Each Other's'

[dr_mabeuse]

Which is right?

(A) Stay out of each other's way.

(B) Stay out of each others' way.

and

(C) Always respect other's rights.

(D) Always respect others' right.

I think there a simple straigtforward answer to this that I'm just not seeing because of a case of sudden acute stupidy syndrome.

---dr.M.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I have no freaking idea. I don't think you're stupid, just ignorant. Like me.

 

[SexySoBeChick]

Not an English major, but . . .

I believe it would be other's in the first example. Even though "each other" refers to more than one person, you say, "We belong to each other," not, "each others." Therefore, to make "each other" possessive you'd add apostrophe-s. So, it would be—Stay out of each other's way.

For the second example, I believe the answer would be others'. Because here, you're using the plural word "others." You can see this more clearly if you change the sentence around to read: Always respect the rights of others. And to show the possessive of a word that ends in "s" you just add the apostrophe. So it would be—Always respect others' rights

Hope that helps,
SSBC

 

[dr_mabeuse]

SSBC,

The sentence that set me off was:

My wife and I enjoy each other's cooking

I think I end up in the same place as you on example (A), but I'm not sure it's by the same line of reasoning. It just seemed to me that "each other" has to be singular. I don't see how "each" anything could be plural. So the correct choice would be "each other's".

But then in the example above, you're clearly talking about two people's cooking, so that would imply that "each other" means two people, so wouldn't "each others' " be correct?

I've been using "each other's" since I could write. I don't know why all of a sudden it should start acting up on me.

---dr.M.

 

[SexySoBeChick]

But then in the example above, you're clearly talking about two people's cooking, so that would imply that "each other" means two people, so wouldn't "each others' " be correct?
---dr.M.

Simple answer? No.

"Children" is a plural word, yet to show possession you write "children's." Not "childrens'."

Generally . . .

If the word is plural and ends in an "s," then you just add an apostrophe. If it's plural and doesn't end in "s," then you add apostrophe-s.

"each other" is plural because it refers to a group of two or more people or things that have some relation

So, it would be: My wife and I enjoy each other's cooking.

 

[champagne1982]

other's and others's

My wife and I enjoy each other's cooking

But then in the example above, you're clearly talking about two people's cooking, so that would imply that "each other" means two people, so wouldn't "each others' " be correct?

---dr.M.

My wife and I each enjoy the other's cooking.. - referring to your spouse as the "other" singular party....

My wife and I enjoy the others' cooking.. - referring to a group of "others" apart from the subject "My wife and I..."

 

[Oxygen]

The simple answer to a good question

The key to this is your choice of the word each to describe other . You have chosen to describe singularities, that is, each person one-at-a-time. Therefore, the correct form would be each other's. If you used a plural form, which means you do not use each , then the collective possessive would be others' It is a matter of number. If the number of other is one, then the possessive is other's; if more than one, it is others'.

I am glad that some ask these very intelligent questions, because the English language is regularly butchered here. :rose

The example of the word children does not alter the rule. It is a single set of objects (little people) and the singular set takes the singular possessive.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Oxygen,

What if we're talking "all other's"?

He listens to me. He rejects all others' opinions.

That right?

 

[Oxygen]

You are right. It is plural as you have expressed it. The all does not call for a single object or set of objects. Therefore, the plural possessive form is appropriate.

While all others may be a set in mathematical terms, it is not a closed set, or even a bound set, meaning that its membership is indefinite not only in number but in qualities. The set of all children has the common quality of childhood which allows it to be apropriately singluar, whereas OTHERS can include anything (is infinite in scope) and thus is appropriately treated as plural.

 

[snooper]

Which is right?

(A) Stay out of each other's way.
(B) Stay out of each others' way.

and

(C) Always respect other's rights.
(D) Always respect others' right.

I think there a simple straigtforward answer to this that I'm just not seeing because of a case of sudden acute stupidy syndrome.

---dr.M.

Simple straightforward reply:

A) is correct if there are two of them (e.g. husband and wife stay ...).
B) is correct if there are more than two (e.g. the members of the football team stay ...).
C) is correct if there are only two people in the universe of discourse (e.g. Husbands and wives should always ...). There is assumed to be only one wife for each husband and vice versa.
D) is correct in the more general case (e.g. Citizens should always ...).

