Russian Sailors' Dance or Russian Sailor's Dance

[Dave Tholen]

I've got a recording of Gliere's "Russian Sailor's Dance", but the printing on the CD is inconsistent (the disc itself, the U card
insert, the booklet track listing, the program notes) where it is also printed as "Russian Sailors' Dance". I've tried Googling it
and found images of many different scores, some of which have it printed as "Russian Sailor's Dance" and others as "Russian Sailors'
Dance". So far I haven't found any definitive source. Is it supposed to be the dance of a Russian sailor or the dance of many
Russian sailors? Maybe it's not such a big deal to some, but I'm cataloging all my CDs, and need to choose which way to enter it
into my database. If there is no definitive answer, I'm inclined to go with whatever the transcriber used, which in this case
happens to be Erik Leidzen. According to the Wind Repertory Project, the Leidzen transcription has it as "Russian Sailors' Dance",
but I have to assume the web site paid attention to that particular detail.

Anybody know more, or can argue for the alternate spelling?

[Peter T. Daniels]

It's not "alternate spelling,". it's singular vs. plural. Just see what the original Russian is.

"Possibly the most famous dance from this ballet is the Sailors Dance, sometimes referred to as the "Russian Sailors Dance" (although it is described as "Dance of the Sailors from the Soviet Ship" in the score and libretto).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Poppy

[Dave Tholen]

>> I've got a recording of Gliere's "Russian Sailor's Dance", but the printing on the CD is inconsistent (the disc itself, the U card
>> insert, the booklet track listing, the program notes) where it is also printed as "Russian Sailors' Dance". I've tried Googling it
>> and found images of many different scores, some of which have it printed as "Russian Sailor's Dance" and others as "Russian Sailors'
>> Dance". So far I haven't found any definitive source. Is it supposed to be the dance of a Russian sailor or the dance of many
>> Russian sailors? Maybe it's not such a big deal to some, but I'm cataloging all my CDs, and need to choose which way to enter it
>> into my database. If there is no definitive answer, I'm inclined to go with whatever the transcriber used, which in this case
>> happens to be Erik Leidzen. According to the Wind Repertory Project, the Leidzen transcription has it as "Russian Sailors' Dance",
>> but I have to assume the web site paid attention to that particular detail.
>>
>> Anybody know more, or can argue for the alternate spelling?

> It's not "alternate spelling,".

It's two alternatives for the spelling of the title that I've encountered.

> it's singular vs. plural.

Gosh, wish I had thought of that. Oh gee, I already did! See the above, where I ask whether it's the dance of "a Russian sailor"
or the dance of "many Russian sailors".

> Just see what the original Russian is.

(1) I don't know where to look for the "original" Russian, and (2) even if I could find it, I don't read Cyrillic, so figuring out
whether it's singular or plural would be problematic.

> "Possibly the most famous dance from this ballet is the Sailors Dance, sometimes referred to as the "Russian Sailors Dance" (although it is described as "Dance of the Sailors from the Soviet Ship" in the score and libretto).
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Poppy

Well, that neatly gets around the issue by avoiding the apostrophe altogether. I was hoping that somebody who actually saw a
performance of "The Red Poppy" could say how many Russians were dancing while that music was being played, one or many.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, December 30, 2020 at 9:42:38 AM UTC-5, Dave Tholen wrote:

> >> I've got a recording of Gliere's "Russian Sailor's Dance", but the printing on the CD is inconsistent (the disc itself, the U card
> >> insert, the booklet track listing, the program notes) where it is also printed as "Russian Sailors' Dance". I've tried Googling it
> >> and found images of many different scores, some of which have it printed as "Russian Sailor's Dance" and others as "Russian Sailors'
> >> Dance". So far I haven't found any definitive source. Is it supposed to be the dance of a Russian sailor or the dance of many
> >> Russian sailors? Maybe it's not such a big deal to some, but I'm cataloging all my CDs, and need to choose which way to enter it
> >> into my database. If there is no definitive answer, I'm inclined to go with whatever the transcriber used, which in this case
> >> happens to be Erik Leidzen. According to the Wind Repertory Project, the Leidzen transcription has it as "Russian Sailors' Dance",
> >> but I have to assume the web site paid attention to that particular detail.
> >> Anybody know more, or can argue for the alternate spelling?
> > It's not "alternate spelling,".
>
> It's two alternatives for the spelling of the title that I've encountered.

