posted
You mean like "the aim of my novel"? Then yes, you need an apostrophe before the s to make it possessive.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:After frantically mentally reveiwing my posts... I think I only use there's as "there is".
I hope.
As a question to the grammer naz - I mean, experts...
How about 'novels' - as in, "my novels aim is...". I think there should be an apostrophe between the l and the s... ?
novels = more than one novel
To say what you want to say, I would probably re-word the sentence to something like (even though, yes, I know it's in "passive voice"): "The aim of this novel is to...." because "My novel's aim is..." seems really weird to me.
posted
Let me ask you a couple of friendly questions, Imogen. I'm not trying to be a prick or anything, so be cool.
Just to let you know, I'm an English teacher at a charter school in Texas, head of our Language Arts department. I'm working on my doctorate in Educational Leadership. I love literature and grammar, but also I've an affection for science, history, music, statistics, and many other fields.
So here it goes. First, how old are you? Did you study the mechanics and grammar of English at any point in your schooling?
Here's why I ask: to me, knowing that singular nouns, when made possessive, take 's is as essential a piece of knowledge for an American as that 3*3=9. It's just the basic stuff you ought to know. And when I hear people bellyache about being corrected, I have little compassion for them.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The greatest pet peeve for me, while perhaps not grammatical is still linguistic so I'll put it here.
I could care less.
Why do people say that? It makes no sense whatsoever. What- you could care less but just can't be bothered to put forth the effort? What does that mean?
posted
His profile says he's an Australian law student. But I don't think it's very absurd not to know how to form the possessive. I still have to think about how to spell "piece" or "receive," and mostly I do it by seeing if it looks right, not by plugging in some memorized formula for doing it. If it's been awhile since I've actually had to spell out the word, it might take me a few tries.
I appreciate your point. When I first came to the forum I also was sometimes appalled by the grammar.
However, after typing a 1000 posts, and making many spelling and grammatical errors myself (even though I was originally an English major), and realized that here it is content, more than mechanics, which is important.
Many of us are typing so fast and have our head whirling with so many thoughts on any given subject, that we don't worry about grammar in the heat of the moment. (Beside the fact that I often type while also answering the phone, and doing several other things at the same time here at work).
posted
Jehovoid, the "i before e" syndrome is utterly different from not knowing that POSSESSIVES, something 98% of all nouns can become, ARE FORMED BY ADDING AN APOSTROPHE AND AN S (unless plural and ending in "s," in which case you slap an apostrophe on after the s).
Law students, considering all the writing they'll be doing, really ought to know this basic rule.
Posts: 1144 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just trying to say that sometimes things look funny to you and you can have a moment of doubt. Language, being for the most part an arbitrary combination of sounds or characters, is particularly susceptible to these mental slip ups. I don't think that the 's rule is the same as 2+2=4, in that it doesn't follow logically. Is it drilled into your head from an early age? Yes. Can you forget it from time to time? Sure.
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a grammar question that has been a continuing argument between my coworkers and I since Christmas. Hopefully you can finally settle the argument.
We make photo Christmas cards. Most customers request to have something like "From the <family name>" on their cards.
Every year, my coworkers insist on typing it as, say, "From The Smith's" and every year I argue that there should be no apostrophe.
Who is right? Also, what is this proper way to do this if the name ends in S?
Posts: 4292 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Jon. Though I imagine telling them once again will do no good, at least now I know I'm correct.
Posts: 4292 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the confusion was less about how to form a possessive and more about whether a possessive is appropriate in that situation.
I see a lot of confusion about whether or not a given situation requires a possessive, and I think it's a conceptual logic issue not a grammar issue. In this case, the novel doesn't own the "aim" in the common sense, so people aren't sure that possessive is appropriate.
Whether or not that was the root cause if the problem, I'm still annoyed when people don't know that gerunds take the possessive form of nouns before them.
posted
Maybe they mean, "from the Smith's (house/ family)." In this way, there is one person who refers to himself or herself as "the Smith," and then that person has a family or household on behalf of which he or she is sending the Christmas card.
This could be a fun and humorous way to explain to your co-workers their grammatical error, or they could just construe this as your being a facetious ass.
Posts: 3056 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not always, Dagonee. Possessive or object forms are acceptable. It really depends on what you're trying to emphasize. Also, there are lots of pronouns that don't decline to the genitive case.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
I spell grammar as grammer quite often. I also mix up my 'ie's. They are just my idiosyncrasies.
I have a *big* problem with the misuse of apostrophes. I hate it when people write "french frie's" or similar. I even point it out on long car rides. It drives other people nuts.
The reason I asked is because of my partner. He is 31. He has been an English teacher for 8 years. He is now a full time author. He has 3 books on the market, 2 books to be released in the next 4 months.
He is currently doing his PhD in creative writing. His latest novel is a subject of that PhD. We had a 'discussion' about the use of the apostrophe in his PhD proposal.
It turns out, I was right. But in terms of grammar wars, I am not often right when it comes to fighting Tony. So I wanted to check.
So, yes, I did get 'uncool'. Sorry.
But I am educated. I know about the possessive. I just wanted to check...
posted
Good point, Dag. Like maybe he was thinking, "It's my aim in the novel..." but he said "novel's aim," and this didn't make sense to him. But still, you've got the "s" on the end of "novel" and he doesn't mean plural, so what else could he possibly be thinking but the possessive form of "novel?"
quote:Jon, objective forms are possible in some cases for emphasis, but not always.
