For the Grammar Nazis

Robbie G said:
Disagree. Otherwise how do you differentiate between the possessions of lots of people called Jame and one person called James?
Click to expand...

Obviously there are exceptions and we're on about James anyway (not that it wasn't obvious :p) but how many people are there called Jame and how many called James that you know?

Exactly!

James already has an s on the end, there's no need to put another one on there. That's how we were taught in school, this was back when we still used the abacus (occasionally) and calculators were rare!
 
mrk said:
Obviously there are exceptions and we're on about James anyway (not that it wasn't obvious :p) but how many people are there called Jame and how many called James that you know?
Click to expand...

There are many but you just haven't met any. :p
 
The dyslexia argument is an interesting one, along with ADHD.

As far as I'm concerned; both of these things exist, but 90% of the people who claim to suffer from them are just making excuses.

The things that grind my gears are brought instead of bought and could care less.

The comma before 'and' depends on the clauses being joined. It annoys me when people suggest it's one rule or the other, it can be either depending on the context.
 
mrk said:
Obviously there are exceptions and we're on about James anyway (not that it wasn't obvious :p) but how many people are there called Jame and how many called James that you know?

Exactly!
Click to expand...

I knew you'd say that, but some small part of me was hoping that you'd realise I was just using the example at hand and that the overall point is more important than the actual name used. Son, I am disappoint :-(.
 
mrk said:
James already has an s on the end, there's no need to put another one on there. That's how we were taught in school, this was back when we still used the abacus (occasionally) and calculators were rare!
Click to expand...

Maybe a better school would have given you the correct information?

;)
 
spudbynight said:
Maybe a better school would have given you the correct information?

;)
Click to expand...

Even though it is correct?

Hmm ;)

What official materials (adverts on billboards/magazines/papers etc) have you seen James's (or the equivalent others)?
 
Richie said:
I know this has been mentioned before on here but a report on punctuation on the BBC just now was saying how punctuation has changed through the years.

Some woman stated that proper punctuation/grammar in a formal situation is very important as not using proper punctuation/grammar would be like turning up to an interview in scruffy jeans and t-shirt. She further stated that not using punctuation/grammar in a formal situation makes you look "frankly, stupid"


Personally I think proper punctuation/grammar/spelling is quite important. Even in a non-formal situation like on an internet forum, I don't think ignoring it completely should be deemed acceptable. I agree that it can be relaxed slightly e.g. missing apostrophes in certain words like "dont" or "wont" but some of the posts on here are littered with such poor spelling/grammar that you have to read it a couple of times.

"Am doing this tomorrow" instead of "I am doing this tomorrow"
"Top draw material" instead of "Top drawer material"
"Theyre socks" instead of "Their socks"
"It is being trailed" instead of "It is being trialled"

So have at it Grammar Nazis, what's your views :p
Click to expand...

If it takes you a couple of times to get that then you are "frankly, stupid"
 
mrk said:
Even though it is correct?

Hmm ;)

What official materials (adverts on billboards/magazines/papers etc) have you seen James's (or the equivalent others)?
Click to expand...

St. James's Park

http://www.royalparks.gov.uk/St-Jamess-Park.aspx

St. James's Palace

http://www.royal.gov.uk/theroyalresidences/stjamesspalace/stjamesspalace.aspx

King James's School in Knaresborough

http://www.king-james.co.uk/

St. James's Library in Westminster

http://www.westminster.gov.uk/services/libraries/findalibrary/stjamess/

The use of James' is an [shudder] Americanism [/shudder]
 
Last edited:
spudbynight said:
St. James's Park

http://www.royalparks.gov.uk/St-Jamess-Park.aspx

St. James's Palace

http://www.royal.gov.uk/theroyalresidences/stjamesspalace/stjamesspalace.aspx

King James's School in Knaresborough

http://www.king-james.co.uk/

St. James's Library in Westminster

http://www.westminster.gov.uk/services/libraries/findalibrary/stjamess/

The use of James' is an [shudder] Americanism [/shudder]
Click to expand...

According to Wicki:

Classical, biblical, and similar names ending in a sibilant, especially if they are polysyllabic, do not take an added s in the possessive; among sources giving exceptions of this kind are The Times[22] and The Elements of Style, which make general stipulations, and Vanderbilt University,[23] which mentions only Moses and Jesus. As a particular case, Jesus' is very commonly written instead of Jesus's – even by people who would otherwise add 's in, for example, James's or Chris's. Jesus' is referred to as "an accepted liturgical archaism" in Hart's Rules.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe

So those would also be an exception(?).
 
