|
Uneasy
May 15, 2008 14:09:50 GMT
Post by Sue M-V on May 15, 2008 14:09:50 GMT
I don't want to confuse the pattern by sometimes using of and sometimes for. Sorry, Paul, I don't mean to go on, but I can't see the confusion here, since the pattern is the same in both cases. Sue
|
|
|
Uneasy
May 15, 2008 14:52:39 GMT
Post by Dave M on May 15, 2008 14:52:39 GMT
I understand what Paul is saying here: you've a choice in where to put the apostrophe, and that choice depends on how the "possessor" is expressed (as a singular (or special plural), or as an ~s plural).
The reader is supposed to be concentrating on two connected things: (1) the nature of the "possessing" word, and (2) the position of the apostrophe. The repetition of various examples, where the content of the rest of the sentences is comfortingly familiar but actually irrelevant, helps cement the relationship.
If we add a variant, by switching between "of" and "for", we have distracted the reader into monitoring not one but three relationships: noun's number with "of/for", noun's number with position of apostrophe, and position of apostrophe with "of/for".
You and I know, Sue, that the "of/for" pattern doesn't change anything and so need not be monitored - but the reader doesn't know that!
|
|
|
Uneasy
May 15, 2008 16:04:49 GMT
Post by Paul Doherty on May 15, 2008 16:04:49 GMT
Exactly, Dave, spot on. To take a simplified example, if we say: - the dog's dinner = the dinner of the dog
- the dogs' dinner = the dinner for the dogs
What will a leaner make of that? Are we perhaps saying that we use apostrophe-s when it means "of" and s-apostrophe when it means "for"?
|
|
|
Uneasy
May 15, 2008 20:36:44 GMT
Post by Tone on May 15, 2008 20:36:44 GMT
Sue, >exciting grammatical situations<You win the "Oxymoron of the Week" award for that one! Tone
|
|
|
Uneasy
May 15, 2008 21:50:31 GMT
Post by Sue M-V on May 15, 2008 21:50:31 GMT
Well, Tone, it's a question of what turns you on.
I get the point, Dave and Paul. I usually give lots of examples, to the point that it becomes clear what's relevant and what isn't. It's overkill, I suppose, but I realise it's not so easy to do in the relatively limited space here, as opposed to in a classroom.
I suppose there won't be a problem for people who have been given no examples with "for" to figure out that the pattern also applies when it is used ...?
Sue
|
|
|
Uneasy
May 15, 2008 22:33:36 GMT
Post by Paul Doherty on May 15, 2008 22:33:36 GMT
|
|
|
Uneasy
May 15, 2008 23:28:16 GMT
Post by Paul Doherty on May 15, 2008 23:28:16 GMT
Are we happy that six months pregnant is not possessive? I'm beginning to doubt myself! The Daily Telegraph (print edition) has He was also using the bike to pull a trailer carrying two other children, aged three and five, and a woman who was six months' pregnant.
|
|
|
Uneasy
May 15, 2008 23:45:18 GMT
Post by Barry on May 15, 2008 23:45:18 GMT
Yes, I'm wondering. Certainly, if it isn't possessive, then it must be adjectival, and therefore six months should be hyphenated.
|
|
|
Uneasy
May 16, 2008 0:08:58 GMT
Post by Paul Doherty on May 16, 2008 0:08:58 GMT
Well, I'd like a six-month holiday (as if) but the hyphen doesn't feel right in six months pregnant. That would seem to imply that pregnant is a noun. Six-month pregnancy would be fine.
Surely six months pregnant is analogous to always happy or long time dead?
Where's Glyn, he's brilliant at analysis?
|
|
|
Uneasy
May 16, 2008 8:21:54 GMT
Post by Dave M on May 16, 2008 8:21:54 GMT
six months pregnant
I think that it needs no apostrophe, BUT - as shown by our needing to discuss it - it's too difficult an example to use in the main listing.
I'm confident that it follows the same format as three weeks overdue, six months longer than expected, five years delayed - a time followed by an adjective. A time followed by a noun would require the apostrophe: three weeks' extension, six months' overrun, five years' delay. (You can't possess an adjective.)
|
|
Glyn
Bronze
Posts: 87
|
Uneasy
May 16, 2008 9:17:28 GMT
Post by Glyn on May 16, 2008 9:17:28 GMT
My thoughts exactly, Dave. My daughter is nine months pregnant. In fact, she's one day over time (having done one day's overtime) but I hope that in one day's time or, at worst, two days' time I'll stop being an anxious dad and become a beaming granddad.
|
|
|
Uneasy
May 16, 2008 10:28:11 GMT
Post by Paul Doherty on May 16, 2008 10:28:11 GMT
Thanks both. And good luck Glyn (and daughter).
|
|
|
Uneasy
May 16, 2008 14:42:36 GMT
Post by Dave on May 16, 2008 14:42:36 GMT
Dave M makes a good point: If an example gets a lot of discussion here on the forum as to its meaning, then it's probably not a good example to use for those who may just pop in to the FAQs for a quick answer.
|
|
|
Uneasy
May 16, 2008 16:02:40 GMT
Post by Paul Doherty on May 16, 2008 16:02:40 GMT
Yes, it is a good point and I'm not ignoring it.
One of the problems, though, is that people need to know where NOT to apply a rule. We know that a lot of people write photo's ("the apostropohe indicates the missing letters") and the dog wagged it's tail ("possessives take an apostrophe") -- so it's helpful to give examples of where an apostrophe is not needed.
I'm wondering about another section to the page.
|
|
|
Uneasy
May 16, 2008 18:10:03 GMT
Post by Barry on May 16, 2008 18:10:03 GMT
Yes, I think that would be good. I think there's room for a couple of interrelated sections, actually (sez Barry, happily giving Paul more work ). One which deals with 'difficult' constructions (such as the 'pregnant' one), and one which deals with grey/gray areas (the apostrophised 's' names, for example, where there seem to be several 'right' ways of doing it, depending on country of origin/style logic)
|
|