No, it is not. See my next line:

> > it's singular vs. plural.
>
> Gosh, wish I had thought of that. Oh gee, I already did! See the above, where I ask whether it's the dance of "a Russian sailor"
> or the dance of "many Russian sailors".

Why didn't you look it up? It would have been a hell of a lot quicker than
typing out your whole life story above.

> > Just see what the original Russian is.
>
> (1) I don't know where to look for the "original" Russian, and (2) even if I could find it, I don't read Cyrillic, so figuring out
> whether it's singular or plural would be problematic.

You've never heard of Google or Wikipedia? I had never heard of this piece
and had no idea it was part of The Red Poppy, which I have heard of, but
have never had any interest in hearing.

> > "Possibly the most famous dance from this ballet is the Sailors Dance, sometimes referred to as the "Russian Sailors Dance" (although it is described as "Dance of the Sailors from the Soviet Ship" in the score and libretto).
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Poppy
>
> Well, that neatly gets around the issue by avoiding the apostrophe altogether. I was hoping that somebody who actually saw a
> performance of "The Red Poppy" could say how many Russians were dancing while that music was being played, one or many.

And you never heard of YouTube either?

It is not a possessive. It is a plural.

Is "Dance of the Sailors" not clear enough for you?

[Dave Tholen]

>>>> I've got a recording of Gliere's "Russian Sailor's Dance", but the printing on the CD is inconsistent (the disc itself, the U card
>>>> insert, the booklet track listing, the program notes) where it is also printed as "Russian Sailors' Dance". I've tried Googling it
>>>> and found images of many different scores, some of which have it printed as "Russian Sailor's Dance" and others as "Russian Sailors'
>>>> Dance". So far I haven't found any definitive source. Is it supposed to be the dance of a Russian sailor or the dance of many
>>>> Russian sailors? Maybe it's not such a big deal to some, but I'm cataloging all my CDs, and need to choose which way to enter it
>>>> into my database. If there is no definitive answer, I'm inclined to go with whatever the transcriber used, which in this case
>>>> happens to be Erik Leidzen. According to the Wind Repertory Project, the Leidzen transcription has it as "Russian Sailors' Dance",
>>>> but I have to assume the web site paid attention to that particular detail.
>>>> Anybody know more, or can argue for the alternate spelling?

>>> It's not "alternate spelling,".

>> It's two alternatives for the spelling of the title that I've encountered.

> No, it is not. See my next line:

Once you include the cases with no apostrophe at all, we now have three alternatives from which to choose.

>>> it's singular vs. plural.

>> Gosh, wish I had thought of that. Oh gee, I already did! See the above, where I ask whether it's the dance of "a Russian sailor"
>> or the dance of "many Russian sailors".

> Why didn't you look it up?

Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Daniels? I *did* look it up, but I couldn't find a definitive answer.
Roughly half the cases had it one way and the other half had it the other way.

> It would have been a hell of a lot quicker than typing out your whole life story above.

Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Daniels? My whole life story isn't shown above.

>>> Just see what the original Russian is.

>> (1) I don't know where to look for the "original" Russian, and (2) even if I could find it, I don't read Cyrillic, so figuring out
>> whether it's singular or plural would be problematic.

> You've never heard of Google or Wikipedia?

Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Daniels? My second sentence begins with "I've tried Googling it".

> I had never heard of this piece and had no idea it was part of The Red Poppy, which I have heard of, but have never had any interest in hearing.

Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Daniels? My question had nothing to do with your familiarity or interest in
the music. It just more of your typical response style when you don't know the answer, which is to pick on something else.

>>> "Possibly the most famous dance from this ballet is the Sailors Dance, sometimes referred to as the "Russian Sailors Dance" (although it is
>>> described as "Dance of the Sailors from the Soviet Ship" in the score and libretto).
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Poppy

>> Well, that neatly gets around the issue by avoiding the apostrophe altogether. I was hoping that somebody who actually saw a
>> performance of "The Red Poppy" could say how many Russians were dancing while that music was being played, one or many.

> And you never heard of YouTube either?

"I had never heard of this service and had no idea it was part of Google, which I have heard of, but have never had any interest in
viewing."

To coin a phrase.

> It is not a possessive.

Oh, so you're now claiming that there shouldn't be any apostrophe at all, eh Daniels?

> It is a plural.

Or singular, depending on the placement of the apostrophe, which appears both before and after the "s" in various scores, hence the
question in the first place.

> Is "Dance of the Sailors" not clear enough for you?

Gee, "of the" makes it possessive, which you just finished claiming it wasn't. You can't even be consistent yourself!

[Peter T. Daniels]

Tholen, it must be 20 years since I first encountered your nonsense here.

The complete literal translation of the title is in the Wikipedia article that googling
took me to, and it clearly shows the plural.

Whether that is rendered IN ENGLISH with a bare noun-noun construction
(Sailors Dance) or with a possessive (Sailors' Dance) is entirely a matter
of taste. Neither is incorrect, and neither is "official."

[Dave Tholen]

In what way does an attempt to determine whether the correct title is "Russian Sailors' Dance" or "Russian Sailor's Dance" represent
nonsense, Daniels?

Ironically, such a claim made without substantiation represents more of your own nonsense, Daniels.

> The complete literal translation of the title is in the Wikipedia article that googling
> took me to, and it clearly shows the plural.

While other sources clearly show the singular, Daniels, hence the question in the first place.

> Whether that is rendered IN ENGLISH with a bare noun-noun construction
> (Sailors Dance) or with a possessive (Sailors' Dance) is entirely a matter
> of taste. Neither is incorrect, and neither is "official."

Given that the original question wasn't about "Russian Sailors Dance" versus "Russian Sailors' Dance", the above represents yet
another example of your reading comprehension problem, Daniels. The difference between "Russian Sailors' Dance" (plural) and
"Russian Sailor's Dance" (singular) isn't entirely a matter of taste.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Because NEITHER of them is "correct" to the exclusion of the other.
Both are completely acceptable.

IF the composer had titled the work in English, and IF he never spelled
it more than one way, then that would be the correct title. For instance,
Vaughan Williams titled his work "Sinfonia Antartica" even though
"Antartica" is not an English word, so that is the title of the work. As a
little boy, Britten wrote pieces labeled "Waltztes," and when he published
them toward the end of his life, he retained that spelling, so that is the
correct spelling of the title, even though "waltzt" is not an English word.

The nonsense I referred to is not just these two examples, but everything
you used to post here. Including your inappropriate uses of vocatives, Tholen.

> Ironically, such a claim made without substantiation represents more of your own nonsense, Daniels.

More, Tholen, in addition to what, Tholen?

> > The complete literal translation of the title is in the Wikipedia article that googling
> > took me to, and it clearly shows the plural.

> While other sources clearly show the singular, Daniels, hence the question in the first place.

Yet you couldn't be bothered to do the slightest bit of investigation on your own.

I understand you are supposed to be a planetary astronomer. I wonder
whether you were involved in the great Mars fuckup when some of the
parts were made in metric measurements and some in customary
measurements.

> > Whether that is rendered IN ENGLISH with a bare noun-noun construction
> > (Sailors Dance) or with a possessive (Sailors' Dance) is entirely a matter
> > of taste. Neither is incorrect, and neither is "official."

> Given that the original question wasn't about "Russian Sailors Dance" versus "Russian Sailors' Dance", the above represents yet
> another example of your reading comprehension problem, Daniels. The difference between "Russian Sailors' Dance" (plural) and
> "Russian Sailor's Dance" (singular) isn't entirely a matter of taste.

Obviously. It was a simple matter of discovering what the piece was
actually called in the original, and it was utterly simple to find the literal
translation "Dance of the Russian Sailors." Why was that too difficult
for you?

I suppose I shouldn't have supposed you were so stupid you couldn't
manage that, and your problem was with whether to use an apostrophe
at all, since _that_ is a question that has two different and legitimate
answers. But it turns out you were and are.

