Each Other's'

[SexySoBeChick]

Re: I stand corrected, THANK YOU

(There were no tornadic winds where she is, I hope).

Nope, no tornadoes here, thank goodness--only severe thunderstorms this afternoon, which is par for the course in Florida during the summer.

And thanks so much for the roses. LOL

--SSBC

 

[Jan_Comenius]

British English, American English, snubs and snobs

And so the adventure begins...

The Oxford Guide to English Usage says:

1.40 possessive case
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


To form the possessive:

1. Normally, add -'s in the singular and -s' (i.e. apostrophe following
the plural suffix -s) in the plural, e.g.

Bill's book the Johnsons' dog
his master's voice a girls' school


Nouns that do not form plural in -s add -'s to the plural form, e.g.

children's books women's liberation


2. Nouns ending in s add 's for the singular possessive, e.g.

boss's Hicks's
Burns's St James's Square
Charles's Tess's
Father Christmas's Thomas's


To form the plural possessive, they add an apostrophe to the s of the
plural in the normal way, e.g.

bosses' the octopuses' tentacles
the Joneses' dog the Thomases' dog


French names ending in silent s or x add -'s, which is pronounced as
z, e.g.

Dumas's (= Dumah's) Cr‚mieux's


Names ending in -es pronounced iz are treated like plurals and take
only an apostrophe (following the pronunciation, which is iz, not
iziz), e.g.

Bridges' Moses'
Hodges' Riches'


Polysyllables not accented on the last or second last syllable can
take the apostrophe alone, but the form with -'s is equally
acceptable, e.g.

Barnabas' or Barnabas's
Nicholas' or Nicholas's


It is the custom in classical works to use the apostrophe only,
irrespective of pronunciation, for ancient classical names ending in
-s, e.g.

Ceres' Herodotus' Venus'
Demosthenes' Mars' Xerxes'


Jesus' 'is an accepted liturgical archaism' (Hart's Rules, p. 3l). But
in non-liturgical use, Jesus's is acceptable (used, e.g., in the NEB,
John 2: 3).

With the possessive preceding the word sake, be guided by the
pronunciation, e.g.

for goodness' sake but for God's sake
for conscience' sake (!) for Charles's sake


After -x and -z, use -'s, e.g. Ajax's, Berlioz's music, Leibniz's
law, Lenz's law.

3. Expressions such as:

a fortnight's holiday two weeks' holiday
a pound's worth two pounds' worth
your money's worth

contain possessives and should have apostrophes correctly placed.

4. In I'm going to the butcher's, grocer's, etc. there is a possessive
with ellipsis of the word 'shop'. The same construction is used in I'm
going to Brown's, Green's, etc., so that properly an apostrophe is
called for. Where a business calls itself Brown, Green, or the like
(e.g. Marks and Spencer, J. Sainsbury) the apostrophe would be
expected before -s. But many businesses use the title Browns, Greens,
etc., without an apostrophe (e.g. Debenhams, Barclays Bank). No
apostrophe is necessary in a Debenhams store or in (go to or take to)
the cleaners.

5. The apostrophe must not be used:

a. with the plural non-possessive -s: notices such as TEA'S are often
seen, but are wrong.
b. with the possessive of pronouns: hers, its, ours, theirs, yours;
the possessive of who is whose.

° it's = it is; who's = who is.

° There are no words her's, our's, their's, your's.



Imprimis, no Brit in his right mind would accept Strunk and White as a legitimate resource of British English, just as no American I've ever met would spell skillful "skilful" or call a period a "full stop." Now would a Brit, for that matter, put the period inside the quotation marks in that sentence.

Next, "Fowler" is a wonderful, thick book called _Modern English Usage_ by Henry Watson Fowler. As a reference guide to British English, it deserves more than the bad press it has already received here. Unfortunately, it is also the usage guide most favored by the snootier set, and so has suffered much the same fate of misappropriation that Nietzsche fell victim to at the hands of the Nazis. It is not the be-all and end-all of the British grammatical and lexical tradition, any more than is Samuel Johnson's Dixonary.