Right. The possessive often works better, but it's not a hard-and-fast rule. In fact, it's not really a rule at all. As long as that construction has existed in English, both forms have been acceptable.
[ February 24, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
My ear tells me I should put a comma here, although the grammar book says I shouldn't.
My ear tells me I should put a comma here although the grammar book says I shouldn't.
To me, the first sentence sounds more correct. That's how I'd speak the sentence. But the second sentence is actually correct according to current grammar rules.
How closely should I follow little rules like that when I don't agree with them? This rule is pretty much an outgrowth of some "higher" laws of sentence punctuation--almost forced by logic to exist. A product of some mechanical evolution. I prefer to think of grammar rules as not being completely subject to logic all of the time.
I break rules when I feel I need to. But only some of them, and only when I need to. Just like anything else, first you have to learn and to some extent naturalize the rules of grammar. Then you know when you can safely bend or break them.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not always, Dagonee. Possessive or object forms are acceptable. It really depends on what you're trying to emphasize.
Correct. I should have said that the gerund can take the possessive. I got this corrected so many times in college when I used it correctly - it really annoyed me.
quote:Also, there are lots of pronouns that don't decline to the genitive case.
posted
I always get tripped up by stuff like that, afr. The question is whether it's restrictive or non-restrictive. If the dependent clause is essential to the meaning of the main clause, don't use a comma. If it's merely additional information, use a comma. So now it's up to you to decide what it really is.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Restrictive and non-restrictive don't apply to adverb clauses, Jon, as they are by definition always non-restrictive (non-essential, removable, for those of you who aren't following this). Adverb clauses, as a result, follow a different punctuation protocol: those in sentence-initial position are followed by a comma, while those at the end of a sentence are not set off from the rest of that independent clause.
Posts: 1144 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Restrictive and non-restrictive don't apply to adverb clauses, Jon, as they are by definition always non-restrictive.
What? Since when? The newest edition of Chicago has a section covering restrictive and non-restrictive adverb clauses.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Advanced Editing class that I am taking has brought me to the limits of my own command of grammar and forced me to recognize rules I haven't been following. Now I have to accept them or be a heretic and declare that they don't matter.
Seriously, when I mangle a rule, it's usually something only an editor can catch. I think at some point the rules of grammar get too grainy. Do I really need to follow every single rule all the time? No. Style manuals try to freeze them in place. But we seem to forget that the rules are always in flux, evolving in a very organic fashion.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll just quote the section. It's fairly short.
quote:Comma following main clause. A dependent clause that follows a main clause should not be preceded by a comma if it is restrictive, that is, essential to the meaning of the main clause. If it is merely supplementary or parenthetical, it should be preceded by a comma. (Note that the distinction is occasionally tenuous; if in doubt, use a comma to indicate a pause.)
We will agree to your proposal if you accept the conditions. Paul was astonished when he heard the terms. He didn't run because he was afraid; he ran because it had started to rain. but She ought to be promoted, if you want my opinion. At last she arrived, when the food was cold. He didn't run, because he was afraid to move. Chicago 6.36
I don't know if this helps. This has always been a weak point for me.
[ February 24, 2004, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But look at their examples, and invert the order. MLA would argue that Chicago is trying to find a rationalization for an aesthetic rule:
We will agree to your proposal if you accept the conditions. If you accept the conditions, we will agree to your proposal.
Paul was astonished when he heard the terms. When he heard the terms, Paul was astonished
I think Chicago's a bit mixed up here. I'll refer to MLA and other authorities when I get home and then chime in again on this.
Posts: 1144 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. It's their way of saying, "Okay, guys, there really isn't any logical way of explaining comma use when adverb clauses appear at the end of sentence. You're on your own."
Posts: 1144 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, pretty much. I always have the darnedest time saying, "Is this clause restrictive?" In a few of those cases, you can see the difference (like with a negative followed by because), but it seems that most of them don't fall neatly into the restrictive/non-restrictive categories.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does it count for anything that I realized almost immediately why my thread was dobied?
To all grammar nazis, I beg your forgiveness.
And now I will defend myself.
I knew I was wrong, and I thought about correcting it, but honestly, had I said it out loud, that's exactly as I would have said it. I am much more grammatically adept than I let on. Sometimes I just like to let the atrocious language of my upbringing come out.
I should have known better than to do it here.
For reference, the possessive issue is also a pet peeve of mine. Spelling, also. If I could spell for a living, I'd never go hungry. I just choose to let most mistakes go because a) I am largely non-confrontational and b) as long as the meaning is clear, I'm not too worried. I'm much better at spelling than typing, and everyone makes a few mistakes here and there.
Plus, there are enough violent grammarians on this forum.
*sits back and waits for the grammar nazis to strike*
Posts: 1090 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've rarely heard anyone damn a river, btw. "'Damn you, Mississippi!' cried the fisherman as he watched his life savings go careening away on an early spring flood." I suppose that could happen. But something tells me you meant "damming" a river instead. I mention it only because this is the thread meant for pedantic corrections.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Crazy-ass crackers... spend a week on the muhfun streets, see if yall feel like dissecting yall's dumb-ass grammeratical shit.
Posts: 42 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the things that messes me up time and time again is the difference between "effect" and "affect". I can't count the number of times I've had to look one or the other up in the dictionary. I need some sort of rhyme...
Edit: AND I should (apparently) pay more attention to what I'm typing.
[ February 25, 2004, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