[Dave Tholen]

So, you're now claiming that Gliere himself wrote the piece with both titles so that future generations could whichever they prefer
and have it "completely acceptable", eh Daniels?

That's like claiming both Daniels and Daniel are completely acceptable forms of your surname.

> IF the composer had titled the work in English, and IF he never spelled
> it more than one way, then that would be the correct title.

For a piece of music that you had never heard of, suddenly you seem to an authority on the number of ways in which Gliere spelled it.

> For instance,
> Vaughan Williams titled his work "Sinfonia Antartica" even though
> "Antartica" is not an English word, so that is the title of the work. As a
> little boy, Britten wrote pieces labeled "Waltztes," and when he published
> them toward the end of his life, he retained that spelling, so that is the
> correct spelling of the title, even though "waltzt" is not an English word.

Classic inappropriate analogy, given that we're not talking about the translation of a Russian word into an English word, but rather
whether the possessive of the English word refers to the singular "Sailor" or the plural "Sailors", which *DOES* affect the correct
placement of the apostrophe. I wasn't asking if Gliere's title has exact English counterparts, Daniels, but it's quite clear that
you didn't bother to read the question for comprehension. So what else is new?

> The nonsense I referred to is not just these two examples, but everything
> you used to post here.

Classic unsubstantiated and incorrect claim.

> Including your inappropriate uses of vocatives, Tholen.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim of inappropriateness, Daniels.

>> Ironically, such a claim made without substantiation represents more of your own nonsense, Daniels.

> More, Tholen, in addition to what, Tholen?

In addition to the multiple examples above, Daniels.

>>> The complete literal translation of the title is in the Wikipedia article that googling
>>> took me to, and it clearly shows the plural.

>> While other sources clearly show the singular, Daniels, hence the question in the first place.

> Yet you couldn't be bothered to do the slightest bit of investigation on your own.

There's your reading comprehension problem getting in the way again, Daniels. Try reading my second original sentence again,
Daniels, this time for comprehension.

> I understand you are supposed to be a planetary astronomer. I wonder
> whether you were involved in the great Mars fuckup when some of the
> parts were made in metric measurements and some in customary
> measurements.

Non sequitur. Ironically, you couldn't be bothered to do the slightest bit of investigation on your own, Daniels.

>>> Whether that is rendered IN ENGLISH with a bare noun-noun construction
>>> (Sailors Dance) or with a possessive (Sailors' Dance) is entirely a matter
>>> of taste. Neither is incorrect, and neither is "official."

>> Given that the original question wasn't about "Russian Sailors Dance" versus "Russian Sailors' Dance", the above represents yet
>> another example of your reading comprehension problem, Daniels. The difference between "Russian Sailors' Dance" (plural) and
>> "Russian Sailor's Dance" (singular) isn't entirely a matter of taste.

> Obviously.

So, you just contradicted yourself, Daniels. No surprise there, really.

> It was a simple matter of discovering what the piece was
> actually called in the original, and it was utterly simple to find the literal
> translation "Dance of the Russian Sailors." Why was that too difficult
> for you?

That, coming from the person who declared "It is not a possessive", but obviously fails to understand how "of the" makes it possessive.

> I suppose I shouldn't have supposed you were so stupid you couldn't
> manage that, and your problem was with whether to use an apostrophe
> at all, since _that_ is a question that has two different and legitimate
> answers. But it turns out you were and are.

Well, if you had bothered to read the original question for comprehension in the first place, Daniels, you would have realized that
the question involved the placement of the apostrophe, not the use of the apostrophe, and you could have avoided making a complete
fool of yourself in a public forum. Again.

[Peter T. Daniels]

THERE ARE NOT TWO DIFFERENT TITLES.

THERE IS ONE TITLE, AND THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE DIFFERENT
WAYS TO TRANSLATE IT INTO ENGLISH.

WHY IS THAT SO DIFFICULT FOR YOU?

> That's like claiming both Daniels and Daniel are completely acceptable forms of your surname.

NO, IT IS NOT. THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT NAMES.

