Gaming World Forums
General Category => General Talk => Topic started by: jamie on October 28, 2010, 07:14:38 pm
-
People have been telling me that apostrophes are only to be used when you're going a contraction like i just did eight words ago. I usually use it for possessives as well, like 'John's Car' or 'the movie's ending'. Are you telling me it's 'johns car' and 'the movies ending'. Is that what you're telling me? You better mean it if you are.
-
i think i am having such a hard time accepting this for two reasons. 1, that i see apostrophes used for possessives all over the place and that i have looked it up on a bunch of places on the internet which acknowledge it. and 2, it just seems to make a lot more sense than not doing it. like, if we aren't using it then how do you differentiate between the horses' hay and the horse's hay? cos both would just be horses hay!
i have had english tutors tell me this is wrong though. and whatever, i am probably wrong but i'm making sure because i guess i kind of like using apostrophes to indicate possessives and i don't want to drop it unless it's just totally wrong. there's an entry for this under cultural dictionary on dictionary.com, does that mean this is like a writing slang kind of thing?
another thing, why does everyone act like they've never even heard of using apostrophes to show possession? i see it everywhere! i might be a bit more inclined to rethink if someone at least gave me an 'it's a common mistake...but this is how you do it' but all i get is UHHHH WAT.
-
This article essentially sums up every rule that I knew about the usage of apostrophes right here (http://grammar.about.com/od/punctuationandmechanics/tp/GuideApostrophe.htm).
Rule #1 states that apostrophes should be used in the place of an ommitted letter in a contraction and, to add onto this, they should also be used whenever a letter is omitted e.g. ol' instead of old.
-
well that article seems to follow exactly the way i already use apostrophes. so why is that saying that and other people saying something else?
-
What idiots are telling you that jamie? you have it right
-
In mid school I was taught apostroph with an s behind it is a shortening for "is". In other words, "He's late" would be a shortening for "He is late". If you look at it that way, I think it would be "Johns car" instead of "John's car", but you're right about "the movie's ending".
-
What idiots are telling you that jamie? you have it right
most credibly, my seminar tutor for english at uni. but i pressed her on how sure she was of that and she didn't give me a 'look, pal. i know everything there is to know about apostrophes' response. it was more of a 'hmm...no...maybe.....well, no' kind of thing which didn't really settle the issue at all for me. she brought it up as a mistake i made in an assignment i handed in a few weeks ago.
thank's for all the replies!!!!!!!!
-
What idiots are telling you that jamie? you have it right
yeah seriously whoever is telling you that you don't use apostrophes in possessives is dumb'''''''''''''''''''''''''
-
The apostrophe is not just for contractions. There's a misconception that "John's car" is really a contraction of "John his car", but that's not really the case. According to Wikipedia, its use actually originates from people mistakingly thinking that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe#Possessive_apostrophe).
The most difficult part (aside from all the crazy things mentioned on Wikipedia) is the syntax for words that end with an s, especially plural versions. Here you have to simply follow what sounds right (since not using an extra s is also syntactically correct). Charles's car, Dickens's books, Marx's theories, but: the glasses' contents, the Williamses' house, the buses' passengers.
-
game's game's game's
-
That tutor isn't qualified to mark anything you turn in jamie and you should spit directly in her face and hair if she mentions this again
-
dada is right. I remember when I found out chris's car is correct. I was ashamed to have ever called myself the Official Emma Watson Message Board's grammar nazi!
-
(https://legacy.gamingw.net/etc/swegles.com/avatars/grammar_nazi.gif)
-
To me, the really grating thing is how you need to change people's names sometimes, like in "the Williamses' house". It just seems very wrong to change an identifier as important as a personal name like it's just another malleable word.
-
aminé's
-
I listen to em
-
We've been taught since elementary that for possessives an apostrophe should be used.
Also, Horses's and Horses' are both correct.
Now we only have english as a secondary taught language, but what the hell's going on here?
-
jamie fire that tutor they don't even know what they are doing you can use apostrophes for that stuff. you should use extra apostrophes and really make em mad >
-
'em*
-
In mid school I was taught apostroph with an s behind it is a shortening for "is". In other words, "He's late" would be a shortening for "He is late". If you look at it that way, I think it would be "Johns car" instead of "John's car", but you're right about "the movie's ending".
where do you live? your teacher obviously had no clue how english grammar works. apostrophe is used with possessive as well, how someone doesn't know that is beyond me!!
-
-4^2
-
-4^2
-16 :doom:
-
You have to be careful, though- the word "It's" means "it is" but the word "its" means "belonging to it." What's the example? Ah yes... "It's a smart dog that scratches its own fleas."
-
-16 :doom:
(http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/7127/mathx.jpg)
-
hey on this note (and hello I just stopped lurking for a second) if a person has a name ending with S do you say for example
james' pizza
or
james's pizza
I am so confused!
