Talk:Saxon genitive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Talk:Apostrophe

Contents

[edit] Usage question

Reading a paper I noticed the posessive form of the company name "Simmetrix" written as "Simmetrix'". Since the company name ends in an "-ics" sound, this makes phonetic sense, but I haven't seen it elsewhere. Is that legit?

  • It's non-standard if thats what you mean. The only time one uses s' is in regular plurals. For singular nouns (proper or common) ending in s one uses 's (the bus's driver (but the buses' driver)) (the lace's maker) (Asterix's magic potion) But, its your language, not theirs (nor even their's). Use it how you like. Zeimusu | Talk page 13:53, 2005 September 1 (UTC)
  • I was always taught back in grammar school that you were not to use an apostrophe to indicate possession if the word ended with an s, not only if it ended with an S and were plural... this seems incorrect, as we also do not pronounce the second s... could this be purely a British construction? I am American, so I would not know. Ameise -- chat 22:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No.I don't entirely know what you are asking, but there is no difference between the British and American constructions of the posessive. If the word is posessive and singular, regardless of the ending, add 's. If the word is plural, ending in S, AND posessive, add just '. If the word is plural, NOT ending in S, and posessive, add 's. This will sometimes lead to weird-looking words, (i.e. "Stress's affects on the body are bad.") But it's the way English works.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.100.184 (talk • contribs) 18:49, September 11, 2006
  • Thank you. It seems Americans (or English-speakers, more generally) are abusing apostrophes more and more each day, and so much widespread exposure (mostly on the Internet) to improper use of apostrophes makes it seem acceptable to throw them indifferently in the general direction of where one is guessed to go rather than to take an extra moment to think where (and if) one is actually needed. I wholeheartedly agree with everything from the paragraph above as the standard formula for English usage of apostrophes for possession. Of the only "optional" exceptions, (note that "optional" here means that strictly following formal English rules the aforementioned usage should be followed without exception, but many English teachers and the like accept certain cuts and variations to be OK in standard English) I can only think of dropping the final "s" after the apostrophe of a singular noun that already ends in "s." (In that case, names like "James" which are deemed too silly-looking or space-consuming in the correct form "James's" are rendered simply as "James'," although that usage seems to imply that James has multiple personalities is plural ~_^ )
    And so far as Simmetrix is concerned, it is the phonetic equivalent of "Simmetrics" (singular, as a company name). If their supposed possessive form already sounds like that ("Simmetric's"), that would make the implied company without the ending "Simmetric" to an unknowing listener. Okay, so Steve went and dropped the article for iPod and iPhone to make them like names and thus more "personal" and somehow more appealing to the subconscious, which is a bit weird but within reason; this is just plain dumb. (Okay, to be fair, at least grammatically illogical.) Why bother trying to explain your company's "innovative" universal use of the letter "x" (or rather, disregard for obvious convention, assuming they were aware of the rules they were breaking and did in fact explain that), when you could spend that time...I don't know, making products or whatever they do? o_O;   – Cartoonmaster (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's

Is "it's" both a possessive of a thing & a conjuction of "it is", or only a conjunction of "it is" with "it's" as a possessive being incorrect? (I've been told to use "its" when it is possessive to not confuse it with the conjunction, but I don't know if this is proper). 67.5.158.54 00:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • It's is a contraction for it is and nothing else. The posessive is its and should under no circumstances be written with an apostrophe. Example: It's not true that the dog bit its owner. Note also that in careful writing the contraction it's should not be used, it should be spelled out, so: It is not true that the dog bit its owner. Stefán Ingi 09:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Careful. It's is also a contraction for it has though strangely (to me) not for it was. --Henrygb 14:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Because then you get to use 'twas, and who could pass up a chance at that? (insert Monty Python reference here) --Xyzzyva 13:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References?

  • Do we need the "{{unreferenced}}" complaint? The matter described in this article is common knowledge to most native English speakers. Anthony Appleyard 05:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually some of it covers technical aspects of the english language, and thus should be referenced as proof. unreferenced template replaced. --165.230.46.148 22:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Some suggestions on where to look:
Looks like the difference is just singular vs. plural, so names like "James" would be "James's" --165.230.46.148 18:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You can't really cite any references for this subject.... Such would be like questioning a cop when he pulls you over because he doesn't have any verification that going 50 miles per hour over the designated speed limit is illegal.

My opinion is that the only aspects of language that can have any study--and thus, cited references-- are speech and its effects on words in order (something to the effect of the use of contractions in English). The rest in nothing but an untaken census of English speakers. --Dragonspight 10:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Names

I learned that depending on the number of syllables in a name, there's a difference whether there is a "'s" or just "'". For example: Camus', not Camus's and James's not James'. Anyone know what is correct? And please find a source for it too. --165.230.46.148 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] X his Y?