> > IF the composer had titled the work in English, and IF he never spelled
> > it more than one way, then that would be the correct title.
> For a piece of music that you had never heard of, suddenly you seem to an authority on the number of ways in which Gliere spelled it.
> > For instance,
> > Vaughan Williams titled his work "Sinfonia Antartica" even though
> > "Antartica" is not an English word, so that is the title of the work. As a
> > little boy, Britten wrote pieces labeled "Waltztes," and when he published
> > them toward the end of his life, he retained that spelling, so that is the
> > correct spelling of the title, even though "waltzt" is not an English word.

> Classic inappropriate analogy, given that we're not talking about the translation of a Russian word into an English word, but rather

THAT IS E X A C T L Y WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

> whether the possessive of the English word refers to the singular "Sailor" or the plural "Sailors", which *DOES* affect the correct
> placement of the apostrophe. I wasn't asking if Gliere's title has exact English counterparts, Daniels, but it's quite clear that
> you didn't bother to read the question for comprehension. So what else is new?

THE SINGULAR IS COMPLETELY WRONG. WHY YOU CANNOT COMPREHEND
THAT, THOLENS, IS UTTERLY BEYOND ME.

THYE OPTION "SAILOR'S" WAS INSTANTLY RULED OUT WITH A
MOMENT'S GOOGLING. WHY CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?

> > Obviously.
> So, you just contradicted yourself, Daniels. No surprise there, really.
> > It was a simple matter of discovering what the piece was
> > actually called in the original, and it was utterly simple to find the literal
> > translation "Dance of the Russian Sailors." Why was that too difficult
> > for you?
> That, coming from the person who declared "It is not a possessive", but obviously fails to understand how "of the" makes it possessive.

I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR INADQUATE UNDERSTANDING
OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR. NOT EVERYTHING WITH AN "OF" IS A
POSSESSIVE.

> > I suppose I shouldn't have supposed you were so stupid you couldn't
> > manage that, and your problem was with whether to use an apostrophe
> > at all, since _that_ is a question that has two different and legitimate
> > answers. But it turns out you were and are.
> Well, if you had bothered to read the original question for comprehension in the first place, Daniels, you would have realized that
> the question involved the placement of the apostrophe, not the use of the apostrophe, and you could have avoided making a complete
> fool of yourself in a public forum. Again.

POT, KETTLE, BLACK.

THERE WAS NO EXCUSE FOR THE ORIGINAL POSTING, SINCE THE
SIMPLE ANSWER WAS AVAILABLE WITH A SIMPLE GOOGLE.

[Dave Tholen]

So, now you're claiming that "Russian Sailor's Dance" and "Russian Sailors' Dance" are the same title, eh Daniels? Learn something
about the difference between singular and plural, Daniels.

> THERE IS ONE TITLE,

And I've been trying to find out which of the titles I've encountered is the correct one, Daniels. Why is that so difficult for you?

> AND THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE DIFFERENT
> WAYS TO TRANSLATE IT INTO ENGLISH.

Let's see, the singular way, the plural way, and the Daniels way?

> WHY IS THAT SO DIFFICULT FOR YOU?

How ironic.

>> That's like claiming both Daniels and Daniel are completely acceptable forms of your surname.

> NO, IT IS NOT. THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT NAMES.

Oh, so now you agree that "Russian Sailor's Dance" and "Russian Sailors' Dance" *ARE* two different titles. Strange, as you just
finished claiming that there is only one title, Daniels. Do make up your mind.

>>> IF the composer had titled the work in English, and IF he never spelled
>>> it more than one way, then that would be the correct title.

>> For a piece of music that you had never heard of, suddenly you seem to an authority on the number of ways in which Gliere spelled it.

>>> For instance,
>>> Vaughan Williams titled his work "Sinfonia Antartica" even though
>>> "Antartica" is not an English word, so that is the title of the work. As a
>>> little boy, Britten wrote pieces labeled "Waltztes," and when he published
>>> them toward the end of his life, he retained that spelling, so that is the
>>> correct spelling of the title, even though "waltzt" is not an English word.