Third, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), Second Edition, is available on-line in it's most modern form, by subscription only. The pricier schools make access available to faculty members ("Professor SexySoBeChick"? Nice ring to it!). Oxford has never made a dime off the project as a whole, which has been going on since the 1890's. Most American MLA members, as a last resort, head for the OED, with the exception of when it disagrees with Webster's...

Citing Webster's is anathema to any good subject of the Queen, despite the fact that old Noah was a Tory loyalist to the core. The development of American English as a separate entity since the 1790's has been well documented by H.L. Mencken in a book whose title escapes me at the moment. Be aware that the Second Edition of Webster's (out of print), and not the current Third International is more accepted in matters where the two disagree. Etymologically speaking, however, as Webster hated the French, there are quite a few questions as to how far to trust the man's original citations. Many American etymologists disregard them and side with OED etymological findings.

Finally, Strunk and White is clear on this matter. Typing in all of the petinent references in Fowler's MEU would give me a good case of the shakes. The Oxford material above does not comment explicitly on the matter.

Render unto Caeser that which is Caesar's: "each others'" cannot, given the weight of the evidence, be explicitly wrong in international publication.

As a penultimate comment, I would like to thank Oxygen for clearly expressing the same thoughts, actions and belief Chaucer granted the Clerk, an Oxford scholar, in the company that formed the basis of the _Canturbury Tales_, at the very birth of an English canon of literature:

Of studie took he most cure and most hede.
Noght o word spak he more than was nede,
And that was seyd in forme and reverence,
And short and quik, and ful of hy sentence.
Souninge in mortal vertu was his speche,
AND GLADLY WOLDE HE LERNE, AND GLADLY TECHE.

(Emphasis added, because it needs adding.)

The final sally must, of course, go to a certain malodorous bag of wind (naming no names, of course). To that individual, I offer Voltaire's pithy comment to a detractor.

Sir, I am seated in the smallest room of my house. Your letter is before me. Soon, it will be behind me.

 

[The_Fool]

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

Cool...I've been wrong forever....

 

[Jan_Comenius]

Rights and Wrongs in Grammar

John Eastwood, author of the _Oxford Guide to English Grammar_, on the other hand, espouses the use of "each other's" as the only possible alternative in all such cases. Martin Parrot, in _Grammar for English Language Teachers_ (Cambridge University Press) makes no mention of the subject. Lord Quirk, primary author of _The Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language_ (Longman), remains to be checked, although as soon as I get down to the British Council, I'll be sure to look it up.

This is a gray (or grey) area in grammar, with multiple conflicting opinions by well-respected authorities with titles and impressive 'varisties on the vitae. The sources that I have mentioned all come from the UK. As an American, I am not personally willing to spell "realise" without a zee (zed) or pronounce "privacy" with an /i/ and not /i:/ sound (short and not long i). Webster felt, in his day and age, that the re-adaption of the -ise endings of originally French verbs which was taking place in the late 1790's was silly, and that pronouncing words like "necessary" with three syllables was downright effete (as was becoming the style at the time among the dandies of Hyde Park). Personally, I still agree with the man.

As with one things in English grammar, the more someone tries to pin down the truth, the more it slips away, until finally we are left holding our hands in the air in desperation and crying Jesus's demand to his Father: "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The only true answer to such questions lies within our own understanding of the nuances and our own commitments to the story of language.

Invariably, these answers have a diffidence about them, a sense of modesty, and in one way or another always begin with something like, "Well, my father (or mother or teacher) always said..." and always carry about with them a meaning like, "I love my father (or mother or teacher)." Grammar becomes more a case of respect to one's history and traditions than to any authority, or a willingness to disrespect that history or traditions (which is not always a bad thing).

And almost everyone who does this for a living agrees that anyone who says something like, "I know grammar, I know language, I am the God of English and I am he am born to tame thee, Kate!" always needs to hear something like:

"YO MOMMA!"

Unless, of course, we like a good spanking now and again. Only Mummy knows for sure...

 

[Jan_Comenius]

List of errata

Now > Nor
it's > its
petinent > pertinent
i > "i"
-ise > "-ise"
one > most
respect to > bearing witness to/respect for

Not bad, for writing in this little box. "Petinent," though, is inexcusable. Next time I spellcheck.