quick grammar question...

Post by **zeeko** » Mon May 09, 2005 4:51 am

ok i'm working on these graduation cards... and i forget the apostrophe rules... if i wanted to say "Celebration at the hazlewood's." (i'm trying to say celebration at the hazlewood's house

would i say hazlewoods' or hazlewood's

Post by **andyman** » Mon May 09, 2005 4:53 am

Hazlewoods' is pronounced hazlewoodses and hazlewood's is hazlewoods

so like this: Hazlewood's

Post by **bork[e]** » Mon May 09, 2005 4:53 am

Hazlewoodz'sses

Post by **andyman** » Mon May 09, 2005 4:55 am

Well if you frum da skreets itz 'dem n1ggas'

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Mon May 09, 2005 4:56 am

haselwood's if their last name is haselwood. haswelwoods' if their last name is haselwoods.

Post by **bork[e]** » Mon May 09, 2005 5:02 am

fagg0t

Post by **zeeko** » Mon May 09, 2005 6:51 am

alright thanks!

Post by **Grudge** » Mon May 09, 2005 7:24 am

filthy hobbitses

Post by **tnf** » Mon May 09, 2005 11:10 pm

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:haselwood's if their last name is haselwood. haswelwoods' if their last name is haselwoods.

So, if we are dealing with the last name Hazelwoods -

If we are speaking about the Hazelwoods as a single family unit, then we would use singular possessive form -
"Hazelwoods's"

The last name Hazelwoods is not plural.

Post by **Dark Metal** » Mon May 09, 2005 11:12 pm

tnf wrote:
riddla wrote:does the name normally have 's' on the end? if not add an apostrophe 's' as you're showing the house as owned by them. i.e. apostrophe 's' typically shows ownership.

If the 's' is already on the word, just add the apostrophe.
Wrong.

Wrong.

GODDAMNIT WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE AND THE ENGLISH LANGAUGE????

IT IS ONLY BASED ON PLURAL VS. SINGULAR!

sorry....that is the editor/writer in me coming out...

I'm sorry, but did you just say that you're coming out?

Post by **tnf** » Mon May 09, 2005 11:14 pm

Dark Metal wrote:
tnf wrote:
riddla wrote:does the name normally have 's' on the end? if not add an apostrophe 's' as you're showing the house as owned by them. i.e. apostrophe 's' typically shows ownership.

If the 's' is already on the word, just add the apostrophe.
Wrong.

Wrong.

GODDAMNIT WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE AND THE ENGLISH LANGAUGE????

IT IS ONLY BASED ON PLURAL VS. SINGULAR!

sorry....that is the editor/writer in me coming out...
I'm sorry, but did you just say that you're coming out?

I deleted that post after I realized I made a mistake. (but the mistake wasn't in the quoted post...riddla is still wrong!!

Damn the quote!!!

Post by **Dark Metal** » Mon May 09, 2005 11:14 pm

You lose Springfield!

Post by **Chupacabra** » Mon May 09, 2005 11:15 pm

An English teacher was explaining to me a few years ago that based of the MLA book (or some sort of general guideline book) that the rule has been changed/simplified(?) and is now just apostrophe "s" added to anything when you want to show possession.

So:

For cat (singular):

Cat's house.

For cats (plural):

Cats's house.

Post by **Dr_Watson** » Mon May 09, 2005 11:17 pm

tnf wrote:
+JuggerNaut+ wrote:haselwood's if their last name is haselwood. haswelwoods' if their last name is haselwoods.
blah blah blah

yeah, thats one of those things that kinda gets under my skin when i see it as well.
my command of the written word and all of it's quirks is akin to a drunk driver on the freeway... but wtf? the apostrophe only has 3 rules, its blazingly simple to use correctly.

singular possesive " eat at joe's "
plural possesive " eat with the joes' "
and contractions " joe can't eat "

Post by **shiv4** » Mon May 09, 2005 11:17 pm

So it's "Celebration at Hazel's wood" - rihgt?

