For JP, like.

Quote:

---

In the case of a book belonging to Cassius, we will use the 'Chaucer' rule to place the apostrophe.

Pretend Chaucer Cassiuss book Cassiuses book
Modern correct form Cassius's book


Just apply the rule and the apostrophe will end up in the correct place. This clearly demonstrates that Cassius is singular, i.e. there is just one Cassius we are talking about, and he possesses the book.

---

Source, see also this, for instance.

This, however, allows for both.

The way I was taught, the genitive case in english should always be formed with the addition of an "'s" for singulars, however going without seems ok today with words ending with an "s", as it's now become more a matter of phonetics.

Initially (when the genitive form first was shaped in writing) it was a matter of spelling following phonetics as well, but for a while it was more about adhering strictly to the "correct" written form, which is where what I was taught stems from, I guess.

From what I understand, as an aside, the addition of an apostrophe was accidental, I don't think it's clear exactly why it happened. We never added it in swedish.

I've got a simple rule for this, but you probably have to speak Dutch to get it :huh:

In Dutch the genitive form is hardly ever used the way it is in English.

E.g. When indicating 'the boy's coat' you would get something along the lines of 'the boy his coat'... So obviously you need an apostrophe

Err, the issue at hand is the addition of an "s" for singular nouns already ending with an "s", when forming genitives :unsure:


EDit: lolz, rodded by skweeky.

Started reading the first link, got to "But the children
belong to the parents, you say."

Decided the author was an arse.

Sorry, by way of explanation. The word "but" is a conjunction. It makes no sense to me that it is at the start of a sentence.

Oh right, a conjunction is a word which links things.

For example "I am a cunt however that doesn't make me a bad person".

Or "Skizo is a faux-mod therefore I can't put him on ignore."

You will see in the above that I used an apostrophe for the contraction "can't". It allows us to change "can not" to "can't".

Contractions generally make speech, or the written word, appear less formal.

You have now been learned something, in spite of yourself.

And it's the weekend.

Me ftw.

:blink:

I'm still right :snooty:

I think your

Quote:

---

however going without seems ok today with words ending with an "s"

---

is a bit misleading.

As I understand it you wouldn't add a second "s" after the apostrophe. You suggestion seems to be that it's optional.

Always happy to be learning tho' if I'm wrong in that one.

Rodding is annoying, like.

The way I was taught, you ALWAYS add the genitive "s" with singular nouns, even with singulars already ending with one :justincaseyouaren'trodding:

And the not adding an "s" is ok, now, but it wasn't always.

Quote:

---

Modern correct form Cassius's book

---

Never knew that, as far as I was aware you never added an "s" after an apostrophe, if there was one before it.

If nothing else it just looks stupid.


The Lioness's cubs were hungry.

Jeeves's new employer wasn't a patch on Mr Wooster.


Maybe it's just me but.

Thanks for that, like I said always learning. To be honest I was struggling to come up with a lot of common examples. Maybe that's why it's never occurred before, the bulk of instances would be plurals methinks.

It's to do with pronunciation, as I said. Today at least.

If you'd pronounce it as the [lioness] cubs, then go with lioness', I guess.

When I saw something you said about genitives in an old thread someone bumped the other day, I started to wonder if my teachers had been wrong.

So I did some research, and it would appear that both forms are ok now, tho' mine is the older way of doing it :blink: Which prompted this thread when you said I was rodding, this morning.

In middle english, or something, it would have been spelled the lionesses cubs, as far as I can understand it.

You linguists with your archaic ways.

I suppose that would make sense tho'. People teaching English in a foreign place would be more likely to be traditional about it. Whereas people living in an English speaking country (see America as a for example) would be more likely to change with the times. Not consciously like, just cause of it happening.

I'm talking English teachers here btw. Not Professors and brains and stuff.

I have no justification for the above, none whatsoever. Just thinking out loud really.

Two of them were orginally britons, and at least one was a professor :P

In all fairness, tho', I got the impression that it had been quite a while since they'd spent much time in the UK. and one of them had a decidedly old-fashioned outlook on most things. None of them was young.

You may be right-ish anyways, I imagine adhering strictly to (older) traditional ideas about grammar, where the rules are clearer and thus more easily defined, probably made it easier to teach to foreigners and thus the easiest option (consciously or unconciously).


EDit: pity none of them ever gave me an easy set of rules on how to handle compound nouns :dabs: