Guest, what do you mean? There is no high society or we can't hear that kind of Englsg in HS?
HELP - Possesive form.
High society doesn't care about fiddling with such phraseology.
Put it this way, if you're discussing the historical significance of a street-name, then you might speak of the "street's name". If referring to it in terms of locality, then "street-name" is how it is normally stated, unless one is a non-native speaker of course.
Put it this way, if you're discussing the historical significance of a street-name, then you might speak of the "street's name". If referring to it in terms of locality, then "street-name" is how it is normally stated, unless one is a non-native speaker of course.
Actually, I myself use "street's name" not only interchangeably with "street name", but also I don't specifically deprecate it in favor of the latter at all, unlike what you suggest is the somehow the norm, Guest.
I did a search and "street's name" is used pretty widely by journalists.
Like I suggested, it largely depends on the context. I didn't rule out "street's name" if you read my above example of this usage.
But as far as I'm concerned street-name, or "street name", is the accepted norm in street directories and so is used thusly when dealing with localities.
I have found this to be the case having lived in UK, Australian and the US. The same can be said for "city name" and other similar forms. And I can prove it:
http://www.att.com/directory/
http://www.street-directory.com.au/sd_new/home.cgi
http://www.mapquest.co.uk/
But as far as I'm concerned street-name, or "street name", is the accepted norm in street directories and so is used thusly when dealing with localities.
I have found this to be the case having lived in UK, Australian and the US. The same can be said for "city name" and other similar forms. And I can prove it:
http://www.att.com/directory/
http://www.street-directory.com.au/sd_new/home.cgi
http://www.mapquest.co.uk/
"...but rather it is that I understand the difference between a case marking and a clitic and you don't."
Oooooooooooooooooooooh!
Aren't you a clever person?
And sooooooooooooooo patronizing too.
You don't know who I am, nor do you know my education yet you presume because you can throw around terms like "clitic" you're soooooooooooooo much cleverer.
Must be nice.
You've built a little linguistic theory for youself about the genitive. But after all the chatter about clitics your explanation is no more than mine.
Oooooooooooooooooooooh!
Aren't you a clever person?
And sooooooooooooooo patronizing too.
You don't know who I am, nor do you know my education yet you presume because you can throw around terms like "clitic" you're soooooooooooooo much cleverer.
Must be nice.
You've built a little linguistic theory for youself about the genitive. But after all the chatter about clitics your explanation is no more than mine.
JJM, Would you have been much happier with:
"...but rather it is that I understand the difference between a case marking and a clitic and you have yet to demonstrate this understanding."
BTW, what is a case marking and a clitic; and what is the difference between them?
"...but rather it is that I understand the difference between a case marking and a clitic and you have yet to demonstrate this understanding."
BTW, what is a case marking and a clitic; and what is the difference between them?
Geoff_One:
No, it's because smartypants Travis seems to think his view that the "-s" at the end of (for example) "dog's" is just a clitic is right and anyone else is wrong.
A "clitic" is essentially a term for a "word fragment" that fulfills a grammatical function but cannnot stand on its own. Examples are "'m" in "I'm" or "'s" in "it's."
I personally find it to be a rather specious term as is so much of our language terminology.
A "case" is the form a noun, pronoun and modifier takes to fulfill its grammatical role (as a subject, object, object of a preposition, to show possession and so forth). Some languages rely heavily on case (Classical Latin, Serbo-Croat); some have no cases at all (Chinese languages).
Essentially the JJM-Travis quibble is over whether the "'s" at the end of "dog's" is a clitic or a true inflection showing the possessive (genitive) case.
No, it's because smartypants Travis seems to think his view that the "-s" at the end of (for example) "dog's" is just a clitic is right and anyone else is wrong.
A "clitic" is essentially a term for a "word fragment" that fulfills a grammatical function but cannnot stand on its own. Examples are "'m" in "I'm" or "'s" in "it's."
I personally find it to be a rather specious term as is so much of our language terminology.
A "case" is the form a noun, pronoun and modifier takes to fulfill its grammatical role (as a subject, object, object of a preposition, to show possession and so forth). Some languages rely heavily on case (Classical Latin, Serbo-Croat); some have no cases at all (Chinese languages).
Essentially the JJM-Travis quibble is over whether the "'s" at the end of "dog's" is a clitic or a true inflection showing the possessive (genitive) case.
While on the subject of apostrophe S ('s) and S apostrophe (s'), you may find the following titbit amusing. Some years ago, in exams, there were some students who put the apostrophe above the S, hoping to be
marked correct no matter what the correct answer was.
marked correct no matter what the correct answer was.
I am confused which is correct (or preferred):
Please come to Travis' party.
Please come to Travis's party.
and does it change if the next word after Travis begins with a s
For example:
Please come to Travis' summer party.
Please come to Travis's summer party.
Please come to Travis' party.
Please come to Travis's party.
and does it change if the next word after Travis begins with a s
For example:
Please come to Travis' summer party.
Please come to Travis's summer party.
Martin, such would be "Please come to Travis's party", as the use of "s'" only applies to cases when a word is both plural and genitive, and when the genitive is used with a word which is not plural but which ends in a sibilant, it is /Iz/. Note that I speak of genitive in the sense of grammatical function here, not in the sense of morphological case.
On that note, one comment I have to make here is that it seems like the genitive for normal nouns in English is halfway between a traditional clitic and a morphological case marking. On one hand, it is a clitic in that it operates on entire phrases at once, rather than on individual words within them, unlike, say, the genitive case in German. On the other hand, yes, there is some validity to the argument that it is a case marking in that it *is* sensitive to the internal morphological structure of word, due to having a separate allomorph for if the last word in a phrase which it applies to is plural.
However, though, this argument still seems rather weak in that many clitics in English dialects are actually very sensitive with respect to what they actually attach to is, since many of such clitics tend to have forms with respect to what they attach to which are not phonologically predictable, and which consequently indicates that such clitics themselves are sensitive to *what* words they are actually attaching to. Consequently, it would be harder to argue that such is actually a case ending per se, rather than just a clitic with multiple allomorphs based on what it is attaching to.
On that note, one comment I have to make here is that it seems like the genitive for normal nouns in English is halfway between a traditional clitic and a morphological case marking. On one hand, it is a clitic in that it operates on entire phrases at once, rather than on individual words within them, unlike, say, the genitive case in German. On the other hand, yes, there is some validity to the argument that it is a case marking in that it *is* sensitive to the internal morphological structure of word, due to having a separate allomorph for if the last word in a phrase which it applies to is plural.
However, though, this argument still seems rather weak in that many clitics in English dialects are actually very sensitive with respect to what they actually attach to is, since many of such clitics tend to have forms with respect to what they attach to which are not phonologically predictable, and which consequently indicates that such clitics themselves are sensitive to *what* words they are actually attaching to. Consequently, it would be harder to argue that such is actually a case ending per se, rather than just a clitic with multiple allomorphs based on what it is attaching to.