>> Classic inappropriate analogy, given that we're not talking about the translation of a Russian word into an English word, but rather

> THAT IS E X A C T L Y WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I'm the one who asked the original question, Daniels, and I know what I've been talking about. What you've been talking about is
something else.

>> whether the possessive of the English word refers to the singular "Sailor" or the plural "Sailors", which *DOES* affect the correct
>> placement of the apostrophe. I wasn't asking if Gliere's title has exact English counterparts, Daniels, but it's quite clear that
>> you didn't bother to read the question for comprehension. So what else is new?

> THE SINGULAR IS COMPLETELY WRONG.

And your evidence for that claim is...?

> WHY YOU CANNOT COMPREHEND
> THAT, THOLENS, IS UTTERLY BEYOND ME.

It's not a matter of comprehension, Daniels; rather, it's a lack of sufficient evidence on your part. Simply claiming that the
singular is wrong isn't sufficient. I can refer you to several sources where the singular has been used, Daniels. Just because you
can refer to one source where the plural has been used is hardly convincing. I've encountered plenty of those as well, which is why
I asked the question in the first place!

>>> The nonsense I referred to is not just these two examples, but everything
>>> you used to post here.

>> Classic unsubstantiated and incorrect claim.

>>> Including your inappropriate uses of vocatives, Tholen.

>> Yet another unsubstantiated claim of inappropriateness, Daniels.

>>>> Ironically, such a claim made without substantiation represents more of your own nonsense, Daniels.

>>> More, Tholen, in addition to what, Tholen?

>> In addition to the multiple examples above, Daniels.

>>>>> The complete literal translation of the title is in the Wikipedia article that googling
>>>>> took me to, and it clearly shows the plural.

>>>> While other sources clearly show the singular, Daniels, hence the question in the first place.

>>> Yet you couldn't be bothered to do the slightest bit of investigation on your own.

>> There's your reading comprehension problem getting in the way again, Daniels. Try reading my second original sentence again,
>> Daniels, this time for comprehension.

>>> I understand you are supposed to be a planetary astronomer. I wonder
>>> whether you were involved in the great Mars fuckup when some of the
>>> parts were made in metric measurements and some in customary
>>> measurements.

>> Non sequitur. Ironically, you couldn't be bothered to do the slightest bit of investigation on your own, Daniels.

Note: no response to evidence of your own inconsistency, Daniels.

>>>>> Whether that is rendered IN ENGLISH with a bare noun-noun construction
>>>>> (Sailors Dance) or with a possessive (Sailors' Dance) is entirely a matter
>>>>> of taste. Neither is incorrect, and neither is "official."

>>>> Given that the original question wasn't about "Russian Sailors Dance" versus "Russian Sailors' Dance", the above represents yet
>>>> another example of your reading comprehension problem, Daniels. The difference between "Russian Sailors' Dance" (plural) and
>>>> "Russian Sailor's Dance" (singular) isn't entirely a matter of taste.

> THYE OPTION "SAILOR'S" WAS INSTANTLY RULED OUT WITH A
> MOMENT'S GOOGLING. WHY CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?

Maybe you should try more than just an instant of Googling, Daniels. There are plenty of inconsistencies out there to be found.

>>> Obviously.

>> So, you just contradicted yourself, Daniels. No surprise there, really.

>>> It was a simple matter of discovering what the piece was
>>> actually called in the original, and it was utterly simple to find the literal
>>> translation "Dance of the Russian Sailors." Why was that too difficult
>>> for you?

>> That, coming from the person who declared "It is not a possessive", but obviously fails to understand how "of the" makes it possessive.

> I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR INADQUATE UNDERSTANDING
> OF ENGLISH GRAMMAR. NOT EVERYTHING WITH AN "OF" IS A
> POSSESSIVE.

Irrelevant, given that I never said that everything with an "of" is a possessive, Daniels. However, "Dance of the Sailors" is
possessive. It's not the Dance of the Lumberjacks. It's not the Dance of the Electricians. I'm SO glad you're not responsible for
my understanding of English grammar, which is obviously superior to yours in this case, Daniels.

>>> I suppose I shouldn't have supposed you were so stupid you couldn't
>>> manage that, and your problem was with whether to use an apostrophe
>>> at all, since _that_ is a question that has two different and legitimate
>>> answers. But it turns out you were and are.

