You and your's
Zen
loved ones?"
If so, is "your's" correct?
Thanks.
John Lawler
>Is it proper to say "you and your's" in place of, for example,
>"you and your loved ones?"
No. The phrase is "you and yours", no apostrophe.
>If so, is "your's" correct?
No. "Your's" is never correct; there is no apostrophe in "yours", ever.
"Your's" would have to mean "your is" or "your has" or "your does", none
of which make any sense at all.
I really don't understand where people get these ideas.
If you're ever in doubt about an apostrophe, and it's not an apostrophe
that's appearing before an "s" as the possessive of a noun (like "John's
hat" or "the king's mistress" -- but *not* the possessive of a pronoun
like "his hat" or "your mistress"), just see if you can figure out what
letter(s) the apostrophe is substituting for. If you can't, don't use an
apostrophe.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler Michigan Linguistics Dept
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"A dog is not considered good because of his barking, and a man is not
considered good because of his ability to talk." -- Chuang Tzu
CyberCypher
news:_5VG9.597$5T4.20...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
> Is it proper to say "you and your's" in place of, for example,
> "you and your loved ones?"
However you spell or misspell "yours" and *"your's" [Not a word in any
language that I know of], they sound the same. The apostrophe between
the "r" and "s" is incorrect. "your" is already a possesive. Adding the
"s" just makes it plural and adding " 's " makes it wrong.
People write it and say it all the time. There's nothing grammatically
incorrect with "you and yours", but it's impersonal, so if you want to
be impersonal, go ahead and use it. It would be nicer to say "you and
your family" instead of that dreadful "loved ones", another impersonal
euphemism for . . . well, what it's supposed to mean, in fact, is,
always has been, and will always continue to be a mystery. It's a one-
size-fits-all greeting, appropriate for a Hallmark (R) card from your
Buick dealer "To all my wonderful customers! A Merry Xmas to you and
your loved ones this December 23rd (That's the day of our big 'The
Snowbus Buick you've always wanted to buy Dad for Xmas' sale. Come on
in and take a close look at this perfect vehicle for your wonderful
Santa!"
> If so, is "your's" correct?
No. See above
--
Franke: Speaker and teacher of Standard International English (SIE)
CyberCypher
news:12WG9.1390$ho1....@news.itd.umich.edu:
> "A dog is not considered good because of his barking,
> and a man is not considered good because of his
> ability to talk." -- Chuang Tzu
CT obviously did not know Ronald Reagan or the American people
R J Valentine
} Zen <zenmor...@yahoo.com> writes:
}
}>Is it proper to say "you and your's" in place of, for example,
}>"you and your loved ones?"
}
} No. The phrase is "you and yours", no apostrophe.
}
}>If so, is "your's" correct?
}
} No. "Your's" is never correct; there is no apostrophe in "yours", ever.
} "Your's" would have to mean "your is" or "your has" or "your does", none
} of which make any sense at all.
"Your's" is the plural of '"Your"', just as "a's" is the plural of '"a"'
and "APPLE's" is the plural of '"APPLE"'. "Your's" would mean two or more
instances of '"your"', which makes all the sense in the world. '"APPLE"'
is Commercial English for "_APPLE_", which is Newsgroup English for italic
"APPLE". Quoted strings and italicized strings are often interchangeable.
} I really don't understand where people get these ideas.
Observation of the world around them? Otherwise, we'd have to assume that
linguists are smarter than greengrocer's. How else would we know that
"person" is the singular of "people".
} If you're ever in doubt about an apostrophe, and it's not an apostrophe
} that's appearing before an "s" as the possessive of a noun (like "John's
} hat" or "the king's mistress" -- but *not* the possessive of a pronoun
} like "his hat" or "your mistress"), just see if you can figure out what
} letter(s) the apostrophe is substituting for. If you can't, don't use an
} apostrophe.
So no apostrophe in "one's hat"?
} -John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler Michigan Linguistics Dept
} ----------------------------------------------------------------------
} "A dog is not considered good because of his barking, and a man is not
} considered good because of his ability to talk." -- Chuang Tzu
For all the bluster, the guy has some good stuff at his website, and it's
probably worth a visit from newcomers to alt.usage.english (among others).
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
R J Valentine
} "Zen" <zenmor...@yahoo.com> burbled
} news:_5VG9.597$5T4.20...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:
}
}> Is it proper to say "you and your's" in place of, for example,
}> "you and your loved ones?"
}
} However you spell or misspell "yours" and *"your's" [Not a word in any
} language that I know of], they sound the same. The apostrophe between
} the "r" and "s" is incorrect. "your" is already a possesive. Adding the
} "s" just makes it plural and adding " 's " makes it wrong.
...
Let's hear more about how adding the "s" just makes it plural, eh? I read
some interesting rules on alt.usage.english, and yours has definite
potential.
Steve Hayes
No. Should be "yours".
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
John Lawler
>John Lawler <jla...@umich.edu> writes:
>} If you're ever in doubt about an apostrophe, and it's not an apostrophe
>} that's appearing before an "s" as the possessive of a noun (like "John's
>} hat" or "the king's mistress" -- but *not* the possessive of a pronoun
>} like "his hat" or "your mistress"), just see if you can figure out what
>} letter(s) the apostrophe is substituting for. If you can't, don't use an
>} apostrophe.
>So no apostrophe in "one's hat"?
Good one. I hadn't thought of that.
"One" *is* a pronoun, and its possessive *is* "one's".
Any other exceptions?
There seem to be several sources of apostrophe problems:
1) confusion between plural and possessive {-Z}
Writing "Watermelon's $3.50" uses the possessive
spelling, with apostrophe, for the plural; they're
pronounced identically, so it's strictly a failure
of the orthographic convention that's supposed to
distinguish between them. This is the "greengrocer's
(or greengrocers') apostrophe".
2) confusion between use and mention
When a linguistic symbol is mentioned by name, e.g,
"the letter I", instead of being used, e.g, "I did it",
its plural may be formed with an apostrophe, e.g:
There are 53 I's on this page.
Many authorities now recommend avoiding apostrophes
in this situation, but that doesn't always work:
There are 428 is on this page.
There may simply not be a good solution for some cases:
There are 27 &s, 44 @s, and 75 's.
There are 27 &'s, 44 @'s, and 75 ''s.
There are 27 ampersands, 44 at-signs, and 75 apostrophes.
Some solutions, however, are simply wrong:
There are 27 ampersand's, 44 at-sign's, and 75 apostrophe's.
(This factor may contribute to the greengrocer phenomenon.
I suspect that greengrocer apostrophizers may view
individual words as single symbols, like "B", rather
than as sequences of sounds or letters, and may be
treating them the same as letters instead of using
suffixes.)
3) confusion between noun possessive apostrophe-s and
pronoun possessives. Most pronouns (but not "one"!)
either have a possessive without -s ("my, mine"), or
a possessive with -s but without an apostrophe ("its,
yours, his, hers, theirs, whose"). The apostrophe
possessive only occurs with nouns (which is where
"one's" comes from -- "one" has been demoted to pronoun
status but hasn't been stripped of its nominal apostrophe
possessive), but if people don't distinguish nouns from
pronouns they're gonna make mistakes. Especially since
the issue is clouded by
4) confusion between possessive apostrophe-s and contraction
apostrophe-s. "it's/its and who's/whose", for instance,
are minimal pairs of contractions of the 3rd person singular
verb agreement {-Z} with pronouns that are pronounced
identically with apostrophe-less pronoun possessives,
and a.u.e readers are certainly aware of their frequent
misspellings. To someone who's never thought about
the issue, this might contribute to the formation of
"your's", but there is in fact no minimal pair here.
All of these are due to the fact that English, which has only seven
inflectional morphemes in toto, uses exactly the same sounds /s, z/,
in exactly the same distribution (/s/ after voiceless sounds and
/z/ after voiced, with an epenthetic vowel inserted after sibilants:
cats, dog's, kisses), for *three* of the seven:
o noun plural {-Z1} (that's "Z-sub-one", actually)
o noun possessive {-Z2}
o verb 3rd sg pres {-Z3}
I used to think German was confusing, using /zi:/, spelled "sie"
or "Sie", to mean 'she', 'you', and 'they'. But English is much
worse with its -Zs.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler U Michigan Linguistics Dept
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Thinking is more interesting than knowing, but less interesting
than looking." -- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
dcw
John Lawler <jla...@asteroids.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote:
>"One" *is* a pronoun, and its possessive *is* "one's".
