cheat, write two sentences so that you can say 'moses' in the first and 'his' in the second. they'll love all the extra attention you will have lavished on their lad.
― j., Saturday, 8 June 2013 19:50 (ten years ago) link
iirc OUP style guide and fowler's says moses' (and jesus', odysseus', etc.) for "classical" names, but 's for modern names.
― caek, Monday, 10 June 2013 23:55 (ten years ago) link
that's a ridiculous rule
― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 11 June 2013 03:07 (ten years ago) link
The way I learned it was that you always put 's on the end, even if you have a name ending in 's'. It's definitely the more logical way to do it, although it's a bit awkward.
― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 11 June 2013 03:08 (ten years ago) link
The Moses in my class is a good guy, but I'm not sure if he's ready yet to share a rule with Jesus and Odysseus.
― clemenza, Tuesday, 11 June 2013 03:15 (ten years ago) link
Perhaps all people with names ending in "s" should just get the spanish possessive -- "Whose ball is this?" "Es de Jesus"
― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 11 June 2013 03:16 (ten years ago) link
if the names ends in an 's,' but you can say it when apostrophized normally, go with the extra 's'.
Along those lines, I've heard that if the sound of the word ends with an S sound, don't put on an extra S. But if the word ends with an S, but doesn't sound like S (Arkansas, Des Moines, debris) all can have an 's.
Which is ridiculous. Our style where I work is no word with S on the end gets an 's.
― pplains, Tuesday, 11 June 2013 04:16 (ten years ago) link
ok i may have been misremembering. fowler's MEU says we wrote things like moses' "formerly" (i.e. before 1913) but it is now (ca. 1913) only retained in verse, which is why i probably associated it with "classical" names.
jesus and moses are basically an unknown first names in the uk. i do enjoy emailing my collaborator in tenerife, and beginning with "dear jesus".
― caek, Tuesday, 11 June 2013 09:33 (ten years ago) link
iirc chicago style gives the same rule, or at least makes it permissible.
― j., Tuesday, 11 June 2013 09:42 (ten years ago) link
last night I saw the Seinfeld where Elaine trips over the possessive of "Onassis"
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 11 June 2013 09:47 (ten years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKlub5vB9z8
― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 11 June 2013 11:17 (ten years ago) link
Should I use a conjunction or a disjunction when comparing a city to Sodom and Gomorrah?
While:
I’ve never been, but from my near-Puritanical Bostonian perspective, it’s Sodom and Gomorrah.
sounds correct. Sodom and Gomorrah were two separate cities. Therefore, isn’t:
I’ve never been, but from my near-Puritanical Bostonian perspective, it’s Sodom or Gomorrah.
correct?
― Allen (etaeoe), Friday, 21 June 2013 15:46 (ten years ago) link
Second one is correct, but you could get away with the first one. Sodom and Gomorrah are practically just like Winston-Salem or Raleigh-Durham.
― pplains, Friday, 21 June 2013 15:49 (ten years ago) link
I would go with the first one, for the reason pplains states - they are always quoted together.
― my father will guide me up the stairs to bed (anagram), Friday, 21 June 2013 15:51 (ten years ago) link
Awesome. Thank you. :)
― Allen (etaeoe), Friday, 21 June 2013 15:56 (ten years ago) link
This is more of a grammar nerd, but is there a term for those clauses you always see in newspaper writing preceded by commas or en-dashes and starting with "who" or "which" -- "Johnson, who founded CreatiVest with two college friends in his Seattle Loft Apartment"? And also, if it omits the "who" or "which" is it still the same thing? "Skaarsgen, a massage therapist and artisinal donut maker" etc.?
― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Friday, 28 June 2013 14:44 (ten years ago) link
iirc the first kind of clause is a relative clause, while the latter is an appositive
― Brad C., Friday, 28 June 2013 15:02 (ten years ago) link
appositive is only if it's a nonrestrictive clauseif it's a restrictive clause that still omits the rel pronoun, i think it's called a dropped pronoun relative clause? something like that. they perform the same function, but one has a ghost function word/subordinator.
― free your spirit pig (La Lechera), Friday, 28 June 2013 15:09 (ten years ago) link
"[film] is a spin-off of [other film]" or "[film] is a spin-off from [other film]"?
first one seems correct but horribly clumsy
yeah I know ideally formulate it "[other film] spin-off [film]" but that won't work in this sentence
― lex pretend, Thursday, 15 August 2013 09:25 (ten years ago) link
Of. Something can be "spun off from" but it can only be a spin-off OF.
― Tottenham Heelspur (in orbit), Thursday, 15 August 2013 13:30 (ten years ago) link
Never had this mental image of an All In the Family carousel spinning out of control with Maude and the Jeffersons flying off out of its orbit.
