Re: Conditional:Auxiliary Commentary Words?

Mister Micawber — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 03:44:18 GMT

.
Thank you. So if the word is specifically referenced to by context, we should use the definite article to indicate specifcity of it like you did with the noun 'power'. Is that right?-- Yes

You wrote this as an introducing part (if that is phrased right) to the examples:
I think they are unaffected, but I think also that the 'would's are incorrect:

I have hard time finding out how to pluralize words like"'would" or 'how are you?"You seemed to have attach an 's' after putting the word "would" in the quotation marks. Is it how it should be done? --Yes. I used single quote marks; double marks are more formally correct.

How about this? I think they are unaffected, but I think also that the "would's" are incorrect-- No

How about these?

I think that the '"do's and don'ts" are inappropriate to the situation.-- Yes. Do's and don'ts is an idiom. (Notice that for clarity we do not use a second apostrophe in "don't's")
I think that the "good morning's" are inappropriate.-- No
I think his "how are you's" are inappropriate. -- No. His "how are you"s are inappropriate. I don't think we need the "?".

Re: Punctuation: Suspension points ...

Grammar Geek — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:12:29 GMT

... is an ellipsis, used to show that text has been omitted. Despite popular usage in which is it used as a subsitute for every known type of punctuation except the apostrophe, use it only to show that words are missing.

I have never heard "He likes shadows and fresh water" before -- it's not an English idiom that I'm aware of, and I wouldn't be able to figure it out.

You have the skills TO DO the job, or you have the skills FOR the job, but not the skills TO the job.

Re: These Boots Are Made For Walkin

khoff — Mon, 18 Jun 2007 21:22:14 GMT

You're right; these are not ordinary idioms. The words that end in "-in" are really "-ing" forms where the final "g" is not pronounced. (In some instances in the lyrics the "g" is replaced by an apostrophe, in others it's just omitted) And the "a" is not an article -- it's "an archaic or dialectic form" that used to be used before the participle ("-ing" form). It's often found in old somgs or poetry -- "I love to go a-wandering...") It has no meaning; you can just ignore it when it preceds a verb in the -ing form. So the lines you quoted mean:

You've been messing (interfering in something that's not your business)

ought to be "truthing" (telling the truth)

keep "saming" (doing the same thing)

Shouldn't be playing

ought to be changing

ought to not bet.

Actually, I think you've done remarkably well in understanding the words as much as you have! Song lyrics are often not standard English.

Re: a question on double possessives and one on the other

Mister Micawber — Sat, 20 May 2006 06:59:04 GMT

I guess you don't get out much, Anon. Here is a sampling of respectable online sources. Doing a bit of Google research yourself will turn up many, many more.

The American Heritage Dictionary:

Grammarians have sometimes objected to the so-called double genitive construction, as in a friend of my father's; a book of mine. But the construction has been used in English since the 14th century and serves a useful purpose. It can help sort out ambiguous phrases like Bob's photograph, which could refer either to a photograph of Bob (that is, revealing Bob's image) or to one in Bob's possession. A photograph of Bob's, can only be a photo that Bob has in his possession, which may or may not show Bob's image. Moreover, in some sentences the double genitive offers the only way to express what is meant. There is no substitute for it in a sentence such as That's the only friend of yours that I've ever met, since sentences such as That's your only friend that I've ever met and That's your only friend, whom I've ever met are awkward or inaccurate.

The Columbia Guide to Standard AmE:

Although English has long and happily employed the double genitive, as in That lawnmower of Eleanorâs works fine, this construction, which wraps both the periphrastic genitive with of and the inflected genitive with the apostrophe plus s around Eleanor to make possession double, is now limited to our Informal and Semiformal writing and to the lowest levels of our speech, if we use it at all. Once again eighteenth-century argument (that one genitive is enough, and two are improper) has at least partly won out over exuberance, hyperbole, and redundancy. But only partly. A good many of us do use some double genitives and do not notice that they are double. Some language liberals argue that in Informal and Casual contexts the double genitive is idiomatic and not overkill, but few editors of Standard English will be likely to let it stand in Formal writing. Itâs either friends of my sister or my sisterâs friends; even in conversation, friends of my sisterâs may grate harshly on some puristsâ ears.

Random House:

The construction where a word is marked by two possessive indicators, the word of and a possessive case ('s) or possessive pronoun, has been in the language for at least six centuries and has been a subject of grammatical discussion for the last two. This construction is known by various names, including the double possessive, the double genitive, the appositional of-phrase, and the post-genitive.