>Any other exceptions?
Things like "sombody" and "each other"?
David
M. J. Powell
<zenmor...@yahoo.com> writes
>Is it proper to say "you and your's" in place of, for example, "you and your
>loved ones?"
>
>If so, is "your's" correct?
Doing your Christmas cards early?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
James Follett
>R J Valentine <r...@smart.net> writes:
>>John Lawler <jla...@umich.edu> writes:
>
>>} If you're ever in doubt about an apostrophe, and it's not an apostrophe
>>} that's appearing before an "s" as the possessive of a noun (like "John's
>>} hat" or "the king's mistress" -- but *not* the possessive of a pronoun
>>} like "his hat" or "your mistress"), just see if you can figure out what
>>} letter(s) the apostrophe is substituting for. If you can't, don't use an
>>} apostrophe.
>
>>So no apostrophe in "one's hat"?
>
>Good one. I hadn't thought of that.
Can't think of any.
Your's sincerely
Jimbo
R H Draney
news:SkffAwPz...@pickmere.demon.co.uk:
Early?...if you haven't mailed them by now, they'll never get
there on time....r
Pat Durkin
"R H Draney" <dado...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns92D953A9D...@129.250.170.100...
> >>
> >>If so, is "your's" correct?
> >
> > Doing your Christmas cards early?
>
> Early?...if you haven't mailed them by now, they'll never get
> there on time....r
For some reason I was on the Royal Mail and Royal Mail Group websites
yesterday and found that there is a recommended deadline for mailing
packages to the continent and, I suppose, elsewhere.
Today is the day.
I haven't heard if the deadline for domestic mail of packages has been
changed lately. A year or so ago it was Dec. 19. (Not that anyone asked.)
I know. I got the site off the BBC News Ticker. I think I clicked on it
because of the admonition to be sure and get the (British equivalent of) ZIP
codes of the addressee into the address, and I remembered the thread on how
good the service in Great Britain is. Or, no. "The budget has allotted 450
million pounds to keep small rural post offices open."
John Lawler
>>"One" *is* a pronoun, and its possessive *is* "one's".
>>Any other exceptions?
>Things like "sombody" and "each other"?
Yup, those apostrophize in the possessive:
I think that was somebody's lunch.
Well, she's nobody's moggy now.
He gets in everyone's face.
They get in each other's hair, don't they?
"One", "some/no/every-body/one", and "each other" are in that grey area
between noun and pronoun -- they've got more syntax and less phonology
than a real noun, but they've still got some of the rights and privileges
thereto appertaining, like an apostrophized possessive.
Second reading: we should amend the rule to say that
one doesn't use an apostrophe with a possessive -s on
*personal* (yours, theirs, ours, hers, its)
or *interrogative* (whose)
pronouns.
Any other amendments?
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler U Michigan Linguistics Dept
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"A sentence uttered makes a world appear
Where all things happen as it says they do;
We doubt the speaker, not the tongue we hear: -- W.H. Auden,
Words have no words for words that are not true." Notes on the Comic
Gary Williams
> Is it proper to say "you and your's" in place of, for example, "you and your
> loved ones?"
I've seen it a number of times, except that it should be "you and yours".
Gary Williams
Michael J Hardy
> All of these are due to the fact that English, which has only seven
> inflectional morphemes in toto, uses exactly the same sounds /s, z/,
> in exactly the same distribution (/s/ after voiceless sounds and
> /z/ after voiced, with an epenthetic vowel inserted after sibilants:
> cats, dog's, kisses), for *three* of the seven:
>
> o noun plural {-Z1} (that's "Z-sub-one", actually)
> o noun possessive {-Z2}
> o verb 3rd sg pres {-Z3}
>
> I used to think German was confusing, using /zi:/, spelled "sie"
> or "Sie", to mean 'she', 'you', and 'they'. But English is much
> worse with its -Zs.
It's very confusing to the Chinese. I once took a math
course taught by a professor from China who kept referring
to "Green Theorems" throughout the course. -- Mike Hardy
M. J. Powell
<p...@hotmail.com> writes
While encouraging Pensioners to get the money paid into their bank
accounts directly.
Left hand/Right hand etc.
Mike
>
--
M.J.Powell
M. J. Powell
<dado...@earthlink.net> writes
I usually post them about 3/4 days before Christmas, just to annoy those
who have crossed me off their list...
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Skitt
> R H Draney writes:
>> "M. J. Powell" wrote:
>>> Doing your Christmas cards early?
>>
>> Early?...if you haven't mailed them by now, they'll never get
>> there on time....r
>
> I usually post them about 3/4 days before Christmas, just to annoy
> those who have crossed me off their list...
Wow, do they still get there in that fractional day's time?
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Jerry Friedman
If "each other" is a pronoun, or ends in a pronoun, how about "someone else"?
--
Jerry Friedman
M. J. Powell
<sk...@attbi.com> writes
>M. J. Powell wrote:
>> R H Draney writes:
>>> "M. J. Powell" wrote:
>
>>>> Doing your Christmas cards early?
>>>
>>> Early?...if you haven't mailed them by now, they'll never get
>>> there on time....r
>>
>> I usually post them about 3/4 days before Christmas, just to annoy
>> those who have crossed me off their list...
>
>Wow, do they still get there in that fractional day's time?
Heh! Merry Christmas to you, too!
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Robert Bannister
> Zen <zenmor...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>> Is it proper to say "you and your's" in place of, for example, "you
>> and your loved ones?"
>
>
> No. The phrase is "you and yours", no apostrophe.
>
>
>> If so, is "your's" correct?
>
>
> No. "Your's" is never correct; there is no apostrophe in "yours",
> ever. "Your's" would have to mean "your is" or "your has" or "your
> does", none of which make any sense at all.
>
> I really don't understand where people get these ideas.
>
> If you're ever in doubt about an apostrophe, and it's not an
> apostrophe that's appearing before an "s" as the possessive of a noun
> (like "John's hat" or "the king's mistress" -- but *not* the
> possessive of a pronoun like "his hat" or "your mistress"), just see
> if you can figure out what letter(s) the apostrophe is substituting
> for. If you can't, don't use an apostrophe.
Nevertheless, it is confusing that the possessive "its" has no
apostrophe, but "one's" does. It is, of course, the latter, that breaks
the pattern.
--
Rob Bannister
GrapeApe
Robert Bannister
Good point and one I didn't notice in the earlier posting. Of course
"yours" is a type of genitive - it belongs not in the class 'my, your,
his, her', but in the class 'mine, yours, his, hers'.
Perhaps Prof Lawler can clarify this, but I think the apostrophe to
distinguish genitive from plural is relatively recent and presumably
dates from the time when the -s plural took over from earlier forms,
something that was not fully established in Shakespeare's time.
--
Rob Bannister
CyberCypher
news:3DED435...@it.net.au:
Nor later [Note the use of the /'s/ by Addison and Burke]:
OED2 CD-ROM:
3. Used instead of your before another possessive, etc. qualifying the
same n. Now rare or Obs.
1534 Cranmer Let. to Warden of All Souls’ Coll. Misc. Writ. (Parker
Soc.) 279 So that by yours and their agreement I may obtain the next
lease.
1610 Shakes. Temp. ii. i. 254 Yours and my discharge.
a1634 Chapman Rev. for Honour iii. i, Despight of yours and your Maids
weak resistance.
1710 Addison Let. to Swift 11 Apr., I suppose you know, that I obeyed
your’s, and the Bishop of Clogher’s commands.
1791 Burke Let. to Member of Nat. Ass. 66 This adaptation of contending
parts, as it has not been in our’s, so it can never be in your’s, or in
any country, the effect [etc.].
I thought I had posted this yesterday, but it's not in my 'sent' box,
so I'll do it again, only slightly modified.
"yours" appears to be a collective pronoun that
allows for any number of possible 'loved ones'
here.
Here's what the OED2 CD-ROM says:
yours, poss. pron. Forms: 4 _ures, -is, _urs, yurs, 46 _ouris, 47
youres, 5 _oures, -ys, _owres, _owers, yowres, yowers, yourez, -is,
yor(e)s, -ys, yowrs, 6 Sc. yowris, 89 your’s, 5 yours.
[f. your + -s as in hers, ours, q.v.]
