I forgot to answer the second part of your question, which would be no. Such is still orthographically marked as "'s", and is still pronounced as [Iz] in such positions.
HELP - Possesive form.
my head is spinning from all of this grammatical sparring, but I am delighted that people are still concerned enough to argue over the proper use of the English language :-)
With that said (or written, for you literal-minded types), what would be the proper and/or preferred way to write the following:
Jim Falls' birthday - or - Jim Falls's Birthday?
If I were speaking this phrase, then the former seems to better represent how it sounds...the latter sounds contrived and awkward. If it can go either way, I would vote for the more "natural" sounding version, but if Falls's is correct, then I will yield to the grammar police.
With that said (or written, for you literal-minded types), what would be the proper and/or preferred way to write the following:
Jim Falls' birthday - or - Jim Falls's Birthday?
If I were speaking this phrase, then the former seems to better represent how it sounds...the latter sounds contrived and awkward. If it can go either way, I would vote for the more "natural" sounding version, but if Falls's is correct, then I will yield to the grammar police.
>>With that said (or written, for you literal-minded types), what would be the proper and/or preferred way to write the following:
Jim Falls' birthday - or - Jim Falls's Birthday?<<
One would normally write it as "Jim Falls' birthday" in the formal orthography.
>>If I were speaking this phrase, then the former seems to better represent how it sounds...the latter sounds contrived and awkward. If it can go either way, I would vote for the more "natural" sounding version, but if Falls's is correct, then I will yield to the grammar police.<<
Actually, though, at least here, one would normally *say* the latter version even though one would write the former version.
Jim Falls' birthday - or - Jim Falls's Birthday?<<
One would normally write it as "Jim Falls' birthday" in the formal orthography.
>>If I were speaking this phrase, then the former seems to better represent how it sounds...the latter sounds contrived and awkward. If it can go either way, I would vote for the more "natural" sounding version, but if Falls's is correct, then I will yield to the grammar police.<<
Actually, though, at least here, one would normally *say* the latter version even though one would write the former version.
Abuse of the apostrophe is one of my pet hates and I often wonder what goes through the mind of the person who abuses it. For example I routinely see signs like "Forward booking available for area's or tables" and wonder why the plural of "area" was mistakenly given an apostrophe but the not the plural of "table". It is not only wrong, but seems completely arbitrary and inconsistent as to whether an apostrophe will be used or not. Almost as if the writer had thought "now do I use an apostrophe or not?", "I'll hedge my bets by using it for some plurals but not others". Or "that word is a bit different because it ends with a vowel/vowels/a consonant/has more than two syllables etc, let's stick an apostrophe in just to be safe".
As for the usefulness of the apostrophe, I agree with Adam that it prevents ambiguity in written English. For example if I wrote "In the garden the tree's leaves were beginning to fall" you would know that the leaves belonged to one tree and if I wrote "In the garden the trees' leaves were beginning to fall" you would know that they belonged to more than one tree. If I wrote "In the garden the trees leaves were beginning to fall" you would not know if the leaves belonged to one tree or more than one tree. Now of course if I said the sentence then one could not distinguish between the two, so the apostrophe allows greater precision in writing than in speaking. Context would usually provide a clue, but by no means always. Therefore the apostrophe is far from redundant.
We are only presented with this problem because English uses a terminal S both to indicate posession and to form most plurals. Afrikaans does not have the same problem as posession is indicated using the word "se", for example "Jim se hemp" (Jim's shirt), "die huis se deur" (the house's door), "die boom se blare" (the tree's leaves), "die bome se blare" (the trees' leaves).
As for the usefulness of the apostrophe, I agree with Adam that it prevents ambiguity in written English. For example if I wrote "In the garden the tree's leaves were beginning to fall" you would know that the leaves belonged to one tree and if I wrote "In the garden the trees' leaves were beginning to fall" you would know that they belonged to more than one tree. If I wrote "In the garden the trees leaves were beginning to fall" you would not know if the leaves belonged to one tree or more than one tree. Now of course if I said the sentence then one could not distinguish between the two, so the apostrophe allows greater precision in writing than in speaking. Context would usually provide a clue, but by no means always. Therefore the apostrophe is far from redundant.
We are only presented with this problem because English uses a terminal S both to indicate posession and to form most plurals. Afrikaans does not have the same problem as posession is indicated using the word "se", for example "Jim se hemp" (Jim's shirt), "die huis se deur" (the house's door), "die boom se blare" (the tree's leaves), "die bome se blare" (the trees' leaves).
hello the company of the antimoon.com i am serve how to understand what
is possesive forms.thank you!!!!!
is possesive forms.thank you!!!!!
