Apostrophe and time
Rob
I remain confused about time, apostrophes and the possessive form.
'In ten years time' has no apostrophe because 'time' doesn't follow the
normal possessive - you couldn't say 'the time that belonged to ten years'.
However, I've just read a reference to Lynne Truss' Shoots/Leaves book,
that says time and quantity should be treated as possessives.
Looking to a world of the written word, Google searches for the exact
terms "year's time" and "years time" returns ten times as many
references to the term without the apostrophe. Peculiarly, New Year's
Eve and New Years Eve are about the same.
I don't know if anyone can explain this to me?!
Thanks, Rob
Nick
There's certainly an argument that there's something "possessive" (scare
quotes: that apostrophe is always about a lot more than "possession")
going on. You say "1 year ago" and "2 years ago", but you say "in 1
year's time" and "in two year's time" (with or without the apostrophe).
There must be something putting that 's' on in the "1 year" case, and if
it's not a possessive it's hard to see what it is. So that's the
argument for it.
You've put forward a reasonable looking argument against it. No wonder
people are confused and use both!
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Mark Brader
> I remain confused about time, apostrophes and the possessive form.
Right.
> 'In ten years time' has no apostrophe
Wrong. Well, okay, it has none the way *you* wrote it, but it *should*
be written "in ten years' time".
> because 'time' doesn't follow the normal possessive - you couldn't
> say 'the time that belonged to ten years'.
Irrelevant; the possessive case does not always indicate possession.
> Looking to a world of the written word, Google searches for the exact
> terms "year's time" and "years time" returns ten times as many
> references to the term without the apostrophe.
Google can't tell whether an apostrophe following a word is meant as
an apostrophe or a closing single quotation mark, so it ignores it.
(At least, I assume that's why.) Searches for "years time" and
"years' time" return the same results.
Admittedly, many of these do spell it without the apostrophe.
Perhaps that spelling is *becoming* accepted, but I don't think it's
made it to full acceptance today.
A further issue with text distributed on the Internet is that sometimes
it is written in Micros--t Code Page 1252 but wrongly declared as
being in ASCII or ISO 8859-1. This may cause all uses of the CP 1252
"directional" quotes to disappear when it's accessed through software
that believes the declared character set. If the closing right single
quote character is used as the apostrophe, apostrophes will disappear
as well.
> Peculiarly, New Year's Eve and New Years Eve are about the same.
Simpler spellings sometimes catch on, so this might be another case
where the no-apostrophe spelling is becoming accepted, but again I'd
say it should still be considered wrong. The technical issue I just
mentioned would also have its effect here, so it's possible that the
Google counts are misleading; I'm not going to attempt to find out if
that's so.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Where do you want Microsoft to go today?"
m...@vex.net -- Rick Ross
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Mark Brader
> You say "1 year ago" and "2 years ago", but you say "in 1
> year's time" and "in two year's time" (with or without the apostrophe).
Oy! You mean "two years' time".
--
Mark Brader | "(I've been told that I suffer from rampant narcissism.
Toronto | Just to confirm the accuracy of this character assessment,
m...@vex.net | I have now shared it with the whole world.)" --Laura Spira
James Hogg
Which shows that that you can't trust Google.
Consider this analogy:
In the name of God : In God's name
In a time of one year : In one year's time
The father of the two boys : The two boys' father
In a time of two years : In two years' time
--
James
Rob
> "Rob":
>> I remain confused about time, apostrophes and the possessive form.
>
> Right.
>
>> 'In ten years time' has no apostrophe
>
> Wrong. Well, okay, it has none the way *you* wrote it, but it *should*
> be written "in ten years' time".
>
OK, thanks.
>> because 'time' doesn't follow the normal possessive - you couldn't
>> say 'the time that belonged to ten years'.
>
> Irrelevant; the possessive case does not always indicate possession.
>
Ah, OK. I think you're wrong because I think possessive case is relevant
in this context. Could you perhaps explain why it's not relevant - I
think that's the crux of my misunderstand in point of fact.
>> Looking to a world of the written word, Google searches for the exact
>> terms "year's time" and "years time" returns ten times as many
>> references to the term without the apostrophe.
>
> Google can't tell whether an apostrophe following a word is meant as
> an apostrophe or a closing single quotation mark, so it ignores it.
> (At least, I assume that's why.) Searches for "years time" and
> "years' time" return the same results.
Indeed - it depends how you close the search term. Please see the
example below.
>
> Admittedly, many of these do spell it without the apostrophe.
> Perhaps that spelling is *becoming* accepted, but I don't think it's
> made it to full acceptance today.
>
OK, thanks. I'm trying to find the grammatically correct version.