>> Well, if you had bothered to read the original question for comprehension in the first place, Daniels, you would have realized that
>> the question involved the placement of the apostrophe, not the use of the apostrophe, and you could have avoided making a complete
>> fool of yourself in a public forum. Again.

> POT, KETTLE, BLACK.

Non sequitur.

> THERE WAS NO EXCUSE FOR THE ORIGINAL POSTING, SINCE THE
> SIMPLE ANSWER WAS AVAILABLE WITH A SIMPLE GOOGLE.

For a simpleton like you, Daniels. Dig deeper.

[Peter T. Daniels]

ONE OF THEM IS AN ACCURATE TRANSLATION OF THE RUSSIAN
ORIGINAL, THE OTHER ONE ISN'T, MORONIC THOLEN.

> > THERE IS ONE TITLE,
>
> And I've been trying to find out which of the titles I've encountered is the correct one, Daniels. Why is that so difficult for you?

YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN THE ANSWER MANY TIMES BY NOW.
WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID, MORON THOLEN?

IF YOU CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY SOURCES, HOW DID YOU MANAGE TO
GET (ONE ASSUMES) DEGREES IN SCIENCES FROM UNIVERSITIES?

CHANGING "SAILORS" TO "LUMBERJACKS" DOES NOT MAKE OR
UNMAKE "OF" A POSSESSIVE IN THIS CONSTRUCTI0N.

[Dave Tholen]

Ah, so *now* you admit that there is "the other one", after claiming "THERE ARE NOT TWO DIFFERENT TITLES". Do make up your mind,
Daniels.

>>> THERE IS ONE TITLE,

>> And I've been trying to find out which of the titles I've encountered is the correct one, Daniels. Why is that so difficult for you?

> YOU HAVE BEEN SHOWN THE ANSWER MANY TIMES BY NOW.
> WHY ARE YOU SO STUPID, MORON THOLEN?

I've been shown multiple answers by multiple web sites, Daniels. Of course, I said that long ago, which you would know by now if
you had better reading comprehension skills, Daniels.

Note: no response.

>>> WHY YOU CANNOT COMPREHEND
>>> THAT, THOLENS, IS UTTERLY BEYOND ME.

>> It's not a matter of comprehension, Daniels; rather, it's a lack of sufficient evidence on your part. Simply claiming that the
>> singular is wrong isn't sufficient. I can refer you to several sources where the singular has been used, Daniels. Just because you
>> can refer to one source where the plural has been used is hardly convincing. I've encountered plenty of those as well, which is why
>> I asked the question in the first place!

> IF YOU CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIMARY
> AND SECONDARY SOURCES, HOW DID YOU MANAGE TO
> GET (ONE ASSUMES) DEGREES IN SCIENCES FROM UNIVERSITIES?

Classic erroneous presupposition. Interesting that you regard Wikipedia as a "primary source", Daniels. You also made a reference
to YouTube; is that also a "primary source" for you, Daniels? That's amusing, because today I received an email from someone who
was concerned about something he saw on YouTube, which a quick glance showed to be quite wrong.

Glad you agree that it doesn't unmake "of" a possessive in this construction, Daniels.

It does indicate that the dance is not of the lumberjacks or of the electricians, Daniels, but rather of the sailor or sailors,
depending on the placement of the apostrophe, of course, so the dance belongs to the sailor or sailors, thus possessive.

>>>>> I suppose I shouldn't have supposed you were so stupid you couldn't
>>>>> manage that, and your problem was with whether to use an apostrophe
>>>>> at all, since _that_ is a question that has two different and legitimate >>>>> answers. But it turns out you were and are.

>>>> Well, if you had bothered to read the original question for comprehension in the first place, Daniels, you would have realized that
>>>> the question involved the placement of the apostrophe, not the use of the apostrophe, and you could have avoided making a complete
>>>> fool of yourself in a public forum. Again.

>>> POT, KETTLE, BLACK.

>> Non sequitur.