Anyway, you didn't expand on the use of the original phrase "the number of your daughter's".
I'm at a loss how to use this specific variety of the Possessive (with "...of ... ").
Examples:
That is a book of Howard(')s
We saw the friend of Tom's uncle('s)
.........
and many more
I'd like someone to give an exhaustive description of the rules that apply for such occurrences
I'm at a loss how to use this specific variety of the Possessive (with "...of ... ").
Examples:
That is a book of Howard(')s
We saw the friend of Tom's uncle('s)
.........
and many more
I'd like someone to give an exhaustive description of the rules that apply for such occurrences
Could you please tell me what the singular and plural possesive forms of city, hero, and witch are?
My guess would be, hero's(singular possesive), heros'(plural possesive), witches(singular possesive), witches'(plural possesive), and cities(singular possesive), cities'(plural possesive).
If im wrong could you please correct me and explain? Thanks!
My guess would be, hero's(singular possesive), heros'(plural possesive), witches(singular possesive), witches'(plural possesive), and cities(singular possesive), cities'(plural possesive).
If im wrong could you please correct me and explain? Thanks!
You are correct except that the plural of "hero" is "heroes" and thus the plural possessive form would be "heroes'". Also the singular form of "cities" is "city" so the singular possessive form is "city's"
The possessive is simple and there shouldn't be much debate and argument about it.
If a word is singular, then the apostrophe goes BEFORE the S.
e.g. "The girl's red dress matched her shoes perfectly". In this sentence, there is only one girl.
*********************************
If the word is plural, it goes AFTER the S.
e.g. "The girls' red dresses matched their shoes perfectly." There is more than one girl.
*********************************
But if the word is plural but resembles a singular word - such as "men", "women", "children", "mice" then the apostrophe goes BEFORE the S.
e.g "The men's toilets were out of bounds because they had been vandalised."
"The children's toys were scattered about the room making it look untidy."
"The mice's cage desperately needed to be cleaned."
If a word is singular, then the apostrophe goes BEFORE the S.
e.g. "The girl's red dress matched her shoes perfectly". In this sentence, there is only one girl.
*********************************
If the word is plural, it goes AFTER the S.
e.g. "The girls' red dresses matched their shoes perfectly." There is more than one girl.
*********************************
But if the word is plural but resembles a singular word - such as "men", "women", "children", "mice" then the apostrophe goes BEFORE the S.
e.g "The men's toilets were out of bounds because they had been vandalised."
"The children's toys were scattered about the room making it look untidy."
"The mice's cage desperately needed to be cleaned."
"Could you please tell me what the singular and plural possesive forms of city, hero, and witch are?"
---------------------------------------------------------
Singular -
City
Plural -
Cities
So the possessives would be -
"The city's streetlights looked beatiful from a distance." (singular)
"The cities' streetlights looked beautiful from a distance." (plural)
******************************
Singular -
Hero
Plural -
Heroes
"The hero's bravery was truly remarkable." (singular)
"The heroes' bravery was truly remarkable." (plural)
********************************
Singular -
Witch
Plural -
Witches
"The witch's spell turned the man into a frog." (singular)
"The witches' spell turned the man into a frog." (plural)
---------------------------------------------------------
Singular -
City
Plural -
Cities
So the possessives would be -
"The city's streetlights looked beatiful from a distance." (singular)
"The cities' streetlights looked beautiful from a distance." (plural)
******************************
Singular -
Hero
Plural -
Heroes
"The hero's bravery was truly remarkable." (singular)
"The heroes' bravery was truly remarkable." (plural)
********************************
Singular -
Witch
Plural -
Witches
"The witch's spell turned the man into a frog." (singular)
"The witches' spell turned the man into a frog." (plural)
Tiffany and Adam, thanks for all the help. I'm not so confused anymore. Thanks a bunch! I think what truly threw me was the usage of es when spelling these words. Can you explain why you do not use es in the singular possesive form of city, hero and witch?
How are these word different from other words, such as car, for example?
Where car(singular), cars(plural), car's(singular possesive), and cars'(plural possesive).
I would want to take a word like candy and use the following.
candy(singular), candies(plural), candie's(singular possesive), and candies'(plural possesive).
From your explanation I understand that the singular possesive form should be candy's.
Is there a rule that explains this?
How are these word different from other words, such as car, for example?
Where car(singular), cars(plural), car's(singular possesive), and cars'(plural possesive).
I would want to take a word like candy and use the following.
candy(singular), candies(plural), candie's(singular possesive), and candies'(plural possesive).
From your explanation I understand that the singular possesive form should be candy's.
Is there a rule that explains this?