|
Post by Bertie on Apr 30, 2008 13:15:17 GMT
Posting to the other board that I frequent (baseball related), I wished to refer to the logo used by the NY Mets. I couldn't bring myself to type Mets's so employed Mets' instead. That brought me to thinking that the word Mets, whilst now accepted in its own right (write?), was originally a shortened form of Metropolitans and thus should correctly be "Met's" to denote the missing letters - no? Ergo, we would have the Met's's Logo. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 30, 2008 13:30:36 GMT
I'd regard Mets as more of a nickname than a shortening -- just as on a signpost Birmingham might be shortened to B'ham but has a nickname of Brum.
And even if there was a Met's, its possessive wouldn't be Met's's. We don't have McDonald's's or Lloyd's's.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on Apr 30, 2008 13:31:22 GMT
I couldn't bring myself to type Mets's so employed Mets' instead. And how would you say it?
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Apr 30, 2008 14:11:20 GMT
I'd say the Mets are known as exactly that, and that one of them would be a Met.
It's therefore quite simple: The Mets' logo (pronounced metz).
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Apr 30, 2008 20:25:11 GMT
Dave M, But does that apply to the Maple Leafs? Would one of them be a Maple Leaf? And there you go again, pronouncing the 's as a "z" instead of an "s" like some of us. Tone
|
|
|
Post by Bertie on Apr 30, 2008 23:02:35 GMT
I'd say the Mets are known as exactly that, and that one of them would be a Met. It's therefore quite simple: The Mets' logo (pronounced metz). The Mets are now known as "losers". They lost 13-1 tonight. I'll shut up about baseball now.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on May 4, 2008 5:48:35 GMT
Would one of them be a Maple Leaf? If one were, then the team should be the Maple Leaves.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on May 4, 2008 19:51:32 GMT
If one were, then the team should be the Maple Leaves.
Disagree -- read Pinker. It's the old "How many different Supermans/Batmans (or Land Rover Discoverys) have there been?" situation.
Tone
|
|