>>> THERE WAS NO EXCUSE FOR THE ORIGINAL POSTING, SINCE THE
>>> SIMPLE ANSWER WAS AVAILABLE WITH A SIMPLE GOOGLE.

>> For a simpleton like you, Daniels. Dig deeper.

"Neither is incorrect, and neither is 'official'."
--Peter T. Daniels

"THERE IS ONE TITLE"
--Peter T. Daniels

Interesting usage of "neither" in reference to "one" title", Daniels. Now do you see why I disregard your inconsistent claims in
this matter?

[Peter T. Daniels]

THE ONE TITLE IS THE TITLE GIVEN BY THE COMPOSER.

IT WAS NOT GIVEN IN ENGLISH.

IT CAN BE TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS.

ONE OF THOSE WAYS IS "THE SOLDIERS DANCE."

(Compare "the Dodgers game.")

ANOTHER IS "THE SOLDIERS' DANCE.'

[Dave Tholen]

Note: no response.

Note: no response.

Note: no response.

>> It does indicate that the dance is not of the lumberjacks or of the electricians, Daniels, but rather of the sailor or sailors,
>> depending on the placement of the apostrophe, of course, so the dance belongs to the sailor or sailors, thus possessive.

>>>>>>> I suppose I shouldn't have supposed you were so stupid you couldn't
>>>>>>> manage that, and your problem was with whether to use an apostrophe
>>>>>>> at all, since _that_ is a question that has two different and legitimate >>>>> answers. But it turns out you were and are.

>>>>>> Well, if you had bothered to read the original question for comprehension in the first place, Daniels, you would have realized that
>>>>>> the question involved the placement of the apostrophe, not the use of the apostrophe, and you could have avoided making a complete
>>>>>> fool of yourself in a public forum. Again.

>>>>> POT, KETTLE, BLACK.

>>>> Non sequitur.

>>>>> THERE WAS NO EXCUSE FOR THE ORIGINAL POSTING, SINCE THE
>>>>> SIMPLE ANSWER WAS AVAILABLE WITH A SIMPLE GOOGLE.

>>>> For a simpleton like you, Daniels. Dig deeper.

>> "Neither is incorrect, and neither is 'official'."
>> --Peter T. Daniels
>>
>> "THERE IS ONE TITLE"
>> --Peter T. Daniels
>>
>> Interesting usage of "neither" in reference to "one" title", Daniels. Now do you see why I disregard your inconsistent claims in
>> this matter?

> THE ONE TITLE IS THE TITLE GIVEN BY THE COMPOSER.

And the other title, Daniels? You know, the other one that isn't incorrect and isn't official.

> IT WAS NOT GIVEN IN ENGLISH.

I never claimed Gliere's title was given in English, Daniels. But just as an example of an arranger's title, given in English, we
have Johnnie Vinson's:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRm3AGHhC-cqh8S0THTwbzMdMKFRWtoVFSSfhZ2W5pvK2-2vKEk

And Ricky Lombardo's:

https://www.justflutes.com/assets/images/products/994057-image-1-1.jpg

And we have the LP sleeve for Leonard Bernstein and the New York Philharmonic, also given in English:

https://img.discogs.com/8CLOhwt8T_RvzdzjHA1wEbVLrQ4=/fit-in/300x300/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(40)/discogs-images/R-5651686-1398980619-7812.jpeg.jpg

Bernstein! One of the giants in the field.

> IT CAN BE TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS.
>
> ONE OF THOSE WAYS IS "THE SOLDIERS DANCE."

Odd that none of the arrangements have used that particular translation, Daniels. Maybe the arrangers see a difference between a
soldier and a sailor.

> (Compare "the Dodgers game.")

Classic inappropriate analogy. "Dodgers" is the name of a team, and in certain contexts, the singular is appropriate when a term is
used for a collective, as in "The orchestra plays wonderful music." If you want to regard the orchestra as a bunch of individuals,
then the plural "The orchestra play wonderful music." would utilize the appropriate verb, but such a construct is rarely, if ever,
used in my experience.

> ANOTHER IS "THE SOLDIERS' DANCE.'

"THERE IS ONE TITLE"
--Peter T. Daniels

I see that you still haven't made up your mind, Daniels.