Post by **tnf** » Mon May 09, 2005 11:18 pm

tnf wrote:
+JuggerNaut+ wrote:haselwood's if their last name is haselwood. haswelwoods' if their last name is haselwoods.

So, if we are dealing with the last name Hazelwoods -

If we are speaking about the Hazelwoods as a single family unit, then we would use singular possessive form -
"Hazelwoods's"

The last name Hazelwoods is not plural.

Here it is, directly from "Elements of Style" - a reference used for almost 100 years by writers.

Rule 1: Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's.
Follow this rule no matter what the final consonant. Thus write,

Charles's friend
Burns's poems

Exceptions are possessives of ancient proper names ending in -es and -is, the possessive Jesus', and such forms as "for consciences sake, for righteousness' sake."

There...

Post by **Chupacabra** » Mon May 09, 2005 11:21 pm

If or if not that is right, why consult a book used almost 100 years ago? Language is dynamic and if you could use the same thing every year, there wouldnt be different editions of the MLA handbook.

People seemed to have skipped my post

Post by **Dr_Watson** » Mon May 09, 2005 11:28 pm

the rules of written structure and grammar that the language is founded on should not change anually.

Post by **tnf** » Mon May 09, 2005 11:28 pm

Chupacabra wrote:If or if not that is right, why consult a book used almost 100 years ago? Language is dynamic and if you could use the same thing every year, there wouldnt be different editions of the MLA handbook.

People seemed to have skipped my post

It's still used...Strunk and White's "Elements of Style" is a widely used book.
And because the rules for the apostrophe have not changed.

Some of the rules don't change. The things that are most dynamic are often things like how to cite references, etc. - not the basic laws of grammar that govern the English language.

EDIT: Heh...almost the same thing Watson said.

So, its not about skipping your post. You just are not correct in regards to the dynamic nature of the language as a whole.

Post by **Dr_Watson** » Mon May 09, 2005 11:38 pm

maybe we attended the same language nazi rally. :icon26:

Post by **tnf** » Tue May 10, 2005 12:09 am

Dr_Watson wrote:maybe we attended the same language nazi rally. :icon26:

I had to become a language Nazi when I started writing textbook material. Those common mistakes drive me nuts.

Also - people who say "I could care less" and "irregardless."

Ugh.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue May 10, 2005 1:18 am

I fucked a girl named hazel once, she gave me wood.

Post by **+JuggerNaut+** » Tue May 10, 2005 1:39 am

tnf wrote:
tnf wrote:
+JuggerNaut+ wrote:haselwood's if their last name is haselwood. haswelwoods' if their last name is haselwoods.

So, if we are dealing with the last name Hazelwoods -

If we are speaking about the Hazelwoods as a single family unit, then we would use singular possessive form -
"Hazelwoods's"

The last name Hazelwoods is not plural.
Here it is, directly from "Elements of Style" - a reference used for almost 100 years by writers.

Rule 1: Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's.
Follow this rule no matter what the final consonant. Thus write,

Charles's friend
Burns's poems

Exceptions are possessives of ancient proper names ending in -es and -is, the possessive Jesus', and such forms as "for consciences sake, for righteousness' sake."

There...

interesting, tnfs's's. thx.

Post by **Dr_Watson** » Tue May 10, 2005 2:02 am

tnf wrote:
Dr_Watson wrote:maybe we attended the same language nazi rally. :icon26:
I had to become a language Nazi when I started writing textbook material. Those common mistakes drive me nuts.

Also - people who say "I could care less" and "irregardless."

Ugh.

so far the use of "addicting" around here is my only real language fury as of lately.

but yeah, your right about irregardless... that shit is anoying, just fucking say regardless. god... its not even a fucking proper word.

Post by **losCHUNK** » Tue May 10, 2005 4:34 am

Kracus wrote:I fucked a girl named hazel once, she gave me wood.

the only people named hazel round here witnessed the blitz and are waiting to die