> A further issue with text distributed on the Internet is that sometimes
> it is written in Micros--t Code Page 1252 but wrongly declared as
> being in ASCII or ISO 8859-1. This may cause all uses of the CP 1252
> "directional" quotes to disappear when it's accessed through software
> that believes the declared character set. If the closing right single
> quote character is used as the apostrophe, apostrophes will disappear
> as well.
>
Fascinating :-)
Try typing *exactly* this phrase, and complete a google global search:
"year's time
Just show me one false positive in the 4 million-odd returns and I'll
accept your point. Just one.
And just to substantiate the point above:
"years time
>
>> Peculiarly, New Year's Eve and New Years Eve are about the same.
>
> Simpler spellings sometimes catch on, so this might be another case
> where the no-apostrophe spelling is becoming accepted, but again I'd
> say it should still be considered wrong. The technical issue I just
> mentioned would also have its effect here, so it's possible that the
> Google counts are misleading; I'm not going to attempt to find out if
> that's so.
Can't blame you. A casual glance suggests it's less to do with the
technical point you make than the way it's written.
Rob
Nick
> Nick Atty:
>> You say "1 year ago" and "2 years ago", but you say "in 1
>> year's time" and "in two year's time" (with or without the apostrophe).
>
> Oy! You mean "two years' time".
I do. So fixed on the point I wanted to make I missed that one.
Possessives, don't you love 'em?
Rob
> Quoth Rob <patchoul...@gmail.com>, and I quote:
>
>> Having my occasional apostrophe crisis :-)
>>
>> I remain confused about time, apostrophes and the possessive form.
>>
>> 'In ten years time' has no apostrophe because 'time' doesn't follow the
>> normal possessive - you couldn't say 'the time that belonged to ten years'.
>>
>> However, I've just read a reference to Lynne Truss' Shoots/Leaves book,
>> that says time and quantity should be treated as possessives.
>>
>> Looking to a world of the written word, Google searches for the exact
>> terms "year's time" and "years time" returns ten times as many
>> references to the term without the apostrophe. Peculiarly, New Year's
>> Eve and New Years Eve are about the same.
>
> Which shows that that you can't trust Google.
>
Indeed.
> Consider this analogy:
>
> In the name of God : In God's name
> In a time of one year : In one year's time
>
> The father of the two boys : The two boys' father
> In a time of two years : In two years' time
>
Interesting device - I haven't seen that. Thanks.
Rob
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented Rob broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> Having my occasional apostrophe crisis :-)
> I remain confused about time, apostrophes and the possessive form.
> 'In ten years time' has no apostrophe because 'time' doesn't follow the
> normal possessive - you couldn't say 'the time that belonged to ten years'.
But you could say, and some people do "the time of ten years." Some people
take the 'possessive' in the name of the English case a tad too literally.
Some people object to ownership being attributed to inanimate things, but
the problem is in thinking that the possessive case means ownership. In any
event, it should be "In ten years' time." A month's rent is right too,
although the rent *belongs* to the landlord once it is paid, and there is no
sense in which a month owns the rent.
> However, I've just read a reference to Lynne Truss' Shoots/Leaves book,
> that says time and quantity should be treated as possessives.
Yes.
> Looking to a world of the written word, Google searches for the exact
> terms "year's time" and "years time" returns ten times as many
> references to the term without the apostrophe. Peculiarly, New Year's
> Eve and New Years Eve are about the same.
> I don't know if anyone can explain this to me?!
Before the internet no one had heard of the word 'teh' either.
--
Lars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> use...@larseighner.com
145 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term.
Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't.
Lars Eighner
lovely and talented Rob broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> Mark Brader wrote:
>> "Rob":
>>> I remain confused about time, apostrophes and the possessive form.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> 'In ten years time' has no apostrophe
>>
>> Wrong. Well, okay, it has none the way *you* wrote it, but it *should*
>> be written "in ten years' time".
>>
> OK, thanks.
>>> because 'time' doesn't follow the normal possessive - you couldn't
>>> say 'the time that belonged to ten years'.
>>
>> Irrelevant; the possessive case does not always indicate possession.
>>
> Ah, OK. I think you're wrong because I think possessive case is relevant
> in this context. Could you perhaps explain why it's not relevant - I
> think that's the crux of my misunderstand in point of fact.
He is not saying it is not the possessive case. He is saying that
possession is not an adquate understanding of what the possessive case
indicates.
Skitt
> Mark Brader wrote:
>> "Rob":
>>> I remain confused about time, apostrophes and the possessive form.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> 'In ten years time' has no apostrophe
>>
>> Wrong. Well, okay, it has none the way *you* wrote it, but it
>> *should* be written "in ten years' time".
>
> OK, thanks.
>
>>> because 'time' doesn't follow the normal possessive - you couldn't
>>> say 'the time that belonged to ten years'.
