Apostrophe (possession) - Revision history

DavidWalker at 10:14, 18 December 2015

2015-12-18T10:14:40Z

PeterWilson at 15:33, 19 November 2014

2014-11-19T15:33:50Z

PeterWilson at 14:46, 19 November 2014

2014-11-19T14:46:14Z

PeterWilson at 12:47, 16 April 2011

2011-04-16T12:47:14Z

PeterWilson at 13:00, 10 March 2008

2008-03-10T13:00:28Z

PeterWilson at 12:55, 10 March 2008

2008-03-10T12:55:08Z

PeterWilson at 00:03, 29 January 2008

2008-01-29T00:03:45Z

JoachimNoreiko at 12:42, 27 July 2007

2007-07-27T12:42:07Z

PeterWilson at 23:12, 9 May 2007

2007-05-09T23:12:52Z

PeterWilson at 13:32, 24 April 2007

2007-04-24T13:32:04Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-The use of the punctuation mark the '''[[apostrophe]]''' (') to show '''possession''' is quite easy â€“ if you know the rule.  Unfortunately, too many writers have not learnt the rule.  Many students are intimidated by what seems complicated - but can be mastered by most intelligent adults within minutes.  It may take concentration.  (The apostrophe can also [[Apostrophe (omission)|show that you have left a letter out of a word]], which can cause confusion.)
+The use of the punctuation mark the '''[[apostrophe]]''' (') to show '''possession''' is quite easy - if you know the rule.  Unfortunately, too many writers have not learnt the rule.  Many students are intimidated by what seems complicated - but can be mastered by most intelligent adults within minutes.  It may take concentration.  (The apostrophe can also [[Apostrophe (omission)|show that you have left a letter out of a word]], which can cause confusion.)
 When we write about someone (the possessor) possessing (or owning) something, then this is shown by an apostrophe.  The rule is:
@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 (AND ADD AN 'S' IF THE SOUND REQUIRES IT)
 </div>
-(This formulation of the rule is the brainchild of Mr Phil Dalton, teacher, formerly of Marist College in Hull.)]
+(This formulation of the rule is the brainchild of Mr Phil Dalton, teacher, formerly of Marist College in Hull.)
 ::Note: the words 'possessor' and 'possession', etc, are not used here with the sense of ownership in the ordinary 'real-life' sense. They are used in a technical sense. If you can substitute 'of', with some re-ordering of the words, then we are talking about 'possession' in the grammatical sense. 'The Bee-keepers Association', for example, can be rephrased as 'The Association '''of''' [the] Bee-Keepers', without any implication of legal ownership. It should be written '''The Bee-Keepers' Association'''.
@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 You may need to see [[apostrophe (omission)]] to explain another problem with [[apostrophe]]s. There is an illustration of the misuse of the apostrophe to mark possession at [[refuse]].
-**(Pedants will insist that the name of [[Apostrophe (omission)|the punctuation mark the '''apostrophe''']] should be pronounced distinctly from that of the [[Apostrophe (rhetoric)|rhetorical apostrophe]]. The name of the rhetorical [[figure of speech]] was adopted in English from the French, where it has three syllables, 'a-po-stroff' ({{IPA|a pɒ strɒf}}. But the French word too is derived from [[Greek]] στροφὴ ('strophe') 'a turning', through άπὀστροφος, an [[adjective]] meaning 'of turning away', or 'of elision', so all but pedants may ignore this.)
+**(Pedants will insist that the name of [[Apostrophe (omission)|the punctuation mark the '''apostrophe''']] should be pronounced distinctly from that of the [[Apostrophe (rhetoric)|rhetorical apostrophe]]. The name of the rhetorical [[figure of speech]] was adopted in English from the French, where it has three syllables, 'a-po-stroff' ({{IPA|a pɒ strɒf}}). But the French word too is derived from [[Greek]] στροφὴ ('strophe') 'a turning', through άπὀστροφος, an [[adjective]] meaning 'of turning away', or 'of elision', so all but pedants may ignore this.)
 [[category:punctuation]]
 [[Category:pronunciation]]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 * Dogs' behaviour is how dogs (in general) behave; A dog's behaviour is how one (particular) dog behaves
 * The USA's voting record is the history of how the USA voted, that is "The States's record" OR "the States' record": it depends on how you pronounce it.
-* Similarly, "Jamesâ€™s bike" is correct fot those who pronounce 'James' with two syllables when he owns something ('jamez-iz'); and "Jamesâ€™ bike" is correct for those who pronounce it with one syllable: 'jamez'.
+* Similarly, "James's bike" is correct for those who pronounce 'James' with two syllables when he owns something ('jamez-iz'); and "James' bike" is correct for those who pronounce it with one syllable: 'jamez'.
 One exception to this rule is when the possessive is formed with the [[pronoun]] "it". To distinguish from the contraction of "it is", the possessive is "its", '''without''' an apostrophe: '''<big><big>its = of it </big></big>'''.