The main thing to remember here is that this "problem" is of almost purely theoretical interest. No native speaker of the language has any difficulty understanding what "I borrowed a book of John's" means.

The genitive has several different functions in English, one of which is to indicate possession. Thus, John's picture can mean 'a picture that John owns'. However, the genitive can also indicate other associations, so that as an objective genitive, John's picture means 'a picture representing John; John's portrait'. This ambiguity is one reason the double possessive is used: it allows speakers of idiomatic English to make the distinction between "a picture of John" (that is, a portrait of John) and "a picture of John's" (a picture owned by John). Though your example, with "nephew," can work with or without the 's, the "picture" example has a distinct meaning each way.

We can also note that double possessives with possessive pronouns (rather than 's possessives) cannot be written any other way: You can say "a nephew of John" rather than "a nephew of John's," but if you start with "a nephew of his" you're stuck; it is completely unidiomatic to say "a nephew of him" (though of course "his nephew" is a possibility).

Grammarians who study the double possessive have made some useful observations. The first noun is almost always indefinite ("a picture of John's," but not "the picture of John's"; "friends of ours" but not "the friends of ours" or any other specifier). The second noun is human (or otherwise animate) and definite ("an admirer of hers" is possible, but "an admirer of the furniture's" is unidiomatic; "of Jane's" but not "of a woman's").

The combination of indefiniteness and definiteness is not possible with other constructions: rewriting "friends of ours" into "our friends" makes "friends" definite, for example. In your case, "John's nephew" means 'a specific nephew of John's', which is different from "a nephew of John's," which means 'any nephew of John's'. As former Oxford English Dictionary editor Robert Burchfield observes, "It is not easy to explain why such constructions are idiomatic: one can only assert that they are."

As noted, the double possessive goes back a long way: Chaucer has "A friend of his that called was Pandare" in the fourteenth century. The phenomenon started to get attention with the eighteenth-century grammarians, who generally disapproved of English constructions that were not possible according to the rules of Latin grammar. Some of these grammarians disapproved of the construction, while others were ambivalent.

Among contemporary language writers, most mention the construction but few criticize it; some restrict it to informal use, while others call it "needed."

The Observer:

An editor asked me which of these constructions is correct: a friend of John's or a friend of John. It is idiomatic in standard English to say or write a friend of John's. I explained that we use a possessive pronoun in this construction: He is a friend of mine. I am a friend of his. Therefore, when we use a person's name in this "of" construction, we make it possessive.

This construction is often called a double possessive, but it also is called a double genitive. "The Writer's Digest Grammar Desk Reference" and "The Gregg Reference Manual" point out that the use of the double genitive can avert misunderstanding. A painting of Jennifer shows Jennifer, but a painting of Jennifer's belongs to Jennifer.

"Working With Words" cautions that the double possessive is used only to refer to people, not inanimate objects: Joan is a friend of Tina's, but not Joan is a fan of the show's. That should be Joan is a fan of the show.

Chicago Manual of Style:

Q. A friend of John or a friend of Johnâs? Iâve heard that both are correct. A friend tossed the famous ambiguity at me this way: âA student of Einstein.â Unless itâs Einsteinâs, then it might be taken to mean a student who is working on Einstein.

A. It is best, and, what is more, perfectly idiomatic, to use the double genitive when âone of So-and-soâsâ is what you have in mind:

a student of his (that is, one of his students)

a student of Einsteinâs (that is, one of Einsteinâs students)

Then you have the liberty of writing âa student of Einsteinâ to mean by contrast either someone who is working on the great theoretical physicist as a scholarly subject or, more broadly, someone who is a close observer of Einstein and his work.

Fowlerâs notes in its third edition that such phrases as âa student of hisâ are illogicalâone of the âfreaks of idiomâ (pp. 542â43). In any case, your friendâs âstudent of Einsteinâ example is an excellent refutation of those who would avoid the apostrophe s at all costs.

Style: when to use apostrophes

wumanfu — Wed, 29 Oct 2003 04:43:11 GMT

I want to use idiomatic phrases to give my writing a casual tone. Please tell me if I should use apostrophes to indicate the phrase; itâs difficult for a foreigner to interpret something that doesnât make literal sense.
Example of an idiom
get in on the GROUND floor
become part of an enterprise in its early stages. informal

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

Re: Conditional:Auxiliary Commentary Words?

Re: Punctuation: Suspension points ...

Re: These Boots Are Made For Walkin

Re: a question on double possessives and one on the other

Style: when to use apostrophes