Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2008 20:04:35 GMT
If the sentence is 'we are participants at this year's benefits forum', should there actually be an apostrophe in 'years'?
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jul 30, 2008 20:32:08 GMT
Yes.
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jul 30, 2008 20:48:19 GMT
scat, it's possessive -- the benefits forum is "of this year". The forum in some sense "belongs" to the year, so it's "this year's benefits forum".
"This years' benefits forum" would be the forum "of this years" -- and as the forum doesn't belong to the years , that's wrong.
And "this years benefits forum" would be a forum of type "years" -- we could say "a great forum" but not "a years forum", so it's not that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2009 16:11:02 GMT
Sorry folks, I need to clarify a similar but not identical statement that I found on a bar mat in Whitby: £50,000 a VIP visit to the Magners orchards in Ireland a year's supply of Magners cider We discussed this with vigour for quite some time but the team remained undecided. I believe that it should read: a year supply Arguments involved and not restricted to: "It seemed likely because you were unlikely to get a full years supply, moreover you would receive an amount that would be reflective of a year. For example: a bottle a day over enouht to drink all day throughout a year" "The year does not own the supply" "object and subject" "it is one year not many" Please help, we need to close this down firmly... . and win enough cider to represent (a) 365 days worth.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Sept 22, 2009 16:39:15 GMT
This is the only relevant one of the arguments, but I'm afraid it's wrong. The year doesn't need to own the supply for it to require a possessive apostrophe, any more than the dog needs to own its dinner in "the dog's dinner", or the girls need to own the school in "the girls' school"; a loose association is sufficient. So "a year's supply" is correct, because it's a supply of one year. (I'm not entirely happy about the absence of apostrophes in "Magners cider" and "Magners orchard", though.)
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on Sept 22, 2009 19:00:20 GMT
... and that should be 365 days' worth! Sue
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Sept 22, 2009 19:42:03 GMT
Twoddle,
>(I'm not entirely happy about the absence of apostrophes in "Magners cider" and "Magners orchard", though.) <
It appears that the name of the company is "Magners" (not "Magner").
Presumably, they wished to avoid the Magners' versus Magner's argument (as in James' book versus James's book), so they went for adjectival rather than possessive. (Check their website for their presentation of the term.)
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Sept 22, 2009 21:53:35 GMT
Tone,
I've no doubt that's what they did, but I still don't like it!
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Sept 23, 2009 2:36:17 GMT
Presumably, they wished to avoid the Magners' versus Magner's argument (as in James' book versus James's book), so they went for adjectival rather than possessive. Tone Wouldn't that be Magners' versus Magners's for a James' v. James's comparison?
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Sept 23, 2009 20:36:54 GMT
>Wouldn't that be Magners' versus Magners's for a James' v. James's comparison? <No. It's "as in" the situational dichotomy (however stated) rather than "as in" a positional representation. (Wotcha fink of that? ) Tone
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Sept 23, 2009 20:47:43 GMT
>Wouldn't that be Magners' versus Magners's for a James' v. James's comparison? <No. It's "as in" the situational dichotomy (however stated) rather than "as in" a positional representation. (Wotcha fink of that? ) Tone Absolutely spot on! (What does it mean? )
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Sept 27, 2009 0:23:02 GMT
>Wouldn't that be Magners' versus Magners's for a James' v. James's comparison? <No. It's "as in" the situational dichotomy (however stated) rather than "as in" a positional representation. (Wotcha fink of that? ) Tone Surely something associated with Magners is Magners's or Magners', not Magner's? I'm not sure what point you are making, Tone.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Sept 27, 2009 9:14:51 GMT
>I',m not sure what point you are making, Tone. <
And likewize: I'm not sure what point you are making, Pete.
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Sept 27, 2009 17:38:50 GMT
>I'm not sure what point you are making, Tone. <And likewize: I'm not sure what point you are making, Pete. Tone I, like Twoddle (I think), was asking what your previous post meant.
|
|