I also want to hijack this thread and ask about commas. i pretty much throw them in whenever I would stop speaking in one breath in a sentence
-
the answer to that one boils down to 'how are you pronouncing it?'
stop it guys you're making me think i learned anything at school
-
Strunk would have you say "James's" but that's one of the few rules of his I ignore.
-
Both are gramatically correct as far as I know.
also, isn't -4^2 = 16?
-
Both are gramatically correct as far as I know.
also, isn't -4^2 = 16?
no, it's -16. but let's not go there now since there's a whole topic about this thing. if it's still around.
-
pemdas, bitch
-
i just finished my calculus course and i still didn't know that.
-
Both are gramatically correct as far as I know.
also, isn't -4^2 = 16?
lol.
LET'S GO THROUGH ALL THIS AGAIN!
-
http://gamingw.net/forums/index.php?topic=78012.0
-
GAMING WORLD MATHEMATICS HALL OF SHAME:
#1 Vodka fan,
Alec,
androdas,
Arias,
Beasley,
bible_basher,
bick,
big ass skelly,
Bisse,
BlackRaven,
Blitzen,
Bloody Collarbone Reaper,
Bobberticus,
bonzi_buddy,
Boulvae,
Bravo,
Brown,
Cardinal Ximenez,
chanicakes,
Chief Onga Bonga,
Chubby Skelly,
Clucky,
CociCookie,
crotchkneed,
Dark Angel,
Dead Phoenix,
Death Gulp,
deluge,
DietCoke,
Dissonance,
Doktormartini,
Doppleganger,
Dust,
ed,
Evangel,
Evil Bob,
Farmrush,
Farren,
FrostyPink,
geodude,
GirlBones,
goldenratio,
Hero Bash,
Herr Artischocke,
jack_of_lanten666,
Jayce,
Jealle,
Jester,
JMickle,
K-hos,
Kalar,
King of Spooks,
Lennon,
Lyndon,
Mama Luigi,
Marmot,
Match Eater,
Maximo,
Medieve,
missingno,
Mongoloid,
Mr. L,
Ocean's Dream,
Parker,
pig style,
Puppet Master,
Rayne,
Revolutionist,
ric_,
ryanj,
Seawed,
Silhouette,
SpiralViper,
Sredni Vashtar,
Summoner,
Taylor Kaz,
thejackyl,
the_hoodie,
Von Woofen,
Warlin,
warpped655,
WarV,
XxSylverxX,
Zatham,
`~congresman Ron paul~~
-
oh no i'm so embarrassed
-
you should be
not knowing that is almost as bad as when myst thought europe is a country
-
oh no i don't particularly care about that element (i think i made it clear i don't care for maths!) but i was a horrible person at that time
also are we gonna compile an english language hall of shame from this topic
-
http://gamingw.net/forums/index.php?topic=78012.0
I remembered this and laughed. Was that really only in 2009? I thought that topic was much older.
-
I remembered this and laughed. Was that really only in 2009? I thought that topic was much older.
We had two, I couldn't find the older one.
-
That topic reminds me of the other one involving limits and the rule which states that .9 repeating is equal to 1. Just like -4^2 = 16, there was a lot of debate as to why the answer shouldn't be what it is - it's interesting to read some of the arguments that people present regarding those math rules.
-
why don't we just debate abortion while we're at it
-
unborn babies aren't allowed in heaven. everybody knows this.
-
yea, apostrophe could certainly be used there..
"O baby.."
-
pssst http://www.google.com/search?q=-4^2
-
I'm glad that's settled.
-
hmm
-
pssst http://www.google.com/search?q=-4^2
Wondering why google felt the need to add parentheses to that. Oh wait maybe that's because that's the way we learned math.
-
Seriously, how do you not understand that grade school conditions us to read -4 as "negative four" not "negative times four" or however the fuck you people argue for.
-
you seem very angry about this alec. maybe you should take a lie down
-
I'm not really angry it's just irritating semantics. the brain automatically groups things so if you ask anyone who isn't really into math what negative four squared is, they're going to say sixteen, because that's how they were taught for 12 years of their life.
-
yeah but that's what makes it "funny" to say. Nobody would be posting -4^2 if it wasn't a trick question. Yes, it is just a semantics trap but that's why it's a "conversation piece"
-
To me, the really grating thing is how you need to change people's names sometimes, like in "the Williamses' house". It just seems very wrong to change an identifier as important as a personal name like it's just another malleable word.
i don't know if someone responded already, but this is wrong. if a family's last name is "Williams", you would pluralize it as either Williams' or Williams's (although they could both be PRONOUNCED as "Williamses"). "Chris's pants" and "Chris' pants" are both correct in all situations (it's a regional usage issue)
i think most people here seem to understand that apostrophes are correctly used for both contractions and possessives, with "its" (possessive) being an exception. however something that a lot of people get confused about is plural possessives and exception words. here is an example situation:
there are multiple carpenters working with multiple wrenches-- "the carpenters' wrenches". there is only one carpenter working with multiple wrenches-- "the carpenter's wrenches". there are multiple carpenters working with one wrench-- "the carpenters' wrench". there is only one carpenter working with one wrench-- "the carpenter's wrench".
