One 4 the grammar pedants

simple_salmon

JonGinge wrote:

Either is correct, but, in this case, the form with the additional sibilant sounds better when spoken.

Now you're just showing off

andrewjoseph

Text speak really annoys me, the people who use it on internet fora are using a full keyboard!

Spelling and grammer are not such an issue, as long as the message is understood.

Communication is the main thing, if you can understand despite the mistakes then communication has happened.

The other thing to remember is that many fora are international, some people are not using their native language. Some people may have language problems due to disability, i.e. deafness, dyslexia or poor just poor language skills.

Nobody tries to make embarrassing mistakes in public places.

lost_in_thought

simple_salmon wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Either is correct, but, in this case, the form with the additional sibilant sounds better when spoken.

Now you're just showing off

You seem somewhat savvy on sibilants seeing as your screen name is simple salmon...

MMmmmmmm alliteration.

simple_salmon

I looked 'sibilants' up on Dictionary.com

I now know more than I did when I woke up this morning; today is a good day

Littigator

simple_salmon wrote:

I looked 'sibilants' up on Dictionary.com

I now know more than I did when I woke up this morning; today is a good day

I'm desparately trying to think of something funny to say about this post. Just...can't...quite...get...it....out.....DAMMIT!

I think I must be coming down with something

greg66_tri_v2.0

andrewjoseph wrote:

internet fora

Bzzzt.

Hoary old chesnut, forums/fora.

The OED lists both as plurals of forum, but doesn't give examples of when one or other is appropriate.

In Latin, the forum was a recognised place in a town at which commercial and political business was conducted. If the plural of forum was being used in English in that sense ("the fora at every major town in the country were closed today because of the strike"), then I'd agree that "fora" would be the correct form of the plural.

"Forum" as an English word however, has a number of further meanings. As an adopted English word, used in one of those English senses, I'd say the plural should follow the English rule and take an "s" ("these cycling internet forums are always packed with utter geekoids").

Jash is a bit of a Frankie Howerd, IIRC correctly. Jash?

Littigator

Bzzzzt

Interruption

Yes Litts what is it?

Sir, please Sir Greg66 is being a complete and utter bore Sir!

greg66_tri_v2.0

Littigator wrote:

Bzzzzt

Interruption

Yes Litts what is it?

Sir, please Sir Greg66 is being a complete and utter bore Sir!

Haven't you left the fcuking country yet? Why are you still here? Go on, get out! Off you go! :twisted:

robmanic1

"Parrrrp"

Is it fori?

lost_in_thought

I was just thinking that considering Greg's angle, an internet forum may be so called because of its relation to the latin forum - being a meeting place for discussion, although business was also part of its focus.

If you look at the phrase 'internet forum' from that angle, in that it's the latin idea of a forum, but on the internet, then I reckon it would be fair to use the plural 'fora'.

Please refer to the 'geek' thread...

the_hundredth_idiot

JonGinge wrote:

Either is correct, but, in this case, the form with the additional sibilant sounds better when spoken.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe ... z.22_sound

I'd go for spelling it as you pronounce it. That it, pronounced as "trusses" so spell it as Truss's. If it was pronounced more as "truss" then spell as Truss'

Examples: Moses' and Dickens' on the one hand; Jesus's and James's on the other. (Unless, of course, you would pronounce as "moseses" and "dickenses" - and I have a nasty feeling I might be wrong in not doing.)

But my copy of "The Complete Plain Words" (Gowers on whom Lynne Truss almost certainly has a crush) says, "There is no universally accepted code of rules governing the formation of the possessive case of names ending in s."

andrewjoseph

Greg66 wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

internet fora

Bzzzt.

Hoary old chesnut, forums/fora.
....

I use it because it feels right for me, forums feels awkward, almost like saying 'forumses'.

Despite this, you understood what I meant, therefore communication has occurred. The words or medium used are then irrelevant.

antfly

I thought I was pedantic!
I am rapidly losing the will to live.

il_principe

Greg66 wrote:

Jash is a bit of a Frankie Howerd, IIRC correctly. Jash?

Sorry that one has gone straight over my head. Please explain!

p.s I know who Frankie Howerd is...

antfly

I think he called you a coward.

greg66_tri_v2.0

andrewjoseph wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

internet fora

Bzzzt.

Hoary old chesnut, forums/fora.
....

I use it because it feels right for me, forums feels awkward, almost like saying 'forumses'.

Despite this, you understood what I meant, therefore communication has occurred. The words or medium used are then irrelevant.

Ah, yes. But you're talking about ad hoc communication, which is adequate for the tribe going hunting for the evening meal. Standardised communication is pretty much essential to the growth of civilisation and learning, no? It's a retrograde step to regard ad hoc communication as acceptable.

il_principe

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Either is correct, but, in this case, the form with the additional sibilant sounds better when spoken.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe ... z.22_sound

I'd go for spelling it as you pronounce it. That it, pronounced as "trusses" so spell it as Truss's. If it was pronounced more as "truss" then spell as Truss'

Examples: Moses' and Dickens' on the one hand; Jesus's and James's on the other. (Unless, of course, you would pronounce as "moseses" and "dickenses" - and I have a nasty feeling I might be wrong in not doing.)

