de Lopez
― nonsensei (Ye Mad Puffin), Thursday, 12 July 2018 12:43 (five years ago) link
kidding; definitely the second.
apostrophe s unless you're dealing with an archaic set phrase ("good friend for Jesus' sake forbear")
― nonsensei (Ye Mad Puffin), Thursday, 12 July 2018 12:45 (five years ago) link
thanks all. makes sense.
― Fizzles, Thursday, 12 July 2018 13:11 (five years ago) link
i tend to go without additional s tho have some rules that i can’t remember right now where that doesn’t hold. failed at lopez tho without the s looked wrongerer.
― Fizzles, Thursday, 12 July 2018 13:14 (five years ago) link
in fact why i ever began to think it might be lópez’ is now alarming me. i haven’t been sleeping much recently.
― Fizzles, Thursday, 12 July 2018 13:16 (five years ago) link
I tend to follow Chicago on this, as in most things. But there is another school of thought that how you punctuate should reflect how you would say it. Which may vary depending on your dialect, your speech community, and the tone of what you're writing.
That is, if you would say "Jennifer Lopezzes career" then write Lopez's. If you would say "Jennifer Lopezz career" write Lopez'.
But that approach is too loosey-goosey for me.
― nonsensei (Ye Mad Puffin), Thursday, 12 July 2018 13:24 (five years ago) link
If the 's' at the end of the word sounds like an 's', than use apostrophe-s.
If the 's' at the end of the word does not make an esss sound, just use the apostrophe.
"Illinois' roads are better-constructed than Arkansas' roads."
But Lopez is so close, but not exactly an 's', so I'd use an apostrophe. We have an editor here, let's say her last name is Fritz, and we use only the apostrophe for its possessive form.
― pplains, Thursday, 12 July 2018 13:37 (five years ago) link
Wait a minute, I think I confused myself there.
― pplains, Thursday, 12 July 2018 13:38 (five years ago) link
S at the end of the word - don't use an apostrophe.
― pplains, Thursday, 12 July 2018 13:40 (five years ago) link
huh?
― nonsensei (Ye Mad Puffin), Thursday, 12 July 2018 14:02 (five years ago) link
the basic gist of the Chicago rule (at least in the 16th ed.; I don't have the 17th) for possessives is that you leave off the second s only when the word is plural, so "Illinois's roads" versus "many states' roads." No need to follow CMOS of course, but using pronunciation as a guide could get tricky as YMP said. For example, I'd be curious how pplains's rule would work in the part of Illinois where I grew up; there we pronounced Des Moines, "duh moyn," and Des Plaines, "dess plains."
― rob, Thursday, 12 July 2018 14:51 (five years ago) link
I favor making every singular noun possessive with apostrophe s, no matter what sound they end in, including s and z. I have never (until now) heard anyone advance the claim that a silent s should be treated differently.
The historical set phrase thing is an exception that I grudgingly accept if people think it's important.
Every regular plural noun gets s apostrophe. Irregular plurals (like people or children) generally get apostrophe s.
Usually this discussion bogs down around weirder cases like Joneses', where you have an existing s or z sound plus an additional s/z sounds that signal plural and possessive usages. Usageses. Usages's's. DAMMIT
― nonsensei (Ye Mad Puffin), Thursday, 12 July 2018 15:10 (five years ago) link
my spouse bought me a magazine containing this sentence:
"Either/Or, her stylish North Williams breakfast bar-cum-drinking den."
do you think this was on purpose?
― milkshake duck george bernard shaw (rushomancy), Sunday, 9 September 2018 14:42 (five years ago) link
that is a correct usage afaik
― kinder, Sunday, 9 September 2018 15:27 (five years ago) link
but I would have used a different phrase in that context...
― kinder, Sunday, 9 September 2018 15:28 (five years ago) link
It would only be correct if there were a hyphen between drinking and den, imo.
― Alba, Sunday, 9 September 2018 15:34 (five years ago) link
Oh, and breakfast and bar too.
sorting out how to properly hyphenate that lengthy series of modifiers is reason enough not to try it tbh
― rob, Sunday, 9 September 2018 15:37 (five years ago) link
Or just drop the hyphens altogether. Xpost
― Alba, Sunday, 9 September 2018 15:39 (five years ago) link
In this case, cum is used as an unassimilated latin word rather than an English one (as in summa cum laude) and it means "with". I wonder whether the drinking den really is attached to the bar as a separate entity, or if author is just cheerfully misusing the word to mean "that might also be regarded as a".
It is normal for a sentence to have a verb. Although, it is possible that where rushomancy called it a sentence and inserted a period it would have been more accurate to call it a phrase and inserted an ellipses.
― A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 9 September 2018 18:31 (five years ago) link
ellipsis, ellipses is plural
― mark s, Sunday, 9 September 2018 18:54 (five years ago) link
you're right.
― A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 9 September 2018 19:08 (five years ago) link
as for the phrase at issue, i would rewrite, because i don't think the unwritten linkage in the phrases "breakfast bar" and "drinking den" -- while it's certainly there, which is why they don't absolutely demand hyphenation -- us strong enough to override the written linkage of the hyphens round cum: the problem isn't that you can't decode it on reread, it's that you stumble (and chuckle if you have an evil mind) on first read
hyphenating everything puts all the linkages at the exact same level, which doesn't get rid of the hiccup no hyphens is asking for dirty-mind trouble
"drinking den and/or breakfast bar" works i think (certainly it dodges the slight weirdness that Aimless is noting, that "cum" is arguably slightly misused here? and also the "he said cum teehee" thing)
― mark s, Sunday, 9 September 2018 19:17 (five years ago) link
us s/b is
stylish North Williams breakfast-and-drinking bar
― mick signals, Sunday, 9 September 2018 19:35 (five years ago) link
doesn't really even need the hyphens
― mark s, Sunday, 9 September 2018 19:41 (five years ago) link
^true. use hyphens to eliminate ambiguity, which you're not really in danger of here.
― rob, Sunday, 9 September 2018 19:53 (five years ago) link
i don't mean it as a technical grammar question. maybe i should have put it in "Words, usages, and phrases that annoy the shit out of you". the writer drops in a particularly unnecessary loanword in a context where one can't help but read it as the identical vernacular word.
― milkshake duck george bernard shaw (rushomancy), Sunday, 9 September 2018 21:01 (five years ago) link
Big style book changes at @nytimes: Since yesterday, we've dropped the courtesy titles – "Mr. Whatsisname", "Ms. So-and-So" – for stories about movies, pop music and TV 😱— Matthew Anderson (@MattAndersonNYT) October 9, 2018
rip mr. loaf, mr. pop
― mookieproof, Tuesday, 9 October 2018 19:43 (five years ago) link
hullo gaga, bostic, elllington
doctor sir warrior would be concerned if (a) not dead (b) ever once mentioned in the times anyway
― mark s, Tuesday, 9 October 2018 19:46 (five years ago) link
https://i.imgur.com/ZZPl6u1.jpg https://i.imgur.com/c2yC8gD.jpg
guardian 1, bbc nil
― mookieproof, Friday, 30 November 2018 13:54 (five years ago) link
seen on my Waitrose voucher"this does not include infant formulae"
there are many types of formula I guess, but there are also many types of, say, milk and it would be weird to pluralise to 'milks'?
― kinder, Saturday, 15 December 2018 23:44 (five years ago) link
Yeah that's definitely wrong
― the word dog doesn't bark (anagram), Saturday, 15 December 2018 23:50 (five years ago) link
That is not ungrammatical, strictly speaking, but is certainly a strange choice of expression. Also, when pluralizing Latin words that have been assimilated into daily English use, it is preferable to use the English form of plural, viz. formulas.
― A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 16 December 2018 00:35 (five years ago) link
not sure “formula” needs pluralizing
― k3vin k., Sunday, 16 December 2018 00:57 (five years ago) link
it doesn't, and in terms of style, it oughtn't.
― A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 16 December 2018 01:02 (five years ago) link
I quite agree with Aimles. I often want to stop people from pluralizing loanwords according to the pluralizing conventions of the source language. Especially when they are wrong. But people mistakenly think they're being scrupulously correct, which is sad. Pedants have misled them.
I dislike "syllabi," "octopi," "memoranda," and (perhaps especially) "matrices."
― Anne Frankenstein (Ye Mad Puffin), Sunday, 16 December 2018 04:31 (five years ago) link
"octopi" is wrong anyway, even with the Greek origin it's "octopodes"But with the voucher text, you wouldn't have a problem with "does not include fruits and vegetables" right?
― an incoherent crustacean (MatthewK), Sunday, 16 December 2018 05:48 (five years ago) link
I dislike "syllabi," "octopi," "memoranda," and (perhaps especially) "matrices."Syllabi and memoranda are way more elegant than buses and dums. Octopuses also sounds terrible, imo octopi is the correct English plural and octopodes is an also-fun technically-correct plural. Matrices is elegant, but matrixes is simple and clear, I’d allow them both.I also strongly endorse one Aimles, two Aimless.
― sans lep (sic), Sunday, 16 December 2018 06:48 (five years ago) link
But with the voucher text, you wouldn't have a problem with "does not include fruits and vegetables" right?
actually I'd go with "fruit" for that as well, fruit being a mass noun
― the word dog doesn't bark (anagram), Sunday, 16 December 2018 07:29 (five years ago) link
I don't mind Latin plurals - it was only recently my workplace style guide stopped using 'data' as strictly plural, and not without some mutterings - but I don't expect to see it on a supermarket voucher so it kind of made me smile
― kinder, Sunday, 16 December 2018 08:49 (five years ago) link
it's good, english needs more inflective noun endings, it's a mongrel language and shd flaunt this
a pod of octopus is an octoplural, this is obvious and transcends rules or style
― mark s, Sunday, 16 December 2018 10:35 (five years ago) link
I also strongly endorse one Aimles, two Aimless.
As Aimless, I contain multitudes.
― A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 16 December 2018 20:23 (five years ago) link
What the heck is a “breakfast bar” anyway?
― calstars, Sunday, 16 December 2018 21:31 (five years ago) link
The "breakfast bar" was named via analogy to the "salad bar" and consists of a variety of foods commonly eaten at breakfast, made available for one to serve to oneself.
― A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 16 December 2018 21:35 (five years ago) link
Ok, I’d call it a breakfast buffet. Bbbbbut how can a breakfast bar also be a drinking den? One is a collection of foods or a piece of equipment, the other is a type of room.
― calstars, Sunday, 16 December 2018 21:52 (five years ago) link
breakfast bar = a variety of syrups, preserves, multiple meats, a protective sneeze guard
― j., Sunday, 16 December 2018 22:01 (five years ago) link
a breakfast bar is a long shallow shelf section you sit at in a domestic kitchen, typically on a stool
― gabbnebulous (darraghmac), Sunday, 16 December 2018 22:08 (five years ago) link
at this rate, it will also qualify as a laxative, an epithet, and a cosmology
― A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 16 December 2018 22:44 (five years ago) link
shitting the bar high there
― gabbnebulous (darraghmac), Sunday, 16 December 2018 22:54 (five years ago) link