Search results for 'tag:Expressions tag:Apostrophes' matching tags 'Expressions' and 'Apostrophes'

Re: The stiffness of the sewn cloth depends on the (fusing material)/(reinforcing material) used during stitching.

Avangi — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:21:15 GMT

Good questions. I'm probably too tired to answer them well. I may mix them all together in a salad.

In the physical world, I think of an insert as something designed for easy removal and reinsertion or replacement   -   such as a bushing, which is a very unsophisticated bearing.  Such things are usually intended to impart strength. The bushing's strength would be provided against wear, or abrasion. In my earlier post I was thinking of the reinforcement of a seam as providing tensile strength, or strength against being pulled apart.  In many such cases, stiffness would be an unwanted byproduct.

The addition of a stiffer "reinforcing" fabric in areas where stiffness is desired (as in your coat example with the red markings) would impart a different kind of strength. Let's call it "rigidity." Seams may or may not be involved in these areas. Such added fabric would not be removable, and therefore wouldn't be called "an insert." (I suppose that's arguable. One may insert an extra line into a poem, and just leave it there, but in my experience, an insert may be removed     -     but then, I've never been employed as a seemstress.

The reinforcing, insertable bones in my mother's corset and the collar of my dress shirt could well be described and classified as reinforcement. They may also be described as objects. It's possible to describe them as "material(s)," but that's sort of a grey area.

Padding, on the other hand, is often designed to be removable, but I'd describe it as "form enhancement" rather than "reinforcement," in agreement with what you said above.

Regarding my parenthetical addition of "in time," it was an afterthought. "To go way back" is something of a fixed expression. Two old friends may say, "We go way back," suggesting that their friendship dates from an earlier era. I thought you might be unfamiliar with the expression, and since I was speaking of insertables, I was afraid you might think I meant they went way (deep) back into the collar    -    back in space, not back in time. It was parenthetical by way of clarifying the expression.

Regarding my apostrophe in "the 30's," I prefer to use it when the number is not written out as a "word." Don't you think he makes his 7's funny? It's not a possessive, just a plural.

"These were removable (my mother's girdle bones) as are the shirt collar ones" equals "as are the ones in the shirt collar(s)." I guess I'm using "shirt collar" as a compound adjective. Is that permissible? I believe your suggested substitution presents a "parallel structure" problem. Yes, my mother's girdle was removable, thank God, but I was speaking of the bones ("these").

Cheers, - A.

Memos show Clinton turmoil

Jackson6612 — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:05:10 GMT

Memos show Clinton turmoil

Question: I would have written ''Clinton's turmoil''. Why didn't the author use apostrophe?

BY CRAIG GORDON AND TOM BRUNE | <email addresses removed by mod.>
August 13, 2008

Question: Why is semicolon used instead of comma to separate the email addresses above?

WASHINGTON - In a fresh postmortem (=an examination of a plan or event that failed, done to discover why it failed, =autopsy) on Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential bid (=attempt to obtain or do something), newly published staff memos (=a short official note to another person in the same company or organization) and e-mails reveal a campaign hobbled (=to hobble something or someone means to make it more difficult for them to be successful or to achieve what they want) by internal rivalries (=a situation in which two or more people, teams, or companies are competing for something), faulty planning, bloated (=more than needed, =excessive) spending - and perhaps most important, Clinton's own failure to make the hard decisions.

Clinton offered herself to voters as a hyper-competent (=extra competent) executive ready to be president from day one. But atop (=on top of something) her own campaign, she was a hesitant leader, who allowed bitter infighting (=when members of the same group or organization argue, or compete with each other in an unfriendly way) to fester (=If an argument or bad feeling festers, it continues so that feelings of hate or dissatisfaction increase) among staffers over whether to go negative against Barack Obama, according to the Atlantic magazine.

The most bare-knuckled (=characterized by disorderly action and disregard for rules) lines of attack came from Clinton's chief strategist, Mark Penn, who urged Clinton to highlight Obama's "lack of American roots" due to his upbringing in Indonesia and Hawaii - saying he could only win if he faced Attila the Hun ((?406-453 AD) a king of the Huns (=an ancient people from Asia) who attacked and took control of large parts of the Roman Empire. He is famous for being violent and cruel).

But Clinton didn't embrace Penn's flag-waving (=the expression of strong national feelings, especially when these feelings seem too extreme) approach (=way of doing something), which campaign aides (=someone whose job is to help someone who has an important job, especially a politician) insist was never seriously considered.

Question: Clinton didn't embrace Penn's approach because she did not consider it seriously. Therefore, what campaign aides were saying is redundant.

The article also says that Clinton at times grew frustrated and short-tempered - including on the morning after her stunning third-place finish in Iowa in January, when aides on a call were silent. Clinton's camp dismissed the story as "inside-the-Beltway gossip" and "old news." And former campaign aides sharply disputed the notion of Clinton as an indecisive leader, with one campaign veteran saying, "Nobody seems to want to remember the fact that we had so many successes and come-from-behind victories in this campaign ... and they are due in large part to Senator Clinton's leadership."