But my copy of "The Complete Plain Words" (Gowers on whom Lynne Truss almost certainly has a crush) says, "There is no universally accepted code of rules governing the formation of the possessive case of names ending in s."

Well I'm a James, and it's always been James'. To me that just looks neater.

alfablue

The Hundredth Idiot wrote:

JonGinge wrote:

Either is correct, but, in this case, the form with the additional sibilant sounds better when spoken.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe ... z.22_sound

I'd go for spelling it as you pronounce it. That it, pronounced as "trusses" so spell it as Truss's. If it was pronounced more as "truss" then spell as Truss'

Examples: Moses' and Dickens' on the one hand; Jesus's and James's on the other. (Unless, of course, you would pronounce as "moseses" and "dickenses" - and I have a nasty feeling I might be wrong in not doing.)

But my copy of "The Complete Plain Words" (Gowers on whom Lynne Truss almost certainly has a crush) says, "There is no universally accepted code of rules governing the formation of the possessive case of names ending in s."

As I have a son called James, this has troubled me! So is it "the stabilisers on James' Pinarello" or "James's" - I read somewhere in a grammar guide that the form James' is appropriate for Jesus or his mate James, but not for real people like my James, who should be "James's".

I too am an owner of Lynne Truss' (!) book, that remains unread to date :oops:

il_principe

Greg66 wrote:

Ah, yes. But you're talking about ad hoc communication, which is adequate for the tribe going hunting for the evening meal. Standardised communication is pretty much essential to the growth of civilisation and learning, no? It's a retrograde step to regard ad hoc communication as acceptable.

As in:

"Wot u doin 4 dinner m8?"

"Maccy D's innit Bruv"

MrChuck

Greg66 wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

internet fora

Bzzzt.

Hoary old chesnut, forums/fora.
....

I use it because it feels right for me, forums feels awkward, almost like saying 'forumses'.

Despite this, you understood what I meant, therefore communication has occurred. The words or medium used are then irrelevant.

Ah, yes. But you're talking about ad hoc communication, which is adequate for the tribe going hunting for the evening meal. Standardised communication is pretty much essential to the growth of civilisation and learning, no? It's a retrograde step to regard ad hoc communication as acceptable.

Well said that man. But someone will be along soon with the "but language evolves" argument to excuse dropping standards.

il_principe

alfablue wrote:

As I have a son called James, this has troubled me! So is it "the stabilisers on James' Pinarello" or "James's" - I read somewhere in a grammar guide that the form James' is appropriate for Jesus or his mate James, but not for real people like my James, who should be "James's".

I too am an owner of Lynne Truss' (!) book, that remains unread to date :oops:

I'm not dignifying this with a response, for the reasons highlighted in bold!

greg66_tri_v2.0

jashburnham wrote:

alfablue wrote:

As I have a son called James, this has troubled me! So is it "the stabilisers on James' Pinarello" or "James's" - I read somewhere in a grammar guide that the form James' is appropriate for Jesus or his mate James, but not for real people like my James, who should be "James's".

I too am an owner of Lynne Truss' (!) book, that remains unread to date :oops:

I'm not dignifying this with a response, for the reasons highlighted in bold!

St James's Square rather sets the trend here.

I will own up to subscribing to the phonetic guide. Would I shorten "the Pinarello of James" (phonetically) to "James Pinarello" or "Jameses Pinarello"? The latter, so I use James's.

So Jesus's shoes, Lynne Truss's book (even though it's a visual abomination); but Moses' tablets, The Rolling Stones' equipment.

Noun adjuncts, anyone?

alfablue

jashburnham wrote:

alfablue wrote:

As I have a son called James, this has troubled me! So is it "the stabilisers on James' Pinarello" or "James's" - I read somewhere in a grammar guide that the form James' is appropriate for Jesus or his mate James, but not for real people like my James, who should be "James's".

I too am an owner of Lynne Truss' (!) book, that remains unread to date :oops:

I'm not dignifying this with a response, for the reasons highlighted in bold!

It's okay, the sentence came up in the discussion about removing them!

andrewjoseph

Greg66 wrote:

..

Ah, yes. But you're talking about ad hoc communication, which is adequate for the tribe going hunting for the evening meal. Standardised communication is pretty much essential to the growth of civilisation and learning, no? It's a retrograde step to regard ad hoc communication as acceptable.

I agree but standardised communication has to start somewhere. When a civilised society meets a different culture, it has to communicate as best it can.

When an aborigine warns you not to eat that 'mushroom', insisting on proper pronounciation and syntax won't save your life!