>>
>> Irrelevant; the possessive case does not always indicate possession.
>>
>
> Ah, OK. I think you're wrong because I think possessive case is
> relevant in this context. Could you perhaps explain why it's not
> relevant - I think that's the crux of my misunderstand in point of
> fact.
<snip>
What we are dealing with here is the genitive case. There is a fairly good
explanation of it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive
Unfortunately, is is also called the possessive case.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Leslie Danks
[...]
> What we are dealing with here is the genitive case. There is a fairly
> good explanation of it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive
> Unfortunately, is is also called the possessive case.
"i's", shirley.
--
Les (BrE)
Skitt
You shouldn't ought to have tried that, I think. Anyway, it was supposed to
be "... it is also ...".
--
Skitt (AmE)
Garrett Wollman
Rob <patchoul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>'In ten years time' has no apostrophe because 'time' doesn't follow the
>normal possessive - you couldn't say 'the time that belonged to ten years'.
English genitives extend in meaning and usage beyond mere possession.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
R H Draney
Should actually have been:
Unfortunately, its is also called the possessive case.
This has the advantage of being correct....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Egbert White
wrote:
There's also a fairly good treatment in the AUE FAQ Supplement at
alt-usage-english.org under the heading 'Genitive is not always
possessive.' It says among other things that someone named Fries
'found that the possessive genitive was the most common, but that it
accounted for only 40-percent of all genitives.'
Examples at that page that are particularly pertinent to this thread
are 'a year's wages,' 'one day's leave,' and 'the Eighty Years' War,'
which are in a list of examples of the 'descriptive or classifying
genitive.' Other items in that list are:
| the room's furnishings
| the airplane's speed
| the building's foundation
| a dollar's worth
--
Egbert White, | "I love Americans, but not when they try
WAme | to talk French. What a blessing it is that
| that they never try to talk English."
| -- Saki's Mrs. Mebberley
Mark Brader
>>> I remain confused about time, apostrophes and the possessive form.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> 'In ten years time' has no apostrophe
>>
>> Wrong. Well, okay, it has none the way *you* wrote it, but it *should*
>> be written "in ten years' time".
>
> OK, thanks.
>
>>> because 'time' doesn't follow the normal possessive - you couldn't
>>> say 'the time that belonged to ten years'.
>>
>> Irrelevant; the possessive case does not always indicate possession.
>
> Ah, OK. I think you're wrong because I think possessive case is relevant
> in this context. Could you perhaps explain why it's not relevant - I
> think that's the crux of my misunderstand in point of fact.
Of course it's relevant; the expression uses the possessive case.
What's not relevant is that it doesn't indicate possession.
>>> Looking to a world of the written word, Google searches for the exact
>>> terms "year's time" and "years time" returns ten times as many
>>> references to the term without the apostrophe.
>>
>> Google can't tell whether an apostrophe following a word is meant as
>> an apostrophe or a closing single quotation mark, so it ignores it.
>> (At least, I assume that's why.) Searches for "years time" and
>> "years' time" return the same results.
>
> Indeed - it depends how you close the search term.
No, it doesn't.
>> A further issue with text distributed on the Internet is that sometimes
>> it is written in Micros--t Code Page 1252 but wrongly declared as
>> being in ASCII or ISO 8859-1. This may cause all uses of the CP 1252
>> "directional" quotes to disappear when it's accessed through software
>> that believes the declared character set. If the closing right single
>> quote character is used as the apostrophe, apostrophes will disappear
>> as well.
> Fascinating :-)
>
> Try typing *exactly* this phrase, and complete a google global search:
>
> "year's time
>
> Just show me one false positive in the 4 million-odd returns and I'll
> accept your point. Just one.
You missed the point. This is not an expression with an apostrophe
following a word, so Google *does* treat the apostrophe as significant.
The presence or absence of the closing double quote has no effect.
> And just to substantiate the point above:
>
> "years time
Again, the presence or absence of the closing double quote has no effect.
This matches either "years time" or "years' time", since the apotrophe
following the word "years" is ignored. Further, for the technical reason
I mentioned, some hits that are really on "years' time", or even "year's
time", may appear to be on "years time".
--
Mark Brader "Nicely self-consistent. (Pay no attention to
Toronto that D-floating number behind the curtain!)"
m...@vex.net -- Chris Torek, on pasta
Mark Brader
> What we are dealing with here is the genitive case.
Yes, that's another name for it. I was taught in school that English
had cases called subjective, objective, and possessive, while the
corresponding cases in Latin were called nominative, accusative, and
genitive respectively (Latin has and others, of course). I still
follow that distinction, but it's not necessary to make it.
--
Mark Brader | "...not one accident in a hundred deserves the name.
Toronto | [This occurrence] was simply the legitimate result
m...@vex.net | of carelessness." -- Washington Roebling
Eric Walker
[...]