***The absolute form of your, used when no n. follows (originally, like
you and your, referring to a number of persons, later also to a single
person): That or those belonging to you.*** <According to the OED, it
was a plural form originally, and it came to have a singular meaning
only "later".>
MW10 online:
Main Entry: yours
Pronunciation: 'yurz, 'yOrz, 'yorz
Function: pronoun, singular or plural in construction
***Etymology: Middle English from your + -s -'s***
Date: 1526
: that which belongs to you -- used without a following noun as a
pronoun equivalent in meaning to the adjective your;
I modified this version because I see that, last night and for the
preceding week, when I wrote my original response, I had misread both
MW10 and AHD4. I've been moving house every day and night for the past
week and have been suffering from a head cold, a sore throat, the
medications used to cure these two, and a severe lack of sleep. I can
see that my brain was more than slightly dysfunctional.
While the OED partially justifies what I said, I think I have to
retract that remark about 'yours' being plural, because it no longer
is: It is merely inclusive. OTOH, I can certainly remember using "To
you and your" when I knew that my listener had only 1 member of the
category being referred to. I know I said that as a joke, but now it
turns out that there is a historical basis for it.
John Smith
>
> Nevertheless, it is confusing that the possessive "its" has no
> apostrophe, but "one's" does. It is, of course, the latter, that breaks
> the pattern.
People here talk as if they were trying to account for some phenomenon
of nature, instead of a bunch of arbitrary, wacky "rules" concocted by
people who apparently deemed themselves qualified concocters but who
have manifestly screwed the whole system up. Why anyone would feel
compelled to follow such rules, I can't tell. Thomas Jefferson paid them
no heed ("... laying it's foundation on such principles and organizing
it's powers in such form..."), and he did ok.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/images/vc50p3.jpg
\\P. Schultz
GrapeApe
>of nature, instead of a bunch of arbitrary, wacky "rules" concocted by
>people who apparently deemed themselves qualified concocters but who
>have manifestly screwed the whole system up. Why anyone would feel
>compelled to follow such rules, I can't tell. Thomas Jefferson paid them
>no heed ("... laying it's foundation on such principles and organizing
>it's powers in such form..."), and he did ok.
I thought it was Andrew Jackson who did ok.
Harold Pekteno
> Nevertheless, it is confusing that the possessive "its" has no
> apostrophe, but "one's" does.
Is is confusing to you that the other possessive pronouns have no
apostorophe: "my", "our", "your", "his", "her", "their"?
Back to the original point: there is no apostrophe in "yours" for the
same reason that there is no apostrophe in "mine".
Robert Lieblich
It was -- allegedly -- his vice president and successor as
president, Martin van Buren, aka Old Kinderhook. I still prefer the
"oll korrekt" theory.
--
Bob Lieblich
'Sawright
Raymond S. Wise
news:3DED6CDC...@company.com...
To the best of my knowledge, Jefferson was following the rules of his time.
The word pair "it's, it's" became "it's, its" at a later date, just as the
word pair "nôtre, nôtre" in French later became "nôtre, notre." In the case
of the English word, the new spelling was used to distinguish one meaning
from another. In the case of the French word, the reason for the new
spelling was less to distinguish meaning than to distinguish pronunciation.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
John Lawler
>> >"One" *is* a pronoun, and its possessive *is* "one's".
>> >Any other exceptions?
>> Things like "sombody" and "each other"?
>If "each other" is a pronoun, or ends in a pronoun, how about "someone else"?
Equivalent to "someone" or "somebody", already noted, though clearly it
forms a constituent with "else".
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler U Michigan Linguistics Dept
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind." -- Kipling
Linz
> For some reason I was on the Royal Mail and Royal Mail Group websites
> yesterday and found that there is a recommended deadline for mailing
> packages to the continent and, I suppose, elsewhere.
>
> Today is the day.
Oh, thanks for that. I need to go to the post office, then.
Aaron J. Dinkin
> "One", "some/no/every-body/one", and "each other" are in that grey area
> between noun and pronoun -- they've got more syntax and less phonology
> than a real noun, but they've still got some of the rights and privileges
> thereto appertaining, like an apostrophized possessive.
What other nounish privileges do they retain?
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
John Lawler
>> "One", "some/no/every-body/one", and "each other" are in that grey area
>> between noun and pronoun -- they've got more syntax and less phonology
>> than a real noun, but they've still got some of the rights and privileges
>> thereto appertaining, like an apostrophized possessive.
>What other nounish privileges do they retain?
Well, the plural of 'one' is the regular {-Z}: 'ones';
and it can take a definitive article and be the head of
a relative clause: 'the one I love'.