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 * One boy's books = the book of one boy.
 * Two boys' books = the books of more than one boy.
-* A womanâ€™s rights is the rights of an individual woman; Womenâ€™s rights is the rights of (all) women.
+* A woman's rights = the rights of an individual woman; Women's rights is the rights of (all) women.
-* Dogsâ€™ behaviour is how dogs (in general) behave; A dogâ€™s behaviour is how one (particular) dog behaves
+* Dogs' behaviour is how dogs (in general) behave; A dog's behaviour is how one (particular) dog behaves
-* The USAâ€™s voting record is the history of how the USA voted, that is "The Statesâ€™s record" OR "the Statesâ€™ record": it depends on how you pronounce it.
+* The USA's voting record is the history of how the USA voted, that is "The States's record" OR "the States' record": it depends on how you pronounce it.
 * Similarly, "Jamesâ€™s bike" is correct fot those who pronounce 'James' with two syllables when he owns something ('jamez-iz'); and "Jamesâ€™ bike" is correct for those who pronounce it with one syllable: 'jamez'.
@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 <div style="border:2px solid red; text-align:left; font-weight:bold; margin:0.5em auto; width:80%;">
-WARNING: plural nouns which are not possessors '''never''' need apostrophes -â€“ even if they are abbreviations, like "GPs", or dates, like the "1960s". ([[Fowler]] (1996) advises an exception to this exception in the case where the sense would be unclear: "There are three e's in 'excellent'". Using punctuation to increase clarity seems to be exactly what punctuation is for.
+WARNING: plural nouns which are not possessors '''never''' need apostrophes - even if they are abbreviations, like "GPs", or dates, like the "1960s". ([[Fowler]] (1996) advises an exception to this exception in the case where the sense would be unclear: "There are three e's in 'excellent'". Using punctuation to increase clarity seems to be exactly what punctuation is for.
 AWE takes it a step further: it prefers individual letters to be shown enclosed in a pair of [[inverted comma]]s: "There are three 'e's in 'excellent'".  This seems more logical, and fulfils the same purpose.  When we take an individual letter from a word for comment, we sometimes additionally place it between two hyphens, within the inverted commas: '-e-'.)
 </div>
 You may need to see [[apostrophe (omission)]] to explain another problem with [[apostrophe]]s. There is an illustration of the misuse of the apostrophe to mark possession at [[refuse]].
 [[category:punctuation]]

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 (AND ADD AN 'S' IF THE SOUND REQUIRES IT)
 </div>
-(This formulation of the rule is the brainchild of Mr Phil Dalton, teacher, formely of Marist College in Hull.)]
+(This formulation of the rule is the brainchild of Mr Phil Dalton, teacher, formerly of Marist College in Hull.)]
 So:
@@ Line 25: / Line 27: @@
 <div style="border:2px solid red; text-align:left; font-weight:bold; margin:0.5em auto; width:80%;">
-WARNING: plural nouns which are not possessors '''never''' need apostrophes -â€“ even if they are abbreviations, like "GPs", or dates, like the "1960s". ([[Fowler]] (1996) advises an exception to this exception in the case where the sense would be unclear: "There are three e's in 'excellent'". The intention of using punctuation to increase clarity seems to be exactly what punctuation is for.
+WARNING: plural nouns which are not possessors '''never''' need apostrophes -â€“ even if they are abbreviations, like "GPs", or dates, like the "1960s". ([[Fowler]] (1996) advises an exception to this exception in the case where the sense would be unclear: "There are three e's in 'excellent'". Using punctuation to increase clarity seems to be exactly what punctuation is for.
 AWE takes it a step further: it prefers individual letters to be shown enclosed in a pair of [[inverted comma]]s: "There are three 'e's in 'excellent'".  This seems more logical, and fulfils the same purpose.  When we take an individual letter from a word for comment, we sometimes additionally place it between two hyphens, within the inverted commas: '-e-'.)

