My local grocery store is called "Gelson's", and i recently received an ad which included something to the effect of "Gelsons' goal is to.... etc." Is this correct? How do you make a possessive proper noun into a double possessive, of sorts? do you simply drop the initial apostrophe, as they did? surely you wouldn't say "Gelson's' goal", right? I'd defer to their expertise had the ad not been riddled with the it's/its mistake (YART).
Technically "Gelson's' goal" would be the correct form, but it would be far better to avoid the problem and say, e.g., "the goal of Gelson's". If it comes to that why not just "our goal"?
'Gelson's' is short for Gelson's place or shop right? So having two possessives in a row it would be: Gelson's Shop's goal Obviously 'Goals of Gelson's (Shop)' would be less of a mouthful.
..and while we're on the subject of multiple apostrophes: Is I'd've a word? it's used orally quite a bit, but looks awfully strange written down. I'd've simply looked it up, but i figured it'd be easier just to pick your collective brains. well, that plus i'm almost a member....
I'd've My personal take on this is that if a word exists in oral use, it can always be written down -- that's what writing is for; ergo, it always has the potential to exist in written form and when somebody does write it, there it is. On the other hand, I hold fast to the notion that there is never more than one apostrophe in a word. Notwithstanding that there are two elisions in the present case, I would suppress one and spell it "I'dve".
My personal take on this is that if a word exists in oral use, it can always be written down ------------------------------------------------- Agreed. Especially when you write conversation as in books. Generally, on this Board, I think we try to write as we'd speak, as we lack the voical tonality to enforce or modify the tone of a post. wow
Double contractions like this don't occur in standard print. I do sometimes use it.
My rule of thumb is to do it if it's needed to show what I say. Written "I have" is pronounced as two distinct words: I don't read it as "I've". Nor do I read "do not" as "don't".
But given written "I'd have", I'd pronounce it as "I'd've", not (normally) with a distinct "have". So there's no need to supply the second contraction in writing, when the standard form "I'd have" is pronounced in the way you want.
That said, I've noticed my use of "I'd've" is increasing, when I'm writing more colloquially.
In the same way, I might write "Elizabeth'll do it", where in serious print you only get pronoun + contraction.
Oh they write all right. They write and write and write and write until the whole point is lost in a jumble of words so obscure that it is quite unintelligible to the average human being.
Well, if we just wrote it in plain English so everyone could understand it, we'd write ourselves right out of our jobs, now, wouldn't we? We're not as dumb as we look!
No wonder medical malpractice is such a killer in the States - just imagine all those doctors talking one language to all those lawyers talking another - and neither speaking English! hey, we need some Esperanto around here
formal writing I tend to agree, sort of. I view written English as different from spoken English, more formal. Hence, I use few contractions in writing, which means that my style, as people are always telling me, is stiff, pedantic, pretentious, elegant, old-fashioned, (choose one or more), depending on who is doing the telling. However, I have developed a new, freer style more like spoken English for e-mail and chat-room purposes, which I feel are supposed to be a sort of written conversation.
Bobyoungbalt - stick with your formal writing when writing formally, critics be damned. A more casual voice is certainly appropriate for e-mail and chat-room purposes, but then, those aren't formal writings.
I can't imagine the hue and cry which would arise if I used slang, contractions, or idioms in my chief work products. But they are not pedantic; I am a torchbearer for the plain-English-in-legal-writing movement.
Nuthin' like furriners tryin' to do the fyutchah pehfect in Suthrin. We do admire y'all's attempts, though, darlins. Now kin y'all pernounce them wehds?
I'm not sure about Bridget's contribution (y'all'ven't've) but I can handle Y'all'll've jes fine. You just gotta wiggle your tongue around while you're saying it.
Sparteye wrote: Well, if we just wrote it in plain English so everyone could understand it, we'd write ourselves right out of our jobs, now, wouldn't we? We're not as dumb as we look!
But, my good fellow, your profession will, I assure you, be first against the wall when I get this revolution thingummyjig off the ground! Now, where did I put that spanner? I think I'm sitting on the book of instructions. And just who is this Che Guevara chappie anyway, and why do I have to have 1,000 black berets and grow a beard?
Capital Kiwi is in good company in perceiving the elimination of lawyers as an essential element of revolution. Shakespeare's revolutionary villain said it best,
"The first thing we do, is kill all the lawyers."
As to the fellow part, I've never minded crossing gender terms, and I never take offense when offense isn't intended. I have completely enjoyed the camaraderie, on this and other boards, of being addressed as "guv," "mate," "fellow", and (oh my gosh!) "dude." Keep 'em coming.
Capital Kiwi is in good company in perceiving the elimination of lawyers as an essential element of revolution.
OTOH, when you are out in cold, deserted, needing help, the two people most welcome, depending on circumstances, are: a Mechanic or a Lawyer! wow P.S. AnnaS : here's one to answer ... just trying to help you reach your goal!
Nuthin' like furriners tryin' to do the fyutchah pehfect in Suthrin. We do admire y'all's attempts, though, darlins.
To this, I will certainly agree, and I am, of course, able to read what you have written given that I am from Nawth Care-liiiiiiiiiinah, although I never in my liiiiiife actually talked like that - except for the effect! Do ya think we two ought to explain (given the ongoing economic boom being enjoyed by the South) to all these others how we actually DID win the war??? One last question of importance - are you a native Atlantan or a transplant, and do you live IN Atlanta or in one of those fancy new suburbs?
Shoshannah
suzanne pomeranz, tourism consultant
jerusalem, israel - suztours@gmail.com
Do ya think we two ought to explain (given the ongoing economic boom being enjoyed by the South) to all these others how we actually DID win the war???
Gee, Reaganomics took a few years to start helping the economy, but I didn't realize that the South's "winning" the Civil War was finally helping the economy after 140 years.
While the North's superior economy decided a war over a hundred years ago, the South's economy has grown while the North's has stagnated. Too much Yankee money went South. But it strengthened the Nation, and that is good.
the South's economy has grown while the North's has stagnated.
I wouldn't say that. The economic boom is all over, and we seem to be quite comfortable in the Midwest, except that we have the highest gas prices. All California's gotten from the economic boom is huge inflation. And I think the main reason so many people moved south is due to a warmer climate.
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site.
Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to
hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.
Now kin y'all pernounce them wehds?
I'll take the Mechanic of quantum abilities.
