Search results for 'tag:Plurals tag:Genitives' matching tags 'Plurals' and 'Genitives'

Re: corpus/corpora - ethymology

Anonymous — Sat, 31 May 2008 07:36:41 GMT

It's all to do with gender. Cactus and fungus are masculine nouns of which the proper plural ends in -i. Corpus is actually a neuter noun. Hence, the proper plural (nominative case) ends in -a.

It's 'corpora' rather than 'corpa' because the genitive singular case defines the stem of the noun. The genitive singular case of corpus is 'corporis'.

Re: corpus/corpora - ethymology

Tanit — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:20:44 GMT

Hi,

The short answer would be: such question are dangerous, try and learn them by heart!
The long answer is: in Latin, they have different inflected forms because they belong to two different "classes": 2nd declension and 3rd declension:

Fungus (same inflected forms in "cactus"): 2nd declension
    Nominative: (singular) fungus => (plural) fungi
    Genitive: (singular) fungi => (plural) fungorum
    Dative: (singular) fungo => (plural) fungis
    Accusative: (singular) fungum => (plural) fungos
    Vocative: (singular) funge => (plural) fungi
    Ablative: (singular) fungo => (plural) fungis

Corpus : 3rd declension
    Nominative: (singular) corpus => (plural) corpora
    Genitive: (singular) corporis => (plural) corporum
    Dative: (singular) corpori => (plural) corporibus
    Accusative: (singular) corpus => (plural) corpora
    Vocative: (singular) corpus => (plural) corpora
    Ablative: (singular) corpore => (plural) corporibus

Now, have a look at the nominative case:
fungus >> fungi
cactus >> cacti
corpus >> corpora

Re: investors fund/investors' funds/investors funds/investor funds

Mister Micawber — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:24:36 GMT

The nature of the organism does not apply here; that is a question for the use of the 's genitive vs the of-genitive (the girl's feet vs the feet of the table)

205,000 for "investor funds"

209,000 for "investors funds"

209,000 for "investors' funds".

6,230 for "investor's funds"

Obviously, Ms Google does not discriminate between "-rs" and "-rs' "... and probably confuses the other premutations somewhat as well. The fourth option should be reserved when speaking of a single investor, but I think that the other 3 options are all valid for general purposes.

Investor funds-- investor is an adjective describing the funds

Investors funds-- as above, but plural (which is not the usual way we do it: it's shoe store, not shoes store.. but on the other hand sportswear)

Investors' funds-- the funds belong to the investors.

Re: Britney Spears

Cool Breeze — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 09:09:02 GMT

Grammar Geek wrote:
And what about their mother? The Spearses' mother? These plural-possessive-ending-in-S nouns seem to have half a dozen "correct" ways of writing them.

Hi GG

This intrigues me. Could you please tell me what other suggestions style guides have offered as correct plurals and plural genitives. I have never encountered anything except the Spearses' mother. At least it is logical and in accordance with the grammatical rules of English.

1. If a noun ends in an s or an s sound, es is added in the plural: one boss, two bosses.
2. If a plural noun ends in an s, only an apostrophe is added in the genitive: two bosses' wives. (Many may prefer to say "the wives of two bosses")

Proper nouns behave in the same way: one Spears, two Spearses. Hence: the Spearses' mother.

Cheers
CB

Re: genitive question

Cool Breeze — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:32:36 GMT

Believer wrote:
I think there is such a thing as the "genitive of purpose" and a typical example of it is "a girl's school," in which the phrase "girl's school" identifies or tells us that it is a school only girls attend.

Hi Believer

If more than one girl attend the school, the plural genitive must be used: a girls' school. Of course a girl's school is right if the school has only one pupil (a girl) or if you are talking about a girl owning a school, but that is a little far-fetched.

Many people don't know where to place the apostrophe and I have actually seen a girls school without an apostrophe a few times. Right or wrong? That's a matter of opinion.

Cheers
CB

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

Cool Breeze — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:08:58 GMT

Mister Micawber wrote:

One parent, one friend, one house: One of my parents' friend's house.

If anyone would care to double-check these, I'd be obliged. Now I have to go and lie down for just a little while...

Hi Mr Micawber

Just one correction: One of my parent's friend's house. However, since one of requires a plural, I consider the sentence ungrammatical as parent is singular. We can't say: one of my parent, we can only say one of my parents. Of course it can be in the genitive as well: one of my parents' friends.

To convey the idea you are trying to express, I would say: the house of my parent's friend or my parent's friend's house.

CB

Re: Prepositions

Cool Breeze — Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:27:47 GMT

Hi Kiitixay

The preposition is in or at in the basic expressions only:
He came in the morning / in the afternoon / in the evening.
You can see the stars at night.
Nothing exceptional happened at noon.
A plural is possible as well: It often rains in the mornings.

When you deviate from the basic expressions, the preposition is on:
I don't like to go out on cold nights. (adj.)
It happened on a foggy afternoon. (adj.)
He arrived on the morning of 7th June. (of-genitive)
It rained on Monday afternoon. (day of the week mentioned)
I don't want to go out on winter / December mornings. (season or month mentioned)
And so on.

No preposition is used with some words:
every morning. this afternoon

Cheers
CB

Re: Is it Mr Jones's briefcase or Mr Jones' briefcase?

Tanit — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 21:01:40 GMT

Mr Jones's briefcase or Mr Jones' briefcase?
During my high school, I was taught to use the second one. Later, I learnt that both are acceptable.

Source 1:
Some writers will say that the -s after Charles' is not necessary and that adding only the apostrophe (Charles' car) will suffice to show possession. Consistency is the key here: if you choose not to add the -s after a noun that already ends in s, do so consistently throughout your text. William Strunk's Elements of Style recommends adding the 's ... You will find that some nouns, especially proper nouns, especially when there are other -s and -z sounds involved, turn into clumsy beasts when you add another s: "That's old Mrs. Chambers's estate." In that case, you're better off with "Mrs. Chambers' estate."

Source 2:
Genitive relationships are marked as usual in surnames: the Smithsâ dog. Oddly enough, this practice is sometimes suspended when a surname ends in s. The relationship between people called `Jones' and the dog they own is often expressed thus: the Jonesâ dog. This is hardly fair: Why make light of someone's surname just because it happens to end with an s? Surely this is the Jones's due: the Jonesâs dog.
On the other hand, convention requires that we place only an apostrophe after the s of antique names that end in s: Euripidesâ beard, Herculesâ strength.

The Chicago Manual of Style (cited here):
How to form the possessive of polysllabic personal names ending with the sound of "s" or "z" probably occasions more dissension among writers and editors than any other orthographic matter open to disagreement. Some espouse the rule that the possessive of all such names should be formed by the addition of an apostrophe only. Such a rule would outlaw spellings like "Dylan Thomas's poetry," "Roy Harris's composition," and "Maria Callas's performance" in favor of "Thomas'," "Harris'," and "Callas'," which would not commend themselves to many. Other writers and editors simply abandon the attempt to define in precise phonic or orthographic terms the class of polysyllabic names to which only the apostrophe should be attached and follow a more pragmatic rule. In essence this is, "If it ends with a z sound, treat it like a plural; if it ends with an s sound treat it like a singular." Thus they would write "Dickens', Hopkins', Williams'," but also "Harris's, Thomas's, Callas's, Angus's, Willis's," and the like.

Re: McDonald's

Cool Breeze — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:59:40 GMT

Marius Hancu wrote:
The meaning is:

I think I'll go to one of the McDonald's.

Hi Marius

This is an interesting point of grammar. The s in McDonald's is a genitive s, not a plural s. I'm not a native speaker and I would like to know if Canadians/Americans really say one of the McDonald's? Being a nonnative, I would say one of the McDonald'ses, which doesn't look very good. However, to my ears one of the McDonald's sounds as good as one of the boy, and grammatically it is just as good since the s is not a plural s.

I've got a hunch people do say one of the McDonald's even though it is grammatically horrible. I hope I am wrong.
Thank you for your reply

CB

two questions

Anonymous — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:21:42 GMT

Hi,

Please answer these.

1. Does this require a singular or plural noun?

I think Philip from this forum wrote this:

With the introductory "there," you will find both singular and plural verb.

2. Sometimes I get very confused as to whether a possessive is acting in a classifying capacity or a possessive capacity.

It's the president's war. At this point it also appears clear it's also the Senate Republicans' war.

I think they both ( the president's war and the Senate Republicans' war) are used in a possessive (genitive??) capacity, but some things are not so clear to me, could you help?

The prosecutor's argument -- What is 'the' modifying, the prosecutor or the argument? Only context would tell?

The Japan's product -- Usually I thought when a word like 'Japan' is used, the article 'the' is not used. Is this an acceptable exception? How could you tell? Context would tell?

An egg is a hen's egg. -- Which part does 'a' here modifying -- the word 'egg' or 'hen'?