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 * It's chewing a bone.
-<div style="border:2px solid red; text-align:center; font-weight:bold; margin:0.5em auto; width:80%;">
+<div style="border:2px solid red; text-align:left; font-weight:bold; margin:0.5em auto; width:80%;">
-WARNING: plural nouns which are not possessors '''never''' need apostrophes -â€“ even if they are abbreviations, like "GPs", or dates, like the "1960s". ([[Fowler]] (1996) advises an exception to this exception in the case where the sense would be unclear: "There are three e's in 'excellent'". The intention of using punctuation to increase clarity seems to be exactly what punctuation is for. AWE takes it a step further: it prefers individual letters to be shown enclosed in a pair of [[inverted comma]]s: "There are three 'e's in 'excellent'".  This seems more logical, and fulfils the same purpose.  When we take an individual letter from a word for comment, we sometimes additionally place it between two hyphens, within the inverted commas: '-e-'.)
+WARNING: plural nouns which are not possessors '''never''' need apostrophes -â€“ even if they are abbreviations, like "GPs", or dates, like the "1960s". ([[Fowler]] (1996) advises an exception to this exception in the case where the sense would be unclear: "There are three e's in 'excellent'". The intention of using punctuation to increase clarity seems to be exactly what punctuation is for.
 </div>
 You may need to see [[apostrophe (omission)]] to explain another problem with [[apostrophe]]s. There is an illustration of the misuse of the apostrophe to mark possession at [[refuse]].
 [[category:punctuation]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 When we write about someone (the possessor) possessing (or owning) something, then this is shown by an apostrophe.  The rule is:
-:<big>'''PUT THE APOSTROPHE AFTER THE POSSESSOR
+<div style="border:2px solid red; text-align:center; font-weight:bold; margin:0.5em auto; width:80%;">
-::(AND ADD AN â€˜Sâ€™ IF THE SOUND REQUIRES IT).'''</big>
+PUT THE APOSTROPHE AFTER THE POSSESSOR
 So:
@@ Line 15: / Line 17: @@
 * Similarly, "Jamesâ€™s bike" is correct fot those who pronounce 'James' with two syllables when he owns something ('jamez-iz'); and "Jamesâ€™ bike" is correct for those who pronounce it with one syllable: 'jamez'.
-One exception to this rule is when the possessive is formed with the [[pronoun]] "it". To distinguish from the contaction of "it is", the possessive is "its", '''without''' an apostrophe: '''<big><big>its = of it </big></big>'''.
+One exception to this rule is when the possessive is formed with the [[pronoun]] "it". To distinguish from the contraction of "it is", the possessive is "its", '''without''' an apostrophe: '''<big><big>its = of it </big></big>'''.
 So:
@@ Line 21: / Line 23: @@
 * It's chewing a bone.
-WARNING: plural nouns which are not possessors '''never''' need apostrophes â€“ even if they are abbreviations, like "GPs", or dates, like the "1960s". ([[Fowler]] (1996) advises an exception to this exception in the case where the sense would be unclear: "There are three e's in 'excellent'". The intention of using punctuation to increase clarity seems to be exactly what punctuation is for. AWE takes it a step further: it prefers individual letters to be shown enclosed in a pair of [[inverted comma]]s: "There are three 'e's in 'excellent'".  This seems more logical, and fulfils the same purpose.  When we take an individual letter from a word for comment, we sometimes additionally place it between two hyphens, within the inverted commas: '-e-'.)
+WARNING: plural nouns which are not possessors '''never''' need apostrophes -â€“ even if they are abbreviations, like "GPs", or dates, like the "1960s". ([[Fowler]] (1996) advises an exception to this exception in the case where the sense would be unclear: "There are three e's in 'excellent'". The intention of using punctuation to increase clarity seems to be exactly what punctuation is for. AWE takes it a step further: it prefers individual letters to be shown enclosed in a pair of [[inverted comma]]s: "There are three 'e's in 'excellent'".  This seems more logical, and fulfils the same purpose.  When we take an individual letter from a word for comment, we sometimes additionally place it between two hyphens, within the inverted commas: '-e-'.)
-You may need to see [[apostrophe (omission)]] to explain another problem with [[apostrophe]]s. There is an illustration of the misuse of the apostrophe to mark possession at [[Refuse]].
+You may need to see [[apostrophe (omission)]] to explain another problem with [[apostrophe]]s. There is an illustration of the misuse of the apostrophe to mark possession at [[refuse]].
 [[category:punctuation]]