"CARLITO'S WAY" TITLE IS INCORRECT
fo...@vnet.sanjose.ibm.com
I am Puerto Rican, and the nickname for Carlos is Carlitos, not Carlito.
Therefore if the title is referring to Carlitos' way, (or Carlitos's way)
the filmmakers obviously made a huge grammatical error. This may not
be important to everybody, but to me it is somewhat insulting. What
kind of an uproar would have been created if Spike Lee's "Malcolm X"
had been misspelled to say, perhaps, "Malcom X"? I don't pretend that
Al Pacino's character is half as significant in real world events as
Malcolm X was, but I still think my point is valid.
Juan
Matt Brockman
The filmmakers merely used the title of one of the two books
that the move was based upon.
===============================================================================
Matt Brockman mbro...@ecn.purdue.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"While a llama may produce some of the world's finest of wools, prized
around the world, their breath, on the other hand, could only
be prized somewhere in the far reaches of llama hell."
===============================================================================
fo...@vnet.sanjose.ibm.com
>>I am Puerto Rican, and the nickname for Carlos is Carlitos, not Carlito.
>>Therefore if the title is referring to Carlitos' way, (or Carlitos's way)
>>the filmmakers obviously made a huge grammatical error.
>The filmmakers merely used the title of one of the two books
>that the move was based upon.
Well then, in that case, the writer was wrong. (Then again, I haven't
seen the movie yet, I don't know the reasons for his rather "unique"
nickname, as I said before, I'll hold my judgment until then.
Daniel Price
who spent much of his youth on the streets but eventually became a VERY
distinguished judge. Given his ethnic background, I would doubt that the
title was an error. I don't know though. I didn't see the movie or read
the book. I just saw a little snippet about him on CNN.
- Price
Boston, Mass.
fo...@vnet.sanjose.ibm.com
>The writer of the book Carlito's Way is Edwin Torres, a Puerto Rican man
>who spent much of his youth on the streets but eventually became a VERY
>distinguished judge. Given his ethnic background, I would doubt that the
>title was an error.
That's exactly why I'm reserving full judgment until I actually see the
movie, maybe I'll discover something about the title. It would be insulting
to discover, however, that the author Torres chose to call it "Carlito's Way"
instead of "Carlitos' Way" in order for it to be more pleasing to the eye,
and possibly better understood by the masses.
Doug Fierro
>In article <CGLuw...@sernews.raleigh.ibm.com> fo...@vnet.sanjose.ibm.com writes:
>>I'm reserving full judgment for the day I actually see this movie, but
>>I am Puerto Rican, and the nickname for Carlos is Carlitos, not Carlito.
>>Therefore if the title is referring to Carlitos' way, (or Carlitos's way)
>>the filmmakers obviously made a huge grammatical error. This may not
>>be important to everybody, but to me it is somewhat insulting. What
>>kind of an uproar would have been created if Spike Lee's "Malcolm X"
>>had been misspelled to say, perhaps, "Malcom X"? I don't pretend that
>>Al Pacino's character is half as significant in real world events as
>>Malcolm X was, but I still think my point is valid.
>
>The filmmakers merely used the title of one of the two books
>that the move was based upon.
Yeah, tell that guy to chill out! Geez....
Doug
--
Doug Fierro
|\ UTS System Software
O __________|_\______ CASE tools development
\_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */ fie...@uts.amdahl.com
__\____ |=================/ (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fo...@vnet.sanjose.ibm.com
>>that the move was based upon.
>
> Yeah, tell that guy to chill out! Geez....
Maybe it doesn't bother you to see such glaring typographical errors on
movie screens and such, but things like that stick out like a sore thumb
to me. I can't believe that, if it were an error, those responsible for its
production and distribution didn't notice there was anything wrong. We
should expect more from trillion dollar industries.
tom.balent
>>>The filmmakers merely used the title of one of the two books
>>
>> Yeah, tell that guy to chill out! Geez....
>
>Maybe it doesn't bother you to see such glaring typographical errors on
>movie screens and such, but things like that stick out like a sore thumb
>to me. I can't believe that, if it were an error, those responsible for its
>production and distribution didn't notice there was anything wrong. We
>should expect more from trillion dollar industries.
>
I think the point trying to be made is:
You seem to be making a BIG deal out of the placement of an apostrophe.
You have said (a number of times) you have neither seen the movie
nor read the book. Why not do one or the other (or both) before you
slander an entire industry (not that the movie industry doesn't
deserve slander against itself).
I think you have proved to everyone that you have enough righteous
indignation on the subject, now how about doing some research to
back up your indignation?
tom
Doug Fierro
Well, you changed your story when you originally said you thought the
title was a swipe at Hispanics, then now you say that you are upset because
it is a typgraphical error from a "trillion dollar" industry film after
you learn that a hispanic (Puerto Rican) person themself spelled the title
that way.
Get a life.
Barzilai Spinak
The first time I noticed the error was in the reviews group. I thought that
the guy who did the review misspelled it (probably because he doesn't know
Spanish). But now it seems to be that the original title has the misspelling.
Yes, it shocks me a little to see that mistake. The name is _Carlos_ (Charles)
and the nickname is _Carlitos_. So the possesive must be _Carlitos'_.
There may not be any difference in the pronunciation, but it's a misspelling
anyway.
But then, people mix up "its" and "it's", "your" and "you're", "then" and
"than", "their" and "they're" and "there"...
This is due to the lazy pronunciation and careless writing of English
speakers, IMHO.
+---------------------------------+
| Barzilai Spinak |
| ..... bar...@wam.umd.edu |
| (-O-O-) bar...@eng.umd.edu |
+nnn--U--nnn----------------------+
Matthew Edward Newton
Barzilai Spinak <bar...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
> The first time I noticed the error was in the reviews group. I thought that
>the guy who did the review misspelled it (probably because he doesn't know
>Spanish). But now it seems to be that the original title has the misspelling.
>Yes, it shocks me a little to see that mistake. The name is _Carlos_ (Charles)
>and the nickname is _Carlitos_. So the possesive must be _Carlitos'_.
>There may not be any difference in the pronunciation, but it's a misspelling
>anyway.
This entire discussion is nit-picking in the extreme, but, as long as
we're nit-picking, the above explanation doesn't quite have it right
either. *IF* the man's name is "Carlitos," then the correct written
possessive would be "Carlitos's" (which is correctly pronounced either as
"carlitos" or as the awkward "carlitoses").
"Carlitos'" would be every bit as wrong as "Carlito's" because the man's
name is a singular. I quote from A Manual for Writers of Term Papers,
Theses, and Dissertations (5th ed.), by Kate L. Turabian, which is based
on the Chicago Manual of Style:
"Form the possessive of a proper name in the singular by adding an
apostrophe and s: Jones's book Stephens's poems Kinross's farm"
I will be the first to admit that "Carlitos's" looks (and sounds) weird;
that's probably why the movie folks did what they did.
--
/\/\/\/
matt...@uclink.berkeley.edu IS Matthew Newton at UC Berkeley
fo...@vnet.sanjose.ibm.com
>that's probably why the movie folks did what they did.
Exactly my point. And it doesn't bug anybody? Amazing.
Thomas Skogestad . Kjemiteknikk
|> we're nit-picking, the above explanation doesn't quite have it right
|> either. *IF* the man's name is "Carlitos," then the correct written
|> possessive would be "Carlitos's" (which is correctly pronounced either as
|> "carlitos" or as the awkward "carlitoses").
|>
|> "Carlitos'" would be every bit as wrong as "Carlito's" because the man's
|> name is a singular. I quote from A Manual for Writers of Term Papers,
|> Theses, and Dissertations (5th ed.), by Kate L. Turabian, which is based
|> on the Chicago Manual of Style:
|>
|> "Form the possessive of a proper name in the singular by adding an
|> apostrophe and s: Jones's book Stephens's poems Kinross's farm"
|>
|> I will be the first to admit that "Carlitos's" looks (and sounds) weird;
|> that's probably why the movie folks did what they did.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Have you ever been to school. When I went to elementary
school (mid 80s), I learned that the correct form for a possesive if he name end
with an s (and some other letters), you just add ' (as in Thomas'). Yes, s's is a
correct form, but its a very awkward form ( Thomas's??? Come on.)
