|
increpatio
|
 |
« Reply #3495 on: 22:36:02, 29-06-2008 » |
|
Earlier this morning I thought I would have a wander back to the beginning of the Off-topic thread, just to remind myself of how it started off. I spent a merry few minutes (I thought) chortling away to myself, enjoying some of the real gems on the thread. Then suddenly we were in the run up to Christmas! Huh? I'd trawled through 100 pages without realising it. No wonder I was starting to go bug eyed!  All great fun though. You get through the rest of them, or did the posts start lo osing their retro-chic charm around page 101? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 23:50:07, 29-06-2008 by increpatio »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #3496 on: 22:37:37, 29-06-2008 » |
|
You get through the rest of them, or did the posts start loosing their retro-chic charm around page 101?
Sounds like they loosed it long before that. Whether they subsequently lost it is another question, surely.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #3497 on: 23:51:40, 29-06-2008 » |
|
You get through the rest of them, or did the posts start loosing their retro-chic charm around page 101?
Sounds like they loosed it long before that. Whether they subsequently lost it is another question, surely. Surely  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Don Basilio
|
|
« Reply #3498 on: 09:49:32, 30-06-2008 » |
|
O goodness, tommo, I had heard that HR dabbled with it, but I didn't realise it went that far. That's worrying.
I do find it useful up to a point, for understanding myself. If I am an introvert, I need not feel embarrassed at being awkward at parties - just realise I am not a natural life-and-soul type.
The introvert/extrovert and intuitive/sensate dichotomies seem to reflect something in life. The judgemental/perceiving bit was Mrs Myers and Mrs Brigg's cherry on Jung's cake, and the least convincing.
(Pedantry point: Mrs Myers and Mrs Brigg's, OR Mrs Myers and Mrs Briggs' OR Mrs Myer's and Mrs Brigg's? Where does the apostrophe go?)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.
A time to weep, and a time to laugh: a time to mourn, and a time to dance
|
|
|
|
brassbandmaestro
|
|
« Reply #3499 on: 12:49:19, 30-06-2008 » |
|
Probably the first lot, DB. I would've thought. Anyone qualified in this here. Milly?? Janthefan??
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Dough
|
|
« Reply #3500 on: 17:31:48, 30-06-2008 » |
|
The introvert/extrovert and intuitive/sensate dichotomies seem to reflect something in life. The judgemental/perceiving bit was Mrs Myers and Mrs Brigg's cherry on Jung's cake, and the least convincing.
(Pedantry point: Mrs Myers and Mrs Brigg's, OR Mrs Myers and Mrs Briggs' OR Mrs Myer's and Mrs Brigg's? Where does the apostrophe go?)
If you remember that the original possessive construction was 'Mr Shakespeare his booke', 'Sejanus his Fall' and similar, and remember that the 's is a contraction of that his even if the possessor is female, it should be easier. If the word ends in an 's', then you need another 's' with an apostrophe before it to represent the contracted his. So: Mr Shakespeare's book, but Mr Dickens's book, Mrs Myers's book, Mrs Briggs's book. With a complicated case such as the one you've just cited, then if you're considering the Myers and Briggs as a creating unity, then it's possible to add the apostrophe s at the end, but better still to avoid the possible pitfall and go for something clearer and more elegant. How about "The judgemental/perceiving bit was the Myers-Briggs cherry on Jung's cake, and the least convincing."? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
martle
|
|
« Reply #3501 on: 18:29:18, 30-06-2008 » |
|
Exemplary explanation, if I may say so, Ron.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Green. Always green.
|
|
|
|
Andy D
|
|
« Reply #3502 on: 20:27:54, 30-06-2008 » |
|
(Pedantry point: Mrs Myers and Mrs Brigg's, OR Mrs Myers and Mrs Briggs' OR Mrs Myer's and Mrs Brigg's? Where does the apostrophe go?)
Assuming the 2 people are called Mrs Myers and Mrs Briggs then it should surely be Mrs Myers' and Mrs Briggs' cherry The possessive applies to both people, eg if I were involved it would be my and Mrs Briggs' cherry although I've never actually met the lady in question  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Dough
|
|
« Reply #3503 on: 20:42:17, 30-06-2008 » |
|
It would have to be Mrs Briggs's, Andy, for the reason stated above: it would only be Mrs Briggs' if the cherry belonged to a plurality of people called Mrs Brigg.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John W
|
|
« Reply #3505 on: 20:50:40, 30-06-2008 » |
|
I think you've sorted it Ron Meanwhile I'm still at it  got back to it when R3PO3 came on and watching Andy Murray all at the same time. PO3 went off at the end of the Mozart PC, and now Murray has come from 2-0 down to take it to a fifth set! The ironing has reached a feverish tempo, lost baskets of tops have been found and I've run out of hangers. My wife is now trying to find somewhere to put all the neatly pressed clothes! C'mooooooaaaaannnn Andy !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
thompson1780
|
|
« Reply #3506 on: 21:07:28, 30-06-2008 » |
|
Hmm <checks watch> Tommo and Martle seem to be a tad tardy   Is this involved? Tommo |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Made by Thompson & son, at the Violin & c. the West end of St. Paul's Churchyard, LONDON
|
|
|
|
Andy D
|
|
« Reply #3507 on: 21:10:39, 30-06-2008 » |
|
It would have to be Mrs Briggs's, Andy, for the reason stated above: it would only be Mrs Briggs' if the cherry belonged to a plurality of people called Mrs Brigg.
I think Mrs Briggs' and Mrs Briggs's are alternatives Ron but I've always used the former - in speech I'd certainly use the former. Mrs Briggs' is a further abbreviation of Mrs Briggs's which, as you say, is an abbreviation of Mrs Briggs his. The apostrophe can be added on its own without another s whether the final s is due to a plural or is the end of the word. But let this not lead to Ron's and Andy's falling out |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 21:19:34, 30-06-2008 by Andy D »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Andy D
|
|
« Reply #3508 on: 21:18:18, 30-06-2008 » |
|
If Ron were called Thomas, I think I'd go with Thomas's and Andy's falling out, certainly in speech. However Thomas Dough isn't quite the same is it? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Andy D
|
|
« Reply #3509 on: 21:41:54, 30-06-2008 » |
|
I've just found this article on h2g2 - although not authorative, articles on h2g2 are subject to assessment by others so it might carry a little weight.
The Genitive Case
The apostrophe+letter 's' indicates that an English noun is in the genitive case. This does not lead to confusion with most nouns; but since the rules are quite simple, there is no harm going over them once, for good measure, here.
If a word ends in any letter other than 's' and any sound other than a 'hiss', apostrophe+'s' is the correct ending to show the genitive case. This is true regardless of whether the word is singular, like 'person', or plural, like 'people'.
In the USA, if a word ends in the letter 's', or if the final sound in the word is a 'hiss' (a sibilant), a mere apostrophe on the end, with no 's', is the correct ending in the genitive case. This is true whether the word is singular, like 'prince', or plural, like 'purists'. In Standard US Usage, webmistress' is correct for the genitive case singular.
In the UK, the rule is slightly more complicated. If a word ends in the letter 's', or if the final sound in the word is a 'hiss', and is singular, the genitive case is indicated by the addition of an apostrophe+'s'. The tail belongs to the fox, so it is the fox's. The haunted mansion belonged to the late Marquess; it was the Marquess's. If one falls off a horse, the fall is not usually the horse's fault.
In both Britain and the USA, the genitive case plural is the same. If a word ends in the letter 's', or if the final sound in the word is a 'hiss', an apostrophe with no 's' is added to indicate the noun case. The trophy belongs to the heroes, so it is the heroes' trophy. The Centre for the Fine Arts is dedicated to the Arts, so it is the Fine Arts' Centre. The lounge used by the schoolmistresses is the schoolmistresses' lounge.
If the word is the same when pluralised, like 'bison', or 'bass', follow the appropriate rule above. 'Bison' is completely uncomplicated: one bison's temper, and a dozen bison's tempers. 'Bass' in British English takes an apostrophe+'s' in the genitive singular: that deep sea bass's scales are pretty. It takes apostrophe with no 's' in the genitive plural, and in both singular and plural in the USA: deep sea bass' scales are pretty.
Proper names can follow the rules as outlined above. James's email, the Andersons' children, LeKZ's pedantry are all correct. While this may be true, it is also not wrong to simply follow the old rule, which indicated the genitive case for proper names that end in 's' or 'hiss' sounds with an apostrophe and no 's'. The only correct spelling for the genitive case of 'Jesus' in English is Jesus'. So long as it is possible to stick to one rule for proper names, rather than memorise exceptions, it makes sense to do so. The names of United States Corporations universally take an apostrophe+'s', now. Microsoft's, Xerox's, General Motors's, and Coca-Cola's are the correct spellings for US Corporate entities in the genitive case.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