Well if you are going to quote Wiki then you need to quote the full section.

Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound
This subsection deals with singular nouns pronounced with a sibilant sound at the end: /s/ or /z/. The spelling of these ends with -s, -se, -z, -ze, -ce, -x, or -xe.
Many respected authorities recommend that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe so that the spelling reflects the underlying pronunciation. Examples include Oxford University Press, the Modern Language Association, the BBC and The Economist.[18] Such authorities demand possessive singulars like these: Senator Jones's umbrella; Tony Adams's friend. Rules that modify or extend the standard principle have included the following:
If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added sibilant, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by The Guardian[19], Yahoo! Style Guide [20], The American Heritage Book of English Usage [21]Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates' later suggestion; or Achilles' heel if that is how the pronunciation is intended.
Classical, biblical, and similar names ending in a sibilant, especially if they are polysyllabic, do not take an added s in the possessive; among sources giving exceptions of this kind are The Times[22] and The Elements of Style, which make general stipulations, and Vanderbilt University,[23] which mentions only Moses and Jesus. As a particular case, Jesus' is very commonly written instead of Jesus's – even by people who would otherwise add 's in, for example, James's or Chris's. Jesus' is referred to as "an accepted liturgical archaism" in Hart's Rules.
However, some contemporary writers still follow the older practice of omitting the extra s in all cases ending with a sibilant, but usually not when written -x or -xe.[24] Some contemporary authorities such as the Associated Press Stylebook[25] and The Chicago Manual of Style recommend or allow the practice of omitting the extra "s" in all words ending with an "s", but not in words ending with other sibilants ("z" and "x").[26] The 15th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style still recommended the traditional practice, which included providing for several exceptions to accommodate spoken usage such as the omission of the extra s after a polysyllabic word ending in a sibilant. The 16th edition of CMOS no longer recommends omitting the extra "s".[27]
Similar examples of notable names ending in an s that are often given a possessive apostrophe with no additional s include Dickens and Williams. There is often a policy of leaving off the additional s on any such name, but this can prove problematic when specific names are contradictory (for example, St James' Park in Newcastle [the football ground] and the area of St. James's Park in London). For more details on practice with geographic names, see the relevant section below.
Some writers like to reflect standard spoken practice in cases like these with sake: for convenience' sake, for goodness' sake, for appearance' sake, for compromise' sake, etc. This punctuation is preferred in major style guides. Others prefer to add 's: for convenience's sake.[28] Still others prefer to omit the apostrophe when there is an s sound before sake: for morality's sake, but for convenience sake.[29]
The Supreme Court of the United States is split on whether a possessive singular noun that ends with s should always have an additional s after the apostrophe, sometimes having an additional s after the apostrophe (for instance, based on whether the final sound of the original word is pronounced /s/ or /z/), or never having an additional s after the apostrophe. The informal majority view (5–4, based on past writings of the justices) has favoured the additional s, but a strong minority disagrees.[30]
Click to expand...

So traditional sources say add the 's'. Contemporary (all American) say don't use it.

Did your teacher spell colour without a U as well?
 
Richie said:
I know this has been mentioned before on here but a report on punctuation on the BBC just now was saying how punctuation has changed through the years.

Some woman stated that proper punctuation/grammar in a formal situation is very important as not using proper punctuation/grammar would be like turning up to an interview in scruffy jeans and t-shirt. She further stated that not using punctuation/grammar in a formal situation makes you look "frankly, stupid"


Personally I think proper punctuation/grammar/spelling is quite important. Even in a non-formal situation like on an internet forum, I don't think ignoring it completely should be deemed acceptable. I agree that it can be relaxed slightly e.g. missing apostrophes in certain words like "dont" or "wont" but some of the posts on here are littered with such poor spelling/grammar that you have to read it a couple of times.
Click to expand...
1 "Am doing this tomorrow" instead of "I am doing this tomorrow"
2 "Top draw material" instead of "Top drawer material"
3 "Theyre socks" instead of "Their socks"
4 "It is being trailed" instead of "It is being trialled"

So have at it Grammar Nazis, what's your views :p
Click to expand...
2 and 4 are more about laziness and vocabulary/spelling problems as opposed to grammar...

I detest poor grammar, spelling and the laziness to comprehend ones native language and therefor, even though nobody is perfect, I'm trying to believe that if you are too lazy to use your own language correctly then why should people take yous serious?

First impressions really do count and most people in life simply won't take the time with someone if they cannot understand what they say or write, it has nothing to do with formality, it's about pride in the language, we are blessed speaking English, because we can go any where and someone will understand us, but, does that make it acceptable to be lazy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom