odysseus1479-at-23...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Odysseus wrote:
> S-dropping is sometimes recommended for those of
> classical and biblical origin -- _Zeus'_, _Moses'_, _Jesus'_
I am aware that people do write (and say) Moses' and Jesus' in defiance
> S-dropping is sometimes recommended for those of
> classical and biblical origin -- _Zeus'_, _Moses'_, _Jesus'_
of the normal rule ... and it is easier to speak those possessives in
that way ... but I would always say (and write) Zeus's.
But then, Zeus isn't noted for being all that biblical ...
> ... indeed some, e.g. _Thomas'_ I think, are less often heard that
> way than with the final /@z/.
IME the things belonging to Thomas are invariably referred to in speech
with the final "siz" syllable, but often not written that way. Whenever
I travel along the embankment at Westminster and look across the river
and see "St.Thomas' Hospital" I cringe.
> And it's my impression that monosyllables almost always get this
> additional S, as in _James's_.
strangely I don't recall seeing it written that way. James seems to get
the opposite treatment from Thomas, in this respect.
At least, in my, Daniel James's, experience.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Odysseus
Oct 16, 2012, 11:04:50 PM10/16/12
to
In article <VA.000006c...@me.invalid>,
biblical names but not classical ones? It's my impression that they come
as a package in this context, but I haven't actually researched the
question.
(I note, however, that Wikipedia's Manual of Style mentions Zeus as an
exception to the pattern, so it was probably a poor choice as an
example: "Possessives of certain classical and biblical names have
traditional pronunciations that may be deemed to take precedence:
_Jesus' answer_ and _Xerxes' expeditions_, but _Zeus's anger_ ...")
--
Odysseus
Daniel James <dan...@me.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <odysseus1479-at-23...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Odysseus wrote:
> > S-dropping is sometimes recommended for those of
> > classical and biblical origin -- _Zeus'_, _Moses'_, _Jesus'_
>
> I am aware that people do write (and say) Moses' and Jesus' in defiance
> of the normal rule ... and it is easier to speak those possessives in
> that way ... but I would always say (and write) Zeus's.
>
> But then, Zeus isn't noted for being all that biblical ...
Are you implying that you've seen the above recommendation made for
> In article
> <odysseus1479-at-23...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Odysseus wrote:
> > S-dropping is sometimes recommended for those of
> > classical and biblical origin -- _Zeus'_, _Moses'_, _Jesus'_
>
> I am aware that people do write (and say) Moses' and Jesus' in defiance
> of the normal rule ... and it is easier to speak those possessives in
> that way ... but I would always say (and write) Zeus's.
>
> But then, Zeus isn't noted for being all that biblical ...
biblical names but not classical ones? It's my impression that they come
as a package in this context, but I haven't actually researched the
question.
(I note, however, that Wikipedia's Manual of Style mentions Zeus as an
exception to the pattern, so it was probably a poor choice as an
example: "Possessives of certain classical and biblical names have
traditional pronunciations that may be deemed to take precedence:
_Jesus' answer_ and _Xerxes' expeditions_, but _Zeus's anger_ ...")
--
Odysseus
Molly Mockford
Oct 17, 2012, 3:16:16 AM10/17/12
to
At 21:04:50 on Tue, 16 Oct 2012, Odysseus <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca>
wrote in
<odysseus1479-at-FE...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>(I note, however, that Wikipedia's Manual of Style mentions Zeus as an
>exception to the pattern, so it was probably a poor choice as an
>example: "Possessives of certain classical and biblical names have
>traditional pronunciations that may be deemed to take precedence:
>_Jesus' answer_ and _Xerxes' expeditions_, but _Zeus's anger_ ...")
This ties in with what I was taught at school, which was that if there
were already two "s" sounds one didn't add a third - so Frances' book,
Odysseus' travels, but Roz's house and Glass's Guide.
But I can't find a way for the rule to apply to possessive plural
surnames - the Joneses' garden is straightforward enough, but the
Smiths' daughter rather than the expected Smiths's daughter.
--
Molly Mockford
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton Diamond Ph.D.)
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)
wrote in
<odysseus1479-at-FE...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>(I note, however, that Wikipedia's Manual of Style mentions Zeus as an
>exception to the pattern, so it was probably a poor choice as an
>example: "Possessives of certain classical and biblical names have
>traditional pronunciations that may be deemed to take precedence:
>_Jesus' answer_ and _Xerxes' expeditions_, but _Zeus's anger_ ...")
were already two "s" sounds one didn't add a third - so Frances' book,
Odysseus' travels, but Roz's house and Glass's Guide.
But I can't find a way for the rule to apply to possessive plural
surnames - the Joneses' garden is straightforward enough, but the
Smiths' daughter rather than the expected Smiths's daughter.
--
Molly Mockford
Nature loves variety. Unfortunately, society hates it. (Milton Diamond Ph.D.)
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)
Daniel James
Oct 17, 2012, 11:47:22 AM10/17/12
to
In article
<odysseus1479-at-FE...@news.eternal-september.org>,
It seems to me that religion is silly, so it's allowed to have silly
rules; but the classics are serious and should be expected to conform
to the usual guidelines!
Cheers,
Daniel.
<odysseus1479-at-FE...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Odysseus wrote:
> Are you implying that you've seen the above recommendation made for
> biblical names but not classical ones?
I think so ... though whether I meant to imply that I'm not sure.
> Are you implying that you've seen the above recommendation made for
> biblical names but not classical ones?
It seems to me that religion is silly, so it's allowed to have silly
rules; but the classics are serious and should be expected to conform
to the usual guidelines!
Cheers,
Daniel.
Daniel James
Oct 17, 2012, 11:47:22 AM10/17/12
to
In article <+npjZJrA...@molly.mockford>, Molly Mockford wrote:
> But I can't find a way for the rule to apply to possessive plural
> surnames - the Joneses' garden is straightforward enough, but the
> Smiths' daughter rather than the expected Smiths's daughter.
Singular "Jones", plural "Joneses", Possessive plural "Joneses'".
> But I can't find a way for the rule to apply to possessive plural
> surnames - the Joneses' garden is straightforward enough, but the
> Smiths' daughter rather than the expected Smiths's daughter.
Singular "Smith", plural "Smiths", Possessive plural "Smiths'".
Those two conform completely to the norm, do they not?
Or were you trying to describe the daughter of a couple named "Smiths"?
In that case the plural would be "Smithses" and the PP "Smithses'".
Cheers,
Daniel.
0 new messages