Question: What does the line including on the morning...when aides on a call were silent mean? If she finished third place, then why would the author describe it as stunning? What does call mean in when aides on a call were silent?

Question: What does the phrase inside-the-Beltway gossip mean?

Question: What does the line Nobody seems to want to remember...to Senator Clinton's leadership'' mean?

But the e-mails and memos offer vivid (=very clear and detailed) new details about what had long been reported - that Clinton's headquarters was beset (=to make someone experience serious problems or dangers) by caustic (=bitter) internal battles involving Penn and former President Bill Clinton, who wanted to forcefully attack Obama, and others who wanted the New York senator to take a more positive tack (=method, =way of doing something). At one point, it was Bill Clinton - and not Hillary - who approved the famed 3 a.m. phone call ad.

Question: what had long been reported is passive past perfect tense. Am I right?

Question: I think headquarters should take plural verb. What do you say?

Question: Why are the hyphens used in -and not Hillary-? I believe commas would do instead?

Adding to the turmoil was the fact that the campaign had little strategy and no money left to seriously compete in the post-Super Tuesday contests - having (=the form having with a past participle can be used to introduce a clause in which you mention an action which had already happened before another action began) burned through $106 million before Iowa. That allowed Obama to win 12 straight contests and effectively wrap up (=to finish a job, meeting etc) the nomination.

Question: What does burned through mean?

In the end, the campaign's strategy came to reflect some of the internal turmoil, as Clinton veered (=changed course) from attacking Obama to emphasizing her personal side.

Question: What does her personal side mean?

Penn did offer some advice in March 2007 that proved on the mark - Clinton's path to victory lay with women and lower- and working-class voters.

Question: What does proved on the mark mean? I couldn't find it in the dictionary.

But by the time Clinton finally settled on that strategy to win the later primaries, it was too late.

Excerpts from the memos

"All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared towards showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting that in a new light ... It also exposes a very strong weakness for him - his roots to basic American values and culture are at best (=even when considered in the most positive way) limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values." Strategist Mark Penn, from a March 19, 2007, memo to Hillary Rodham Clinton advising her to attack Barack Obama for his "lack of American roots."

Question: What does centre mean in the above context?

"The right knows Obama is unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun, and a third party would come in then anyway." Penn, from the same memo.

Question: Does right refer to right wing in the above context?

"This has been a very instructive call, talking to myself." Clinton, before angrily hanging up on a staff conference call the day after coming in third in Iowa in January. "She complained of being outmaneuvered (=to gain an advantage over someone by using cleverer or more skilful plans or methods) in Iowa and being painted as the establishment candidate," according to the Atlantic - but was met with near-silence.

Question: I would have written This has been..., talking to me. Why did she use myself?

Question: What is a conference call? Is it some kind of telephone call which address many poeple?

Question: Why is in used in coming in third?

"STOP IT!! I have help my tongue for weeks. After this morning's WP story, no longer. This makes me sick. This circular firing squad that is occurring is unattractive, unprofessional, unconscionable, and unacceptable ... It must stop." Robert Barnett, a Clinton lawyer and Washington insider, from a March 6, 2008, e-mail to campaign staff after a Washington Post story detailed the infighting.

Question: What does I have help my tongue for weeks mean?

Question: What does This circular firing squad mean?

Question: Were the comments in the last paragraph made by Robert Barnett?

Re: possessive

Mr Wordy — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:16:49 GMT

Are you asking about forming a possessive by the addition of apostrope-s? If so, then here are some thoughts. I just wrote this stuff off the top of my head, so it's not meant to be any sort of definitive analysis.

There is no problem with making possessives from inanimate nouns. For example: the Earth's atmosphere; the computer's memory. However, as a very rough rule of thumb, it seems that nouns that refer to concrete objects are more likely to be made into possessives in this way, and nouns that refer to abstract concepts are less likely. For example, fright's, completeness's, congratulation's and disappearance's, while all theoretically possible I suppose, are unlikely. There is no hard-and-fast rule though. For example, hunger's pangs, jealousy's rage and Christianity's origins are all perfectly acceptable expressions that include the possessive form of an abstract noun. And there is one special expression that takes apostrophe-s words that would otherwise be unusual: for 's sake (expletive in this case not deleted!). For example, while comprehensibility's generally seems very unlikely, you could say for comprehensibility's sake. There may be other special cases that don't immediately come to mind.

When the apostrophe-s possessive of a noun seems unwieldy, a possessive can be formed with "of"; for example, the consequences of his disappearance rather than his disappearance's consequences.

I don't really understand what you mean by "Roman language". Perhaps you mean "Romance language" (i.e. a language derived from Latin)? I guess it's true that many longer abstract English nouns ultimately derive from Latin, and these are the ones that are, as a rough rule of thumb, less likely to have apostrophe-s forms. But there is no rule that says a word of a particular origin should or shouldn't form a possessive.