For a few years now the form s's seems to have been winning support, but if it
was up to me, I'd ban it!!!!
--
------------------------------------------
|Director's cut of this .sig coming soon!|
------------------------------------------
The ace whale killer promulgates once again:
Snail Mail Sucks! Try me at tho...@kjemi.unit.no
david eugene vinson
Thomas Skogestad . Kjemiteknikk <tho...@kjemi.unit.no> wrote:
>|> This entire discussion is nit-picking in the extreme, but, as long as
>|> we're nit-picking, the above explanation doesn't quite have it right
>|> either. *IF* the man's name is "Carlitos," then the correct written
>|> possessive would be "Carlitos's" (which is correctly pronounced either as
>|> "carlitos" or as the awkward "carlitoses").
>|>
>|> "Carlitos'" would be every bit as wrong as "Carlito's" because the man's
>|> name is a singular. I quote from A Manual for Writers of Term Papers,
>|> Theses, and Dissertations (5th ed.), by Kate L. Turabian, which is based
>|> on the Chicago Manual of Style:
>|>
>|> "Form the possessive of a proper name in the singular by adding an
>|> apostrophe and s: Jones's book Stephens's poems Kinross's farm"
>|>
>|> I will be the first to admit that "Carlitos's" looks (and sounds) weird;
>|> that's probably why the movie folks did what they did.
>
>
>Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Have you ever been to school. When I went to elementary
>school (mid 80s), I learned that the correct form for a possesive if he name end
>with an s (and some other letters), you just add ' (as in Thomas'). Yes, s's is a
>correct form, but its a very awkward form ( Thomas's??? Come on.)
>
>For a few years now the form s's seems to have been winning support, but if it
>was up to me, I'd ban it!!!!
Besides, carlitosis sounds like some ugly skin disease.
>
>
>--
>
> ------------------------------------------
> |Director's cut of this .sig coming soon!|
> ------------------------------------------
> The ace whale killer promulgates once again:
> Snail Mail Sucks! Try me at tho...@kjemi.unit.no
>
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
David Steinman
>"Carlitos'" would be every bit as wrong as "Carlito's" because the man's
>name is a singular. I quote from A Manual for Writers of Term Papers,
>Theses, and Dissertations (5th ed.), by Kate L. Turabian, which is based
>on the Chicago Manual of Style:
>
>"Form the possessive of a proper name in the singular by adding an
>apostrophe and s: Jones's book Stephens's poems Kinross's farm"
I believe you only add the 's to a single syllable proper name. Anything
more than one syllable gets only the apostrophe.
--
Dave!
Keith Meng-Wei Loh
While many people do use Kate Turabian's book as a style source, a good
many others also subscribe to Strunk & White's _Elements of Style_.
In it, the use of the possessive apostrophe after an ending 's' in the
name followed by another 's' is deemed acceptable, but noted to be a
custom of grammar that is passing on. I rarely see "Stephens's" anywhere
these days. In pronunciation, I would add, the statement made by the
poster immediately above is probably the rule. I never hear anyone saying
the "StephanopolousES car", the possessive form is subdued or silent.
Or perhaps it's just my hearing passing on.
fo...@vnet.sanjose.ibm.com
If, for instance, the character's name was Amos, wouldn't the correct
title of the movie read "Amos' Way" (or "Amos's Way" depending on
whatever proper English theory you subscribe to)? What the filmmakers
have done in the case of "Carlito's Way" is the same thing as calling
the Amos story "Amo's Way". Ya see what I'm gettin' at? Not only have
they failed to put it properly, they have in effect changed the character's
name from Amos to Amo. As for the Pacino flick, the name is Carlitos
and not Carlito. This omission is, in my opinion, an oversight by the
under-educated idiots behind the movie--and also an unintentional yet
nonetheless careless swipe at all of us Hispanics who might not care
enough to complain.
Matthew Edward Newton
<fo...@vnet.sanjose.ibm.com> wrote:
This is a really good analogy that should shut up anyone who says "Who
Cares?" As a sidelight, the New Yorker's review of the movie referred to
the main character as "Carlito" -- it seems the reviewer didn't pay as
much attention to the film as he did to the screwed-up title.