|
Post by Dave on Jun 22, 2008 14:08:22 GMT
I've just added an article to the wiki: The Troubling Final S. Feel free to edit and comment. You can also locate it and the other wiki articles through the FAQ|Table of Contents.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 22, 2008 18:46:34 GMT
Very interesting. But I have never seen "where does" contracted to "where's".
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 22, 2008 18:49:56 GMT
Also, is this really correct: "the girl's school >>> the school the girl attends "? Surely the point is that the possessive form is used to denote the school of the girl. By context, it would generally mean the school she attends, I agree, but is that the right grammatical explanation?
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on Jun 22, 2008 23:33:56 GMT
I have never seen "where does" contracted to "where's". I don't know about seen, but I've often heard e.g.: "Where's he live?" Also, is this really correct: "the girl's school >>> the school the girl attends "? Surely the point is that the possessive form is used to denote the school of the girl. By context, it would generally mean the school she attends, I agree, but is that the right grammatical explanation? Why not? Sue
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 23, 2008 0:56:10 GMT
Also, is this really correct: "the girl's school >>> the school the girl attends "? Surely the point is that the possessive form is used to denote the school of the girl. By context, it would generally mean the school she attends, I agree, but is that the right grammatical explanation? Pete: It's not mere ownership or possession that is indicated by the "possessive" apostrophe; various other relationships or associations are also covered by it. The girl's school is the school of or for the girl. The student's essay is the essay of or by the student. The English possessive case is broader than the Latin genitive; it includes some instances of what Latin would decline as dative ( to, for) or ablative ( by, with, from). Does that help - or did I miss your point? (It's rather early for my partied-out brain!) [...] I have never seen "where does" contracted to "where's". Like Sue, I hear - and say - it frequently.
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jun 23, 2008 8:26:53 GMT
Hi, Pete
I reckon the apostrophe ess can stand for "is" or "has" or "does", on lots of question words (and "is" or "has", of course, on lots of other words): What's this? - What's Jim done now? - What's Jim do for a living? Where's Jim? - Where's Jim gone? - Where's Jim live? Why's Jim doing that? - Why's Jim done that? - Why's Jim always do that? When's Jim coming? - When's Jim ever been on time? - When's Jim say he'll arrive? Who's Jim? - Who's invited Jim? - Who's he think he is?
"Which" doesn't get the same treatment - because "~ch's" just doesn't work as a single syllable. _______________
I think the term "possessive" has misled you into considering ownership. It's really about a relationship possessed by the noun: The girls' room - FOR the girls My Aunt's present - FROM, or in other contexts FOR, my Aunt Picasso's last work - BY Picasso
|
|
|
Post by Bertie on Jun 24, 2008 0:25:24 GMT
Who's Jim?My thought entirely.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 24, 2008 10:32:25 GMT
Hi, Pete I reckon the apostrophe ess can stand for "is" or "has" or "does", on lots of question words (and "is" or "has", of course, on lots of other words): What's this? - What's Jim done now? - What's Jim do for a living? Where's Jim? - Where's Jim gone? - Where's Jim live? Why's Jim doing that? - Why's Jim done that? - Why's Jim always do that? When's Jim coming? - When's Jim ever been on time? - When's Jim say he'll arrive? Who's Jim? - Who's invited Jim? - Who's he think he is? I see what you are saying but in each of your examples I am happy that "-'s" can stand for "is" or "has" but not for "does". The "does" examples are all, to me, examples of the transliteration of incorrect speech, rather like "would of", which we saw recently. "Who's he think he is?" is just plain wrong. Do I have any support here?
|
|
|
Post by Alan Palmer on Jun 24, 2008 10:36:53 GMT
Not from me.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 24, 2008 11:20:57 GMT
[...] Do I have any support here? Not from me. The 's form of does is so commonplace (in my experience, and in Oz) that it cannot be said to be wrong - provided usage determines "correctness".
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Jun 24, 2008 13:32:49 GMT
The 's form of does is so commonplace (in my experience, and in Oz) that it cannot be said to be wrong - provided usage determines "correctness". I must agree.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 24, 2008 18:02:49 GMT
Sorry, Pete.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Jun 24, 2008 19:59:23 GMT
Never afraid to join the losing side, I'm with Pete. It's never occurred to me that 's could be an abbreviation of does, except in slang speech.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jun 24, 2008 20:59:54 GMT
Well, there we have it! If it hasn't occurred to Twoddle it just can't be right. (And on that basis, presumably the Higgs Boson really doesn't exist.) Tone
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Jun 24, 2008 21:05:10 GMT
I wonder whether your knowledge of what is meant affects what you think people say? I mentioned before, I think, how hard it is to convince people that train starts with a ch- sound: they know it starts with a t, so they hear a t sound. In What does Jim do?, most people probably say the first bit as "waddus" or similar. It's not far from that to "wattus", but if I heard someone say "wattus Jim do" I'd probably write it as "What does Jim do", but "what's Jim do" is just as good. Not slang, in my view. Like the "would of" thing -- what people say is something like "wooduv" and we know to write that as "would have". But "would of" is just as accurate, although marked as wrong.
|
|