(exception to the above rule: always use children's, never childrens'. another example of this is "women's rights".)
so basically, horse's and horses' are both correct but in different situations. you can't say "the horses' hooves" when you're only talking about ONE horse.
i love grammar and i know a lot about it, but i do purposely defy certain rules because i think they should be changed. even though i don't always put my commas inside the quotation marks, i still know that that is what is "correct". however, i think that the rules for using apostrophes are pretty reasonable.
let's turn this into a grammar thread! i want to talk about commas and semicolons and stuff...
p.s. i recommend that everyone read the book "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" (although keep in mind that it follows British grammar so not all things apply to American grammar that many of us are used to)
-
never childrens'
this is WRONG. I had to learn it the hard way. Ynd I know, 'how can it be wrong, children is already in plural form, there must not be an 's' in it.'
Actually, words like those could still be pluralized (oooohhhhh). When you say 'childrens' it means many children, as opposed to many child. It means you take the 'children' as a singular entitiy and pluralize it. Kinda like when you take a group, not as a group of person but as a 'group' <-singular.
Childrens means you have many 'children', meaning you have a set of sets of children which are distinct with each other. Now this all boils down to context, but what I'm saying is, that it's nused and it's grammatically correct.
-
this is WRONG. I had to learn it the hard way. Ynd I know, 'how can it be wrong, children is already in plural form, there must not be an 's' in it.'
Actually, words like those could still be pluralized (oooohhhhh). When you say 'childrens' it means many children, as opposed to many child. It means you take the 'children' as a singular entitiy and pluralize it. Kinda like when you take a group, not as a group of person but as a 'group' <-singular.
Childrens means you have many 'children', meaning you have a set of sets of children which are distinct with each other. Now this all boils down to context, but what I'm saying is, that it's nused and it's grammatically correct.
hmm i don't know about that. yes it is all about usage, but i don't think that situation is correct, and i can't find anything online or in my grammar books that suggests it.
i know it's correct to say peoples' (possessive apostrophe) though, but that's because the word peoples is a plural of a plural-- example: "various peoples moved into the nation", where peoples is referring to multiple sets of people. childrens is not a plural (of a plural) in any case, not even when referring to multiple sets of children. so adding an apostrophe after it would never be correct. children's can still refer to multiple sets of children.
-
as far as i can tell there is a pretty solid chunk of grammar which is DEFINITELY correct and no one can argue. then when you get on the fringes there is shit that is always debated, or flip flops with the times and is either subject to the author's personal style or, probably more importantly, the demands of whatever teacher you are writing papers for. i mean i guess i could be wrong, that there is some DEFINTE LAW OF GRAMMAR for everything, but it seems to me that both authors and teachers have different ideas of what that definite law is for abstract punctuation like commas and apostrophes.
-
language is changing. there is no magic standard. either you follow one style manual or you follow a different one. written language doesn't even really correspond properly to how we talk. it's good to be consistent up to a point (most of the time). after that point is reached and people break into debates, it becomes a waste of time because there is no right answer. in my opinion, the best solution is to look up some weirdo's rulebook like The Elements of Style or some other thicker style manual and do whatever they say to do. some universities and organisations even have preferred style manuals iirc.
the most important rule of written language is DO NOT CAPITALISE ANY LETTERS. do not forget this now that i have told it to you.
-
*debates the serial comma*
-
is it capitalise or capitalize?
-
I'm not really angry it's just irritating semantics. the brain automatically groups things so if you ask anyone who isn't really into math what negative four squared is, they're going to say sixteen, because that's how they were taught for 12 years of their life.
it was never taught me the wrong way sorry
-
I was taught it wrong too.
-
i was taught that promiscuous sex leads to a man leaving WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF AIDS on your mirror
-
I've seen a cat without a grin, but a grin without a cat!
-
is it capitalise or capitalize?
Depends on whether you're using American English (capitalize) or British English, in which case it's capitalise.
-
i don't know if someone responded already, but this is wrong. if a family's last name is "Williams", you would pluralize it as either Williams' or Williams's (although they could both be PRONOUNCED as "Williamses").
No, "Williamses'" refers to something that belongs to all members of the family Williams. If it's just one guy, then you'd say "John Williams's house". This doesn't even really have anything to do with possessives since the plural of Williams is Williamses. Simple as that.
-
No, "Williamses'" refers to something that belongs to all members of the family Williams. If it's just one guy, then you'd say "John Williams' house". This doesn't even really have anything to do with possessives since the plural of Williams is Williamses. Simple as that.
Just confirming this is correct (assuming I haven't misunderstood your use of the word 'belongs'). Williamses is the correct plural, Williamses' is the correct plural possessive.
afaik
Just pray someone doesn't have the last name Williamses, because then I'd be baffled too. Williamseses'!?!