  • Neal Stephenson, affecting archaic language in his book The System of the World, sometimes say "X his Y", and implies that the 's began as a contraction of this. Is there any validity to this, or did Stephenson simply get it wrong or make it up? Thanks! David McCabe 21:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "X his Y" is a false etymology of "X's Y" which for a while was fashionable as a spelling. Anthony Appleyard 21:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

I have brought three sections from the article on the Apostrophe, which was bloated. FilipeS 15:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

I am against the proposed merger of the possesive genetive into here. When someone changed my Troilus' to Troilus's, the apostrophe article was the first place I thought to look. This article does not have an obvious name for modern English usage.--Peter cohen 10:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • "Saxon genitive" is a pretty obscure term I think. Even the article itself says that it's "infrequently used". Almost everybody calls it the "apostrophe s" in my experience. I suppose if there is very obvious link from the apostrophe article to here then people would be able to find it, but even so I'm not sure it's such a great idea... Matt 03:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.10.96 (talk)
    • I agree. The genitive case is largely unused in the English language. Unlike the Old English genitive, and the modern German genitive, the ending of the adjectives or nouns is not changed directly. To me, the apostrophe article makes more sense on its own, rather than as a part of the Saxon Genitive. (I know that I have rarely discussed the saxon genitive with colleagues, although I have discussed apostrophes) Aericanwizard 20:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Leave it here. This is where most people will be looking for advice on using a possessive apostrophe. I certainly did ;) Spuddddddd 13Oct07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.90.97 (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC) [That anonymous user, having merely followed a link, most likely meant "at Apostrophe" by "here".– Noetica♬♩ Talk 06:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)]

  • I strongly oppose merging anything from Apostrophe into this article. Questions concerning the application of the possessive apostrophe logically follow the formation and marking of the possessive case in spoken English. That's my view, anyway: but it is not widely accepted. I wish the fact could be solidly recognised at Apostrophe, but I doubt that it ever will be. For all practical purposes, we should assume that users enquiring about the possessive (for all nouns, and all but very few of the possessive pronouns and adjectives) will think first of apostrophes.– Noetica♬♩ Talk 06:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The apostrophe article is bloated and too centered on English. The apostrophe is a punctuation mark or diacritic used in many languages, yet most of the article is spent discussing rules that apply to English only, and have to do with the possessive 's (or Saxon genitive). Not everyone who searches for "apostrophe" will be interested in this. This is the right article to discuss the linguistics and the spelling of the English possessive. FilipeS (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Filipe, Apostrophe is not bloated. There is a lot to be said on the topic, and it is said in a very orderly and informative way. As for its being biased towards English, that is simply not so. If it dwells more on English than on other languages, there are good reasons for this: it is part of English Wikipedia, for a start; and after all the apostrophe is used more flexibly and interestingly in English than in many other languages. But in any case, look at the range of languages it does touch on! Finally, how can it be both bloated and too restricted in the way you suggest?
I put it to you that Apostrophe is the most useful and complete readily available article on the workings of the apostrophe. I challenge you to find a better one, anywhere.
As I have suggested above, your merge proposal is unworkable for practical reasons. As I and others have pointed out, people quite naturally search on the term apostrophe when they are wondering about the genitive or possessive in English. Practically all style guides, and grammars addressed to the general reader, work quite seamlessly to accommodate this fact, because that way they inform more and confuse less. I have removed the merge-proposal tag at Apostrophe, as someone else also did recently. It's had a good run; but leaving it there now would simply be disruptive.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 22:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what those practical reasons you speak of are. If there are many users interested in the Saxon genitive who search for the word apostrophe instead, a simple solution is to include a prominent link to Saxon genitive in this article. As a matter of fact, there is already one. Saxon genitive is the most specific article for discussing the spelling of the English possessive -- or you could always rename it "Possessive apostrophe use in English", if it comes to that. After all, even in English, the apostrophe is used for more things than indicating the possessive. FilipeS (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The practical reasons are made abundantly clear, above. Just about all users interested in the English possessive (or the English genitive) know that an apostrophe is normally involved; but most users enquiring about the apostrophe have no idea what the phrase "Saxon genitive" means. As you point out, it is a good idea to have a link to Saxon genitive at Apostrophe. But as you also point out, there is one already! If you insist that you are unhappy with these arrangements, and insist on maintaining that tag suggesting a merger that would cut the essential core out of Apostrophe, I for one will leave the tag there for now. I have no desire to edit-war on this issue. Others may want to remove it, but as far as I'm concerned it can stay for seven days. Let's see if there will be more discussion than the last three months have yielded – and more support for this disruptive and ill-advised proposal, apart from what you yourself originate.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 03:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Noetica's arguments; I see no strong reason to merge. Tony (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I have now removed the merge-proposal tag, since more than week has passed and there has been no new support at all, and barely any discussion other than well-argued dissent. Please accept this, now. The proposal has been aired for months, and has failed.
– Noetica♬♩ Talk 21:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King of Spain's hat

This is just an observation, but couldn't one just as easily say "Spain's King's hat", without attaching the 's to "Spain"? Se Cyning 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)