"three hours time" or "three hours' time"
Trevor Baca
the former is standard. is there any argument for the latter?
trevor.
Fabian
"Trevor Baca" <tb...@simpletel.com> wrote in message
news:soeik8...@corp.supernews.com...
> "in three hours time" or "in three hours' time"?
>
> the former is standard. is there any argument for the latter?
Only from the greengrocers'.
--
Fabian
Find your enemy's weakest point, and destroy it.
But remember who your own worst enemy is.
Richard Fontana
> "in three hours time" or "in three hours' time"?
>
> the former is standard. is there any argument for the latter?
I don't know why the former is standard, but I would assume that the
latter is correct, since we'd be more likely to say "in one hour's time"
than "in one hour time" (which is clearly wrong).
RF
Aaron J Dinkin
The latter _is_ standard. At least, the latter is certainly what I learned in
eighth grade, and unlike in grammar, Miss Thistlebottom does have unquestioned
sovereignty in deciding what is standard punctuation.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Peter Moylan
>"in three hours time" or "in three hours' time"?
>
>the former is standard. is there any argument for the latter?
Yes. A good argument for the latter is that the former is just
plain wrong.
--
Peter Moylan pe...@ee.newcastle.edu.au
See http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au for OS/2 information and software
R J Valentine
] Richard Fontana <re...@columbia.edu> wrote:
]
]> On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Trevor Baca wrote:
]>
]>> "in three hours time" or "in three hours' time"?
]>>
]>> the former is standard. is there any argument for the latter?
]>
]> I don't know why the former is standard, but I would assume that the
]> latter is correct, since we'd be more likely to say "in one hour's time"
]> than "in one hour time" (which is clearly wrong).
]
] The latter _is_ standard. At least, the latter is certainly what I learned in
] eighth grade, and unlike in grammar, Miss Thistlebottom does have unquestioned
] sovereignty in deciding what is standard punctuation.
The latter is correct _punctuation_ (and the former is incorrect), but the
phrasing is British (including Canadian and who knows who else). The
(American) English of it is "in three hours" (without the apostrophe (and
without the "time" (and without the four fried chickens))).
Since the invasion of Canadian newsreaders the "time" version (as if the
"hour" were not clue enough) has been heard more frequently across the
land (even from native American newsreaders), to the point that children
may even grow up thinking it is idiomatic. In a century ('s time) it
might very well be (indeed (done)).
--
Speaking of "were", did anyone catch the Republic guy tonight saying
something like "If America were worth dying for ..."? I got distracted by
that and didn't hear much else until a comentator said afterwards that the
audience appeared to be paying attention to what the speaker was saying.
I'd like to go back and read whatever the last line of the speech was
again, because that seemed a little strange, too, though I may just have
been still distracted.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@clark.net>
Rainer Thonnes
R J Valentine <r...@clark.net> writes:
>Aaron J Dinkin <din...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>]> On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Trevor Baca wrote:
>]>> "in three hours time" or "in three hours' time"?
>]
>] eighth grade, and unlike in grammar, Miss Thistlebottom does have unquestioned
>] sovereignty in deciding what is standard punctuation.
>
>The latter is correct _punctuation_ (and the former is incorrect), but the
>phrasing is British (including Canadian and who knows who else). The
>(American) English of it is "in three hours" (without the apostrophe (and
>without the "time" (and without the four fried chickens))).
I would say that what is incorrect about the former and correct about
the latter is _not_ punctuation, but _grammar_. The apostrophe marks
the case as genitive, it is not strictly in the category of punctuation
marks, which are things which demarcate sentences and fractions thereof.
>Speaking of "were", did anyone catch the Republic guy tonight saying
>something like "If America were worth dying for ..."? I got distracted by
>that ... because that seemed a little strange
What's strange about it? The use of "were" is to be preferred to the use
of "was", which many people would have used instead. The latter should only
be used if referring to a past state of affairs.
Or perhaps you mean that "is" should have been used, which would carry a
presumption that there is no question about whether America is in fact
worth dying for, that it goes without saying that it is. The use of "were"
would carry a presumption that at least there is some doubt about it.
As you say, context would help. It might boil down to mere patriotism
rather than something much more important, viz grammar.
John Steele Gordon
> >Speaking of "were", did anyone catch the Republic guy tonight saying
> >something like "If America were worth dying for ..."? I got distracted by
> >that ... because that seemed a little strange
>
> What's strange about it? The use of "were" is to be preferred to the use
> of "was", which many people would have used instead. The latter should only
> be used if referring to a past state of affairs.
>
> Or perhaps you mean that "is" should have been used, which would carry a
> presumption that there is no question about whether America is in fact
> worth dying for, that it goes without saying that it is. The use of "were"
> would carry a presumption that at least there is some doubt about it.
>
> As you say, context would help. It might boil down to mere patriotism
> rather than something much more important, viz grammar.
Or it might have been a mere slip of the tongue or pen. There are plenty
of politicians (not to mention their press secretaries and
speech-writers) who couldn't pass a sixth-grade English exam.
JSG
N.Mitchum
-----
> "in three hours time" or "in three hours' time"?
>
Common, perhaps, but not standard. The latter is the correct
form. See articles in grammars and usage guides under
"apostrophe" (and possibly "objective genitive").
----NM
Fabian
"Michael Cargal" hu kiteb
> "Fabian" <beo...@bombadil.not> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Trevor Baca" <tb...@simpletel.com> wrote in message
> >news:soeik8...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> "in three hours time" or "in three hours' time"?
> >>
> >> the former is standard. is there any argument for the latter?
> >
> >Only from the greengrocers'.
>
> And from the Chicago Manual of Style, section 6.14. "Analogous to
> possessives, and formed like them, are expressions of duration based
> on the old genitive case."
>
> "an hour's delay in three days' time"
I don't speak Chicagi.
--
R J Valentine
] In article <i8Ph5.5953$Y51....@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
] R J Valentine <r...@clark.net> writes:
...
]>Speaking of "were", did anyone catch the Republic guy tonight saying
]>something like "If America were worth dying for ..."? I got distracted by
]>that ... because that seemed a little strange
]
] What's strange about it? The use of "were" is to be preferred to the use
] of "was", which many people would have used instead. The latter should only
] be used if referring to a past state of affairs.
]
] Or perhaps you mean that "is" should have been used, which would carry a
] presumption that there is no question about whether America is in fact
] worth dying for, that it goes without saying that it is. The use of "were"
] would carry a presumption that at least there is some doubt about it.
Well, just the opposite (the "were" should be used there only to express
that it's contrary to fact; "is" could carry the presumption of doubt).
] As you say, context would help. It might boil down to mere patriotism
] rather than something much more important, viz grammar.
Well, it was the grammar that made it antipatriotic, which could be a
dangerous proposition in a room full of people wearing cowboy hats and
garrison caps.