Re: "as ... as" expression

Feebs11 — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:23:54 GMT

Believer
Hi,

I have difficulty figuring out how to write the word that follows something like an 'as much/twice as something' or 'twice as something' expression -- should it be in a 'plain' form or in the possessive? I feel some people are unable to correctly the right situations for either usage.

This year's figure for sales is twice the number as last year (or last year's)

Instinctively, I feel it should be 'last year's' because I think we are talking about numbers -- last year's number and this year's number that is; but I feel in a lot of cases, a sentence without the apostrophe is accepted. Why? How about this?

The year's membership figure is as many as last year (or last year's), maybe more.

"This year's sales figures are double those for last year."

"This year's figure for total sales is double that of last year's sales."

"This year's membership is the same as last year's [membership], perhaps slightly higher."

"as ... as" expression

Believer — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:01:22 GMT

Hi,

I have difficulty figuring out how to write the word that follows something like an 'as much/twice as something' or 'twice as something' expression -- should it be in a 'plain' form or in the possessive? I feel some people are unable to correctly the right situations for either usage.

This year's figure for sales is twice the number as last year (or last year's)

Instinctively, I feel it should be 'last year's' because I think we are talking about numbers -- last year's number and this year's number that is; but I feel in a lot of cases, a sentence without the apostrophe is accepted. Why? How about this?

The year's membership figure is as many as last year (or last year's), maybe more.

Re: Run for your life(s) // their there your you're

Clive — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:53:36 GMT

Hi,

I would like to know what one of the follow sentences would be correct:

Run for your life, boys. OK. The speaker is thinking that each boy has one life.
Run for your life's, boys. No. The correct expression is 'Run for your lives, boys. There's not a lot of difference, but the speaker is thinking that there are several boys and thus several lives.

You don't make plurals with an apostrophe. eg Say I see two chairs but not I see two chair's.

Also, can you please clarify the use of:

'Their, there, you're and your.'

Perhaps a few example sentences and sentences which would be incorrect? Let me offer a few correct examples for you to look at. I don't like to give incorrect examples.

The students opened their books.

There was a chair in the corner.

You're a rich man. (ie You are a rich man)

Please open your book.

Would you like to write and post a few sentences now, for us to look at?

Best wishes, Clive

Re: title/half

CalifJim — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 07:41:54 GMT

Can I also write: Human Passions' Narrator or Human Passions Narrator

No. It's best to reserve the apostrophe-s construction for people. Mary's, Mr. Smith's, the women's, etc.

half/a half/half-way

There are hundreds of expressions that use half, a half, the half. See a good dictionary. half-way as an adjective means at the midpoint of a journey, or, figuratively, partial, as in half-way measures.

CJ

Re: Decades, numbers and apostrophes

Cool Breeze — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 11:15:00 GMT

Hi Rosalama

No answer to your question will please everybody. Many people think no apostrophe should be used in your expressions:
in the 1980s

The plural genitive is formed by adding an apostrophe after the plural s, so the genitive should be:
I don't like the 1980s' music.

However, many people write:
I don't like the 1980s music.

Choose yourself. There will always be some who think you have made a mistake.

Then there are people who think it's all right to use an apostophe before the plural s if the s is added to something other than a word:
in the 1980's

With any logic, that would give us:
I don't like the 1980's' music.

I may never have seen it, though. As far as I am concerned, it is correct. English is a mess in this respect, which pretty much gives you a free hand to write it in any way you choose. You'll get complaints whatever you do. It is very common not to use an apostrophe even when the decade is written in full:
I don't like the eighties music.

That's OK with me as well. The eighties can be interpreted to be a noun used adjectivally even though it is in the plural. We can say:
the U.S. Air Force,

so why not:
the United States Air Force as well?
(If anyone wants to add an apostrophe, by all means, do!)

Cheers
CB

Re: correct words

Cool Breeze — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:57:40 GMT

Grammar Geek wrote:
Hey CB,

I assume you were being silly, right? (There being no connection between a sports car and any actual type of sport - except, perhaps car racing...)

Hi GG

Not in the least. I think you are. No connection between any type of sport and sports equipment? Sports is very common in adjectival use of the word. Basicly, Jim is right - as usual. English is the Promised Language of exceptions, though, and I remember seeing and hearing quite a few expressions in which a noun used adjectivally is in the plural. They just don't come to mind right now, except for the Champions League, which is played in soccer in Europe.

I would actually put an apostrophe in it: the Champions' League, but the British don't usually do that. There are numerous similar cases where the apostrophe seems to be more or less optional. Irregularities like this add to the fascination of English.

Cheers

Re: General Possessive

CalifJim — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 06:34:49 GMT

It is often arbitrary which expressions of this type are formulated as compound nouns and which are formulated with a possessive structure. In general, inanimates are much less likely to appear with 'apostrophe-s'.

CJ