| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Salopian 
"Re: any comment in this post on English usage..."
If it doesn't say it's FWFR-specific, it's not!
|
 Posted - 03/10/2006 : 17:42:18
|
| "Reeves's gay for pay" cannot mean "a gay for pay of Reeves", since this does not make any sense. This is therefore attempting to have the "'s" stand for "is", but this is invalid since it is after a sibilant. In other words, this is a five-word review trying to squeeze into four. |
|
|
Josh the cat 
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
East Yorkshire, England.
|
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 18:01:10
|
 |
 |
|
|
Josh the cat
"ice wouldn't melt, you'd think ....."
East Yorkshire, England.
|
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 18:01:10
|
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper 
"Hares lookin' at Euclid."
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 18:01:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
"Reeves's gay for pay" cannot mean "a gay for pay of Reeves", since this does not make any sense. This is therefore attempting to have the "'s" stand for "is", but this is invalid since it is after a sibilant. In other words, this is a five-word review trying to squeeze into four.
Oh NO! Not after a SIBILANT! How on earth could such a thing have happened??
Seal the site off immediately and call the Grammar Police!
 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper
"Hares lookin' at Euclid."
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 18:01:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
"Reeves's gay for pay" cannot mean "a gay for pay of Reeves", since this does not make any sense. This is therefore attempting to have the "'s" stand for "is", but this is invalid since it is after a sibilant. In other words, this is a five-word review trying to squeeze into four.
Oh NO! Not after a SIBILANT! How on earth could such a thing have happened??
Seal the site off immediately and call the Grammar Police!
|
|
|
|
Salopian
"Re: any comment in this post on English usage..."
If it doesn't say it's FWFR-specific, it's not!
|
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 19:33:31
|
It's not just wrong in some theoretical way, though. It's impossible to even pronounce the above review in a way that has any meaning.
|
|
|
|
Salopian
"Re: any comment in this post on English usage..."
If it doesn't say it's FWFR-specific, it's not!
|
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 19:33:31
|
It's not just wrong in some theoretical way, though. It's impossible to even pronounce the above review in a way that has any meaning.
|
|
|
|
TitanPA
"#2"
United States
|
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 20:21:21
|
| Some people should know about Present tense and Future Imperfect. But Sibilants? |
|
|
|
MguyX
"One bad mother."
|
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 22:22:54
|
Sibilance aside, I agree that it's essentially five words abbreviated to four. Yet on further review of the instant replay, I think the review should stand, because I believe it is generally accepted practice to contract "is" to "'s." For example "Whether Salopian's correct in his observation is not the issue: it is whether grammar premits the construction. " is not objectionable.
To be sure, sibilance is merely the instance of the "s" sound, and not necessarily the instance of the letter "s." For example, "extra" contains sibilance.
A word ending in "s" doesn't lose the ability to take on either a contracted "is," a possessive, or even a plural s (though the plural is commonly "es," and I might note that an apostrophe "s" at the end of a word to indicate plurality is just plain wrong: e.g., the 1960's).
Now, I cannot speak on standard UK English grammar, but in standard U.S. English grammar, "Jess's ball" is correct. Only certain words ending in "s" don't take an apostrophe "s," whether contracted or possessive -- like Congress, Jesus, Moses, and Penelope (alright, I threw the last one in just to clear the palate). Why? I think because one is the name of a group (i.e., a collective noun) ending in s, and there are already "double sibilant syllables" in the others, and, as for the latter two, the mouth abhors what sounds like hissing or stuttering.
But that's my off-the-cuff explanation: I just didn't feel like looking it up.
As for Reeves, I think the instance of only a single sibilant saves the extra "'s." But then again, that's just my opinion. |
Edited by - MguyX on 03/10/2006 22:35:49 |
|
|
|
Warzonkey 
"Seriously Lo-Res"
Littleborough, UK
|
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 23:23:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
A word ending in "s" doesn't lose the ability to take on either a contracted "is," a possessive, or even a plural s (though the plural is commonly "es," and I might note that an apostrophe "s" at the end of a word to indicate plurality is just plain wrong: e.g., the 1960's).
I too am no expert on this matter, but I always thought that "apostrophe s" was acceptable in pluralising numbers and symbols - a way of separating the different character types. For example, to describe poker hand I may write "three 7's and a pair of 4's" which I think looks better than "three 7s and a pair of 4s" (although in reality I'd probably write it all in words, but you get my point). |
|
|
|
Warzonkey
"Seriously Lo-Res"
Littleborough, UK
|
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 23:23:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
A word ending in "s" doesn't lose the ability to take on either a contracted "is," a possessive, or even a plural s (though the plural is commonly "es," and I might note that an apostrophe "s" at the end of a word to indicate plurality is just plain wrong: e.g., the 1960's).
I too am no expert on this matter, but I always thought that "apostrophe s" was acceptable in pluralising numbers and symbols - a way of separating the different character types. For example, to describe poker hand I may write "three 7's and a pair of 4's" which I think looks better than "three 7s and a pair of 4s" (although in reality I'd probably write it all in words, but you get my point). |
|
|
|
MguyX
"One bad mother."
|
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 23:50:47
|
Don't get me wrong: I do it too, because it just looks prettier. Last time I checked (about 20 years ago), it wasn't cool. But, hey, grammar changes, and it might be cool now (with numbers and symbols only).  |
|
|
|
MguyX
"One bad mother."
|
Posted - 03/10/2006 : 23:50:47
|
| Don't get me wrong: I do it too, because it just looks prettier. Last time I checked (about 20 years ago), it wasn't cool. But, hey, grammar changes, and it might be cool now (with numbers and symbols only). |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper
"Hares lookin' at Euclid."
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 00:30:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
It's not just wrong in some theoretical way, though. It's impossible to even pronounce the above review in a way that has any meaning.
Well, let's make it "Reeves: gay for pay" then.
Incidentally, whilst we are examining ungrammatical reviews for My Private Idaho, how about River: 'I da ho'. How does this make grammatical sense? what's da exactly, unless it's escaped from a foreign language?
And who among us could have committed this abuse of our mother tongue?
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper
"Hares lookin' at Euclid."
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 00:30:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
It's not just wrong in some theoretical way, though. It's impossible to even pronounce the above review in a way that has any meaning.
Well, let's make it "Reeves: gay for pay" then.
Incidentally, whilst we are examining ungrammatical reviews for My Private Idaho, how about River: 'I da ho'. How does this make grammatical sense? what's da exactly, unless it's escaped from a foreign language?
And who among us could have committed this abuse of our mother tongue?
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"Cecilia Tessieri, maître chocolatier"
Israel
|
Posted - 04/10/2006 : 07:28:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
It's not just wrong in some theoretical way, though. It's impossible to even pronounce the above review in a way that has any meaning.
Well, let's make it "Reeves: gay for pay" then.
Incidentally, whilst we are examining ungrammatical reviews for My Private Idaho, how about River: 'I da ho'. How does this make grammatical sense? what's da exactly, unless it's escaped from a foreign language?
And who among us could have committed this abuse of our mother tongue?
My feeling is that grammar doesn't have to be exact in these reviews, since sometimes even a purposeful misspelling can make the difference between a good review and one that doesn't make sense. As for "I da ho", well, it really is just a clever way of using slang/street-talk to make "I'm the whore" sound more like "Idaho". If we had to stick to perfect grammar and spelling, we'd have far less clever reviews.
(Just one person's opinion.)
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