'Some/no/every-body/one' have no plural and can't
take an article, but they can be relative heads:
Nobody/Somebody/Everybody I know voted for Bush.
'Each other' is often called a "reciprocal" pronoun,
but it also behaves as if it were two noun phrases,
since the two parts can be separated, with various
effects on the rest of the sentence:
They bought gifts for each other.
Each bought a gift for the other.
Of course, they also have quantifierish rights and privileges.
For instance, 'each' can float:
They each bought a gift/gifts for the other.
and both 'each' and 'other' can function as a modifier:
Each man/one bought a gift for the other man/one.
Sometimes separation is the only way to use 'each other':
Each considers the other to be smarter than himself.
Try saying this while using 'each other' as a single constituent:
*They/The men consider each other to be smarter than themselves.
This interaction with reflexive is also strange -- normally 'himself'
would have to be coreferential with the subject of the clause it's in
('the other'), but in this case it's coreferential with the subject of the
clause above it ('each'). This poses problems for virtually every account
of reflexive there is.
That's all I can think of offhand.
-John Lawler www.umich.edu/~jlawler Univ of Michigan Linguistics Dept
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Truthful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not truthful.
Good words are not persuasive; persuasive words are not good." -Lao Tzu
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister <rob...@it.net.au> wrote in message news:<3DED415...@it.net.au>...
>
>
>>Nevertheless, it is confusing that the possessive "its" has no
>>apostrophe, but "one's" does.
>
>
> Is is confusing to you that the other possessive pronouns have no
> apostorophe: "my", "our", "your", "his", "her", "their"?
Your typing is certainly confusing. John Lawler has already answered
this point, but you are missing the fact that although 'its' matches the
pattern 'my, our, your, etc.', 'ones' is wrong.
>
> Back to the original point: there is no apostrophe in "yours" for the
> same reason that there is no apostrophe in "mine".
True, but it is not completely obvious, since the -s of 'yours' matches
the possessive apostrophe s used elsewhere with nouns and quasi-nouns.
Note also the curious forms 'his', but 'hers'.
--
Rob Bannister
John Smith
> <...> In the case
> of the English word, the new spelling was used to distinguish one meaning
In my opinion, if there is no distinction in speech, then not only is
there no need for a distinction in writing, but when you start down that
slippery slope you might end up with a situation in which the real
language is the one on paper (or on the screen), and the spoken language
is merely a secondary representation of it, instead of the other way
around. Since language, including language of surpassing expressiveness,
artistry, and beauty, existed for dozens of millenia before anything was
ever written down, that would be a shame.
It's sort of like the computers taking over from the human beings. Fuck
orthography.
\\P. Schultz
John Smith
> <...>
> Back to the original point: there is no apostrophe in "yours" for the
> same reason that there is no apostrophe in "mine".
It seems to have escaped your notice that there is no possessive "s" on
"mine," as there is on "yours." Therefore, there is no logic in your
assertion.
Rethink.
\\P. Schultz
R J Valentine
} 'Some/no/every-body/one' have no plural and can't
} take an article, but they can be relative heads:
}
} Nobody/Somebody/Everybody I know voted for Bush.
In "... a duck may be somebody's mother" the somebody is literally a
duckling, but is figuratively anyone lacking in rebarbativity.
"Who's the nobody I saw you with last night?" "That was no nobody, that
was my somebody."
From my trusty old _American Heritage Dictionary_ (I) under "nobody": "--
_n., pl._ *nobodies*.", and under "somebody": "-- _n., pl._ *somebodies*."
} Each considers the other to be smarter than himself.
}
} Try saying this while using 'each other' as a single constituent:
}
} *They/The men consider each other to be smarter than themselves.
They (modestly) consider each other to be smarter.
} That's all I can think of offhand.
Yeah, well, you did a good job, as usual. And I do understand that I'm
not playing fair.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Geoff Butler
>
> There are 53 I's on this page.
The obvious [1] solution,
There are 53 "I"s on this page.
somehow seems to failed to gain universal acceptance.
> Many authorities now recommend avoiding apostrophes
> in this situation, but that doesn't always work:
>
> There are 428 is on this page.
As are easy to see, is are more difficult.
[1] Yes, obvious. Obvious to any geek.
--
-ler