> English genitives extend in meaning and usage beyond mere possession.
Just so. Some detail may clarify. As Curme (_English Grammar_, 57.C)
puts it, "The central idea of the genitive is that of _sphere_,
indicating that a person or thing belongs to the sphere of another,
having close relations to it or forming an integral part of it. We may
distinguish the following [eight] categories of the attributive
genitive . . . ."
Much simplified for brevity, those eight are:
1. Genitive of origin: "the son of the king", "the king's son".
2. Possessive Genitive: "the hero's courage" (note that "the master's
dog" means the dog owned by the master, but "the dog's master" does not
signify ownership of its master by the dog but rather the master in the
sphere of the dog).
3. Subjective Genitive: "that will be the death of you", "duty's call".
4. Objective Genitive: "she is concerned about her children's
education", "Caesar's murderers" (the murderers who killed Caesar).
5. Genitive of Material or Composition: "a crown of thorns", "a swarm of
bees".
6. Descriptive Genitive: g. of characteristic -- "a man of action", "she
is worth ten of her daughter"; g. of measure -- "an hour's delay" (when
classifying, we often instead use compound adjectives, as in "a five-foot
ploe").
7. Appositive Genitive: "the vice of intemperance", "the island of Great
Britain", "life's feast", St. James' Park", "a prince of a fellow".
8. Partitive Genitive: "a piece of bread", "he is the soul of the
enterprise".
The genitive may be indicated in four ways, two common and two less so.
The common forms are: the "-s genitive", which attaches an apostrophe-s
to the noun; or the "of genitive", which employs the particle "of" before
the noun. The other two are: the double genitive, reserved for where
needed for clarity ("a picture of the King's", meaning one belonging to
him, as opposed to "a picture of the King", meaning one portraying him);
and the uninflected genitive, an old form that relied on word order and
which survives today only in genitive compounds: "sunrise" (rise of the
sun", "earthquake" (quaking of the earth).
The s-genitive form is occasionally suppressed when sibilance might
become excessive (as in "Xerxes' fleet"), though such suppression is
often blindly used after nouns ending in "s" even when not needed (this
is my sis's boy friend" will often be written without the "s" after the
apostrophe even though it is normally pronounced in speech). Because the
s-genitive is the favorite form with the names of living beings ("John's
hat" rather than "the hat of John"), it is the form typically used when
the association is of figurative life: "the ocean's roar", "truth's
victory", "the mind's eye", and so on.
That rule does not govern, however, in the case of a genitive with a
gerund: "there in no danger of the house's settling". It also does not
apply to older idiomatic uses with unliving things" "a stone's throw", "a
day's journey".
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Skitt
> Skitt filted:
>> Leslie Danks wrote:
>>> Skitt wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> What we are dealing with here is the genitive case. There is a
>>>> fairly good explanation of it at
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive
>>>> Unfortunately, is is also called the possessive case.
>>>
>>> "i's", shirley.
>>
>> You shouldn't ought to have tried that, I think. Anyway, it was
>> supposed to be "... it is also ...".
>
> Should actually have been:
>
> Unfortunately, its is also called the possessive case.
>
> This has the advantage of being correct....r
Well, no. Not even close.
"Its" is called the possessive case? Not on your life. The best I can
think of that "its" might be is the word "it" written in the possessive
case.
As it was, I was not talking about the word "it", but the phrase "genitive
case", and *that* "it" (which I mistyped as "is") is also called the
"possessive case".
--
Skitt (AmE)
clear as mud, eh?
Ian Noble
wrote:
>Having my occasional apostrophe crisis :-)
>
>I remain confused about time, apostrophes and the possessive form.
>
>'In ten years time' has no apostrophe because 'time' doesn't follow the
>normal possessive - you couldn't say 'the time that belonged to ten years'.
>
>However, I've just read a reference to Lynne Truss' Shoots/Leaves book,
>that says time and quantity should be treated as possessives.
If you want to be pedantic, then the normal usages for the singular
case would be "In one year" but "In one year's time". So, yes, it's
possessive, and an apostrophe is appropriate.
Having said which, I personally have little time for the sort of faux
"correctness" peddled by people such as Ms Truss. It's fine in its
place - as part of a guide to (e.g.) writing for publication, and
especially where an organ wishes (as it has every right and plenty of
reason) to require a consistent approach to language, say. But beyond
that, no - language, written or spoken, is a living thing, and refuses
to be constrained - and except where it causes genuine problems**, we
shouldn't be trying to.
** I cite the real case of the railway crossing signs in the north of
England about 40 years ago that stated "Do not cross while lights
flash" in an area where the most common local dialect meaning of
"while" was "until".
Cheers - Ian
(BrE: Yorks., Hants.)