― pplains, Thursday, 15 August 2013 15:46 (ten years ago) link
agree with in orbit
― k3vin k., Thursday, 15 August 2013 16:12 (ten years ago) link
film in "off of" foofaraw
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 15 August 2013 16:13 (ten years ago) link
i went with "spin-off of" in the end yeah
― lex pretend, Thursday, 15 August 2013 16:44 (ten years ago) link
if one were speaking of, say, A.J. Pierzynski and A.J. Burnett, would one call them a pair of A.J.s or a pair of A.J.'s?
i support the former, but it looks weird with the periods
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 18 September 2013 21:02 (ten years ago) link
"a pair of men sharing the initials A.J."
― Aimless, Wednesday, 18 September 2013 21:11 (ten years ago) link
"a pair of A's J."
― #fomo that's the motto (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 18 September 2013 21:14 (ten years ago) link
In serious I'd probably just do some variant on what Aimless said, as there's no real gain in meaning or literary flair in referring to them as "A pair of A.J.'s" imo.
― #fomo that's the motto (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 18 September 2013 21:16 (ten years ago) link
yeah, that's actually what i did -- i was just curious about the official ruling
― mookieproof, Wednesday, 18 September 2013 21:19 (ten years ago) link
plus that way I get to avoid the problem, and I have an avoidant personality
― #fomo that's the motto (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 18 September 2013 21:20 (ten years ago) link
The former is fine. You'd only use the latter if there was some ajs word that would confuse the reader.
― pplains, Wednesday, 18 September 2013 21:56 (ten years ago) link
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/30/10-grammar-rules-you-can-forget
― Hamburglar's smiling too (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Monday, 30 September 2013 20:46 (ten years ago) link
fucking apostate
― druhilla (k3vin k.), Monday, 30 September 2013 20:49 (ten years ago) link
Much of what may be safely ignored depends upon the context in which it shall be applied. Calling many of these strictures "rules" is an overstatement, because the authority on which they are based is nothing more than highly inflated opinion. Breaking them does not cause any ambiguity or loss of information. Such rules only matter who insist on them, due to their innate inflexibility. A few of the rules mentioned do introduce minor problems in some cases, such as the one regarding the double negative, but they are hardly fit excuses for shaming and finger pointing.
― Aimless, Monday, 30 September 2013 22:17 (ten years ago) link
the subjunctive is great and should not die
― #fomo that's the motto (Hurting 2), Monday, 30 September 2013 22:20 (ten years ago) link
^^ agreed. it has a purpose and adds information and clarity when used properly.
― Aimless, Monday, 30 September 2013 22:21 (ten years ago) link
already dead outside america
― Hamburglar's smiling too (Nasty, Brutish & Short), Monday, 30 September 2013 22:22 (ten years ago) link
nah, I like a subjunctive
― kinder, Monday, 30 September 2013 22:36 (ten years ago) link
enfeebled
― Aimless, Monday, 30 September 2013 22:37 (ten years ago) link
whom, subjunctive and other american pedantries
― caek, Monday, 30 September 2013 22:53 (ten years ago) link
just thought I would share this headline that suffers from awkward phrasing/lack of punctuation:
"15 Celebrities Most People Don't Know Are Black"
― #fomo that's the motto (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 18:44 (ten years ago) link
#1: Darth Vader
― Aimless, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 18:45 (ten years ago) link
oh, i definitely know that celebrity.
― pplains, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 18:51 (ten years ago) link
If you only knew...
― Aimless, Wednesday, 23 October 2013 18:52 (ten years ago) link
I really initially read it as meaning "Here are 15 black celebrities most people have never heard of (because society is racist)"
― #fomo that's the motto (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 19:04 (ten years ago) link
Exactly 15 celebrities are black, but most people have never heard of them.
― Unsettled defender (ithappens), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 19:31 (ten years ago) link
or "The 15 least-known celebrities are all black"
― #fomo that's the motto (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 19:42 (ten years ago) link
Or, everyone has a list of 15 celebrities they don't know - every person's list might be different – and in each case, all those celebrities are black.
― Unsettled defender (ithappens), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 20:53 (ten years ago) link
"Coming in at #12 on my list: Alphonso Ribeiro. Who the fuck is that? I have no idea."
― #fomo that's the motto (Hurting 2), Wednesday, 23 October 2013 21:01 (ten years ago) link
How would you style John Cage's 4'33" if you usually put the titles of short works (like songs) in quotation marks? Wiki seems to italicize it.
― Matt Groening's Cousin (Leee), Saturday, 26 October 2013 22:01 (ten years ago) link