|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 23, 2008 22:12:38 GMT
... Should go here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 23, 2008 22:15:51 GMT
... I'll make a plea here to change the examples concerning the Smiths and the Joneses: The plural of Smith is Smiths: I'm going to the Smiths for a barbecue.The plural of Jones is Joneses: I'm going to the Joneses for a barbecue.In each of those, the place I'm going is potentially possessive, and DOES need the apostrophe. We'd say I'm going to Robert's, so we'd say I'm going to the Smiths'. Perhaps it would be better to use I'm going to ask the Smiths to my barbecue. I'm undecided. People seem to ask what they should put on the house signs, so I wanted to reflect that. When you go to a barbecue do you go to the people or to the house? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Apr 24, 2008 5:42:42 GMT
Surely it depends where they are cooking the food!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Apr 24, 2008 8:17:03 GMT
... I'll make a plea here to change the examples concerning the Smiths and the Joneses: ... I'm undecided. People seem to ask what they should put on the house signs, so I wanted to reflect that. When you go to a barbecue do you go to the people or to the house? The problem as I see it is that this example is the first people meet when they read the FAQ and the introduction speaks of pure plurals . A different example might deal in the clear plural of a name, whereas the one quoted deals in what might be a pure plural, but what is more commonly a plural possessive. Let's have the clear example of a plural, and perhaps later go on to talk of names on house-signs? I have to say that if someone said I'm going to the Smiths for a barbecue, I'd hear I'm going to the Smiths' for a barbecue, as I'd expect to go to a place. (If it were I'm going to the Smiths for advice on parenting, I'd hear it without the possessive.) |
|
noel
New Member
Posts: 14 
|
Post by noel on Apr 24, 2008 9:01:34 GMT
Hello Paul and sundry:
I have to agree with davem. You wouldn't say 'I am going to Dave for dinner', so why would you say/write the Smiths rather than the Smiths' in the same context?
noel
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 24, 2008 11:02:51 GMT
Yes, looking at it afresh today, I think Dave and Noel are right. I'll change it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bertie on Apr 28, 2008 16:30:09 GMT
Paul, Might I suggest that FAQ be given its own forum within the board, rather than just being a thread within the main forum. That way there can be sub-topics. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 28, 2008 20:14:04 GMT
Yes, thanks, Bertie. That might be a good idea. If I do that, do you think I should keep the FAQ thread(s) locked and keep any discussion about them to a separate thread, or should I unlock them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 28, 2008 22:12:39 GMT
Done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bertie on Apr 29, 2008 0:05:56 GMT
Yes, thanks, Bertie. That might be a good idea. If I do that, do you think I should keep the FAQ thread(s) locked and keep any discussion about them to a separate thread, or should I unlock them? If you wish to keep a sort of rules section then that should obviously be locked, so that it can only be altered by you and any other moderators you choose to appoint. You're doing a great job, by the way. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 29, 2008 0:32:18 GMT
You're doing a great job, by the way. Thanks! No rules at the moment: I'm relying on the common sense, courtesy and respect that has generally prevailed on the APS board. I'm not new to moderation of discussion groups, so I know that doesn't always work, but I think it'll be OK here. |
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on May 2, 2008 2:02:19 GMT
I've added to the FAQs, and numbered them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bertie on May 3, 2008 11:32:41 GMT
Paul,
Excellent work.
Another tweak that you might like to consider. How about putting each numbered "rule" within the FAQ's as a separate post?
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on May 3, 2008 15:37:27 GMT
I'd wondered that. Then each have discussion about it -- if any -- below.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on May 3, 2008 16:32:28 GMT
And now done.
|
|