My background in deafness and psychiatry has shown me that it is the message that is important, not the medium.

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

alfablue wrote:

As I have a son called James, this has troubled me! So is it "the stabilisers on James' Pinarello" or "James's" - I read somewhere in a grammar guide that the form James' is appropriate for Jesus or his mate James, but not for real people like my James, who should be "James's".

I too am an owner of Lynne Truss' (!) book, that remains unread to date :oops:

I'm not dignifying this with a response, for the reasons highlighted in bold!

St James's Square rather sets the trend here.

I will own up to subscribing to the phonetic guide. Would I shorten "the Pinarello of James" (phonetically) to "James Pinarello" or "Jameses Pinarello"? The latter, so I use James's.

So Jesus's shoes, Lynne Truss's book (even though it's a visual abomination); but Moses' tablets, The Rolling Stones' equipment.

Noun adjuncts, anyone?

It's more a case of personal preference. If we roat evrithing funeticly we'd be in a right bl**dy mess. I almost always go for 'James' Pinarello' because I find 'James's Pinarello' somehow galling.

And I was taught that it's James' and not James's. Do I set great linguistic store in London's signwriters? No. Earls Court [sic] anyone?

Coriander

jashburnham wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Don't read it, DDD, you and your devil's advocate will dissolve into a swirling pit of rage at Miss Truss' inconsiderate behaviour. And we'll miss you.

Miss Truss's - there's only one of her.

:twisted: 8) :oops:

Nope it's Truss' I'm afraid.

Actually, Jash, there is no consensus on the knotty question of whether to add a final 's' to possessives ending in an 's'. Some people made the decision based on the final sound. I'd say that "Truss's" needs an 's' but that "James'" doesn't. Though being terribly old-fashioned and prisy I always add one.

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

alfablue wrote:

As I have a son called James, this has troubled me! So is it "the stabilisers on James' Pinarello" or "James's" - I read somewhere in a grammar guide that the form James' is appropriate for Jesus or his mate James, but not for real people like my James, who should be "James's".

I too am an owner of Lynne Truss' (!) book, that remains unread to date :oops:

I'm not dignifying this with a response, for the reasons highlighted in bold!

St James's Square rather sets the trend here.

I will own up to subscribing to the phonetic guide. Would I shorten "the Pinarello of James" (phonetically) to "James Pinarello" or "Jameses Pinarello"? The latter, so I use James's.

So Jesus's shoes, Lynne Truss's book (even though it's a visual abomination); but Moses' tablets, The Rolling Stones' equipment.

Noun adjuncts, anyone?

It's more a case of personal preference. If we roat evrithing funeticly we'd be in a right bl**dy mess. I almost always go for 'James' Pinarello' because I find 'James's Pinarello' somehow galling.

And I was taught that it's James' and not James's. Do I set great linguistic store in London's signwriters? No. Earls Court [sic] anyone?

Noun adjunct.

Clearly.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Coriander wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Don't read it, DDD, you and your devil's advocate will dissolve into a swirling pit of rage at Miss Truss' inconsiderate behaviour. And we'll miss you.

Miss Truss's - there's only one of her.

:twisted: 8) :oops:

Nope it's Truss' I'm afraid.

Actually, Jash, there is no consensus on the knotty question of whether to add a final 's' to possessives ending in an 's'. Some people made the decision based on the final sound. I'd say that "Truss's" needs an 's' but that "James'" doesn't. Though being terribly old-fashioned and prisy I always add one.

Ah. Is that how you spell "prissy"?

I never knew. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

jashburnham wrote:

alfablue wrote:

As I have a son called James, this has troubled me! So is it "the stabilisers on James' Pinarello" or "James's" - I read somewhere in a grammar guide that the form James' is appropriate for Jesus or his mate James, but not for real people like my James, who should be "James's".

I too am an owner of Lynne Truss' (!) book, that remains unread to date :oops:

I'm not dignifying this with a response, for the reasons highlighted in bold!

St James's Square rather sets the trend here.

I will own up to subscribing to the phonetic guide. Would I shorten "the Pinarello of James" (phonetically) to "James Pinarello" or "Jameses Pinarello"? The latter, so I use James's.

So Jesus's shoes, Lynne Truss's book (even though it's a visual abomination); but Moses' tablets, The Rolling Stones' equipment.

Noun adjuncts, anyone?

It's more a case of personal preference. If we roat evrithing funeticly we'd be in a right bl**dy mess. I almost always go for 'James' Pinarello' because I find 'James's Pinarello' somehow galling.

And I was taught that it's James' and not James's. Do I set great linguistic store in London's signwriters? No. Earls Court [sic] anyone?

Noun adjunct.

Clearly.

As well you know, a noun adjunct can have an apostrophe or not, smart @rse.

Me, I like them with an apostrophe. Especially where it's so clearly in the possessive.

flattythehurdler

Earls Court isn't necessarily possessive.