OK?

 

[Oxygen]

Sorry, Snooper

Snooper, you are not correct, and if you wish to write well, you need to express yourself correctly.

The requirements of number in the language depend upon the words used in the sentence and not on some undisclosed "ULTIMATE TRUTH." The whole point of writing is to use language which expresses the circumstances which you are postulating. It is up to the author to use language appropriate to express those circumstances according to the rules of the English language in each sentence. Otherwise, it is impossible to express yourself clearly.

Do you understand why your examples are not OK? It doesn't matter how many people there actually are; it matters how many you say there are in the sentence.

 

[SexySoBeChick]

I'm going to have to go with Oxygen on this. In each of Dr. M's examples, there is a clear right and wrong answer. I don't believe there is ever a correct usage for "each others'."

According to Webster's Dictionary . . .

Each other—pronoun: each of two or more in reciprocal action or relation <looked at each other in surprise> usage: Some handbooks and textbooks recommend that each other be restricted to reference to two and one another to reference to three or more. The distinction, while neat, is not observed in actual usage. Each other and one another are used interchangeably by good writers and have been since the sixteenth century.

Even though, "each" and "other" are their own words, when placed together the act as one entity. As far as I'm aware, "each others" doesn't exist, only "each other." Therefore, if you want to refer to something that "each other" possess, then you write "each other's."

The second example refers to the rights of some group. And since it is a group, they are "others," not an "other." When you want to refer to something that belongs to "others"—like their rights—you write "others'," because of the above-mentioned "ending in 's'" rule.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I need to go take some aspirin.

 

[snooper]

Re: Sorry, Snooper

Do you understand why your examples are not OK? It doesn't matter how many people there actually are; it matters how many you say there are in the sentence.

I thought I had done exactly that, in that each example I gave had a prefixed subject for the sentence which clearly said whether there were two or more-than-two people concerned. The 'universe of discourse' was to cover the case where a pronoun was used as the subject of this sentence and clearly referred to a known group.

 

[snooper]

Re: Sorry, Snooper

Edited to delete double posting, caused by shaking click finger!

 

[Oxygen]

re re sorry, snooper

You have already been given the correct answer in two different ways, above. Please look at the references provided by the author from Florida.
I will join her in that aspirin.

There is no disrespect to you in this; just an attempt to assist everyone in achieving understandable writing.

Even English authors (I won't name them in open forum) have butchered their own language in Literotica, applying British rules as the standard. After all, the reader is presumably interested in knowing who did what to (or with) whom and how and why, and with what effect, they did it. Linguistic (as opposed to lingual) chaos does not achieve an erotic effect

 

[snooper]

Re: re re sorry, snooper

You have already been given the correct answer in two different ways, above. Please look at the references provided by the author from Florida.
>
Even English authors (I won't name them in open forum) have butchered their own language in Literotica, applying British rules as the standard. After all, the reader is presumably interested in knowing who did what to (or with) whom and how and why, and with what effect, they did it. Linguistic (as opposed to lingual) chaos does not achieve an erotic effect

The reference SexySoBeChick cites is Webster's which may be acceptable to Bill Gates's adherents, but to those of us who attempt to speak and write the Queen's English it is merely a repository of the errors introduced into the US dialect.

 

[Oxygen]

Sorry Snooper

I don't buy that excuse. Sorry, but you have the burden to prove your assertions with ddetailed citations to widely recongized authority since you are unwilling to accept the citations given

If you actually have such authoritative sources and they are not mere fantasies, then do us all a favor and cite them -- for either the predominant form of English (American useage) or for educated British useage (the Queen's English). I have many of my books packed up and cannot conveniently locate my Brfitish books that address the Queen's English.

Make that TWO aspirins.

 

[SexySoBeChick]

Re: Re: re re sorry, snooper

The reference SexySoBeChick cites is Webster's which may be acceptable to Bill Gates's adherents, but to those of us who attempt to speak and write the Queen's English it is merely a repository of the errors introduced into the US dialect.

Oh, how stupid of me. And I suppose just the other day you heard the Queen herself say, "We must all respect each others."

Right.

Make that a bottle of aspirin for me, thanks.

 

[snooper]

Re: Re: Re: re re sorry, snooper

Oh, how stupid of me. And I suppose just the other day you heard the Queen herself say, "We must all respect each others."

Right.

Make that a bottle of aspirin for me, thanks.

No, that would be wrong, but she may well have said, "We must all respect others' beliefs."

Originally posted by Oxygen
Sorry, but you have the burden to prove your assertions with ddetailed citations to widely recongized authority since you are unwilling to accept the citations given

Try Fowler.

I find this a pointless discussion, since we are arguing about facts, so I will agree to differ in future and will not read this thread again.

 

[Oxygen]

Cutting and running, SNOOPER?

Snooper, dr_mabeuse has a legitimate question in his pursuit of our craft; one which ought to be respected. SexySoBeChick has helpfully expressed the rules of te language as I understand them and has given detailed and reasoned support for her position. "TRY FOWLER" and your other comments are evidence that you are nothing more than a bag of malodorous wind. If you had any support for your huffing and puffing in Fowler, it would help your credibility to cite and quote it. I do find any supportfor you in Fowler.

If you are not going to be an honest participant in the discussion, why don't you just shut up and respect those who are trying to master their art?



for SexySoBeChick, who deserves our sincere thanks !

 

[SexySoBeChick]

Because I just love talking to walls . . .

Originally posted by Snooper
No, that would be wrong, but she may well have said, "We must all respect others' beliefs."

Thank you, that's exactly my point! "Each others" is wrong. However, you plainly suggested . . .

Originally posted by Snooper
B) is correct if there are more than two (e.g. the members of the football team stay ...).

Which is wrong. There is never a correct usage for "each others'." If you have a citation from the Oxford English Dictionary--is that British enough for you?--stating that there is, I'd love to see it.

The correctness of others' was never in question. I believe somewhere in the mess above, I stated that "others' rights"--or in this case, "others' beliefs"--was perfectly acceptable.

Originally posted by Oxygen
for SexySoBeChick, who deserves our sincere thanks !

Thanks for your thanks. Who needs aspirin when you've got a !

--SSBC

 

[Never]

This is a simple question but I honestly don't know the answer.
If I have a character named Magnus and Magnus has a horse can I say, "Magnus's horse"? I remember someone telling me possessive apostrophes were handled differently when someone's name ended in an 's' and I just wanted to make sure.

 

[Oxygen]

Anyone have more specific authority?

I am not an all-purpose style person and I don't have access to most of my books just now, but it is my best recollection that you dispense with the second S, leaving a possessive of Magnus as Magnus'. That is how I would do it. and I believe it to be corrrect. In other words, your recollection is probably the same as mine.

I hope that is helpful to you.

Happy writing!

 

[SexySoBeChick]

According to Strunk and White's The Elements of Style . . .

Elementary Rules of Usage

1. Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's.

Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,

Charles's friend
Burns's poems
The witch's malice

Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names [ending] in –es and –is, the possessive Jesus', and such forms as for conscience' sake, for righteousness' sake. But such forms as Moses' Laws, Isis' temple are commonly replaced by

The laws of Moses
The temple of Isis

The pronominal possessives hers, its, theirs, yours, and ours have no apostrophe. Indefinite pronouns, however, use the apostrophe to show possession.

One's rights
Somebody else's umbrella

A common error is to write it's for its, or vice versa. The first is a contraction, meaning "it is." The second is a possessive.

It's a wise dog that scratches its own fleas.


Therefore, since Magnus is singular, you'd write Magnus's horse. I believe the "ending in s" rule applies to plural nouns—I apologize if I was unclear about that in the above. For example, to write about a car belonging to a group of clowns, you'd write—the clowns' car.

Hope that help,
SSBC

 

[Oxygen]

I stand corrected, THANK YOU

I am happy to defer to the author from the State of Florida (There were no tornadic winds where she is, I hope).

She quotes good authority, while I was simply following what I was taught in classes 50 years ago. I use the same authority myself, but it is now packed in
a box somewhere.

for SexySoBeChick