Pet Dislikes In The Use Of English In Forums

[Birdman]

This thread is a tense rebuke in a matter, which is absolute unimportant. If words are said or written, only their statement counts, nothing else.

Okay, if proper English is not important then please tell me what you mean by the following, posted by you in another thread? I'm not "rebuking" you, I think I know what you are saying, it's just not very clear and I wouldn't want to misunderstand.

"Replying to You Know You Are In Thailand When....

...reflexes the insufficiency to understand, let alone, living the Thai Ways."

...which part? First one was the topic

second one: plp telling their minor, for them unusual happenings in T, they would not have in their home countries, here on that thread, show clearly, that they are far from understanding what is going on in T.

comprende?

[ballpoint]

Yes, it's obvious that an apostrophe is used to replace missing letters, but I also thought it was used to express possession as in 'The Kingdom of Thailand and it's inhabitants'.

Am I wrong?

In the case of its, yes but in general, no.

It should be '...its inhabitants' or '...the Kingdom of Thailand's inhabitants.'

That's correct. "Its" is a word in its own right, meaning belonging to it. No apostrophe is needed. Doing so would be changing it to the shortened form of it is.

Sorry, being v slow here. So is the rule that if a 'possessive' word could be construed as having 'missing letters' if an apostrophe were inserted, then the apostrophe should not be used?

No, I think it only works with its, which, as I said is an actual word. For instance, you'd say "the dog's bone" and "the dog's barking". There is no actual word "dogs" in the sense of belonging to a dog, nor I believe for any other "possesive" word, other than its, so the apostrophe is used.

Edited February 24, 2009 by ballpoint

[Petesear]

so... Four dogs pull a sled, but which dog's the dogs' leader?

[ballpoint]

so... Four dogs pull a sled, but which dog's the dogs' leader?

The one that doesn't have an arsehol_e for a view.

[PeaceBlondie]

Serially now..I mean seriously now..

Unfortunately, these kinds of discussion usually require special words to understand them.

its works as a single word, called an impersonal possessive pronoun, singular. The word describes things that belong to a thing. Modern English (not older "Middle English") says, "the salt has lost its savour." Salt is singular and impersonal, but it can have savour. it's is always an abbreviated form of saying it is. Always.

Plurals sometimes need apostrophes. Apostrophes do different things. Plural things can be possessive. When dogs jointly have one owner, he is the dogs' owner. We do not say he is the dogs's owner. A plural noun ending in -s needs an -es, so that we are keeping up with the Joneses, those folks with the last name of Jones. Singular nouns ending in -s, such as Jesus, can have a possessive, such as "in Jesus' name" - not in Jesus's' name.

I hope that helps. It's confusing in its complexities.

[eek]

Thanks PB!

[stuandchris]

Don't get caught up in the complexities of the english language.

It is a highly complex language when spoken proper lol. However the beauty is you can bastardise it to the n th degree and still converse.

People go on about one word meaning three things in Thai, same in English, although there are no tones as such in English a change in inflection to an English person can change a word from a compliment to an insult. However when you are proficient to a reasonable degree even the most basic english can be understood.

English is a non inflective Indo European Language and is based on many languages from Indian, French, German amongst others.

As for English speakers learning another major language, why? At best what you learn gives you the ability to speak poorly to a race that is in a huge minority. If you live in another country then trying to learn their language is a good idea even if it is a courtesy.

English is the international language, sorry but that's life

Finally American English pisses me off. It's Colour not Color. There is no such thing as American English, just English, no matter what Bill Gates might think

[PoorSucker]

Seriously , move this thread to the teaching forum.......

[Petesear]

Don't get caught up in the complexities of the english language.

It is a highly complex language when spoken proper lol. However the beauty is you can bastardise it to the n th degree and still converse.

People go on about one word meaning three things in Thai, same in English, although there are no tones as such in English a change in inflection to an English person can change a word from a compliment to an insult. However when you are proficient to a reasonable degree even the most basic english can be understood.

English is a non inflective Indo European Language and is based on many languages from Indian, French, German amongst others.

As for English speakers learning another major language, why? At best what you learn gives you the ability to speak poorly to a race that is in a huge minority. If you live in another country then trying to learn their language is a good idea even if it is a courtesy.

English is the international language, sorry but that's life

Finally American English pisses me off. It's Colour not Color. There is no such thing as American English, just English, no matter what Bill Gates might think

I don't like 'text speak', lol! Come on, if English is to be the Language of the World why make it even more difficult for foreign speakers by adding more confusion. U may thnk its ezer this way, but it isn't. LMAO

As for Thai words that have more than one meaning, they are nearly always pronounced and written differently.

Actually English isn't based on other languages but has borrowed from other languages and over time some of those words have altered, to make them easier to spell and pronounce, to where we are now. You'll find nearly every language borrows from others now. Even in the U.S!

And if American English doesn't exist how can it piss you off?

Learn other languages, learn about other cultures, immerse yourself in a foreign country and its people. Travel is education.

I am English, not British, and proud of it.

[pop_corn]

Mine is at the phone, when they ask you to "sepel youl name" ... "spell your name" .......... omggggggggggggggggggg!!!!!!!!

[GungaDin]

This thread is a tense rebuke in a matter, which is absolute unimportant. If words are said or written, only their statement counts, nothing else.

Did you mean to say "äbsolutely"?

[Gerontion]

Singular nouns ending in -s, such as Jesus, can have a possessive, such as "in Jesus' name" - not in Jesus's' name.

This is the exception, not the rule. The rule is that you add 's (so Mr Jones's car is blue). In some special cases, you add an apostrophe only. These special cases included some names (Jesus, Moses, and names from antiquity such as Achilles, Socrates, Aristophanes, etc.) and singular nouns formed from plurals (such as The Times).

[Kf6vci]

there instead of their

[Mark Wolfe]

... English forums (fora)...

Anyone who uses "fora" to mean an Internet forum board is technically correct and practically pretentious. The word "forums" has come into popular usage (it is accepted in the Oxford English Dictionary, where "fora" is for that ancient Roman public square or meeting place used for judicial matters) and as such should be used in daily converstation.

[PeaceBlondie]

My pet dislikes PB's English, because he's a Thai's pet.

[sgunn65]

When did lose become loose?

How can something be almost unique? It might be rare but unique is just that.

Why do people add more to words like better, easier etc?

Why state, " I'm not being funny, but...."

[bonobo]

This thread is a tense rebuke in a matter, which is absolute unimportant. If words are said or written, only their statement counts, nothing else.

I agree entirely and would never dream of correcting someone's grammar! Especially knowing that for many posters English is not their first language.

BUT, I would genuinely appreciate learning whether my recollection of the possessive apostrophe is correct or not.

You are basically correct.

"It was the cats' yowling which kept me up." "It was the rotting bones' smell that permeated the room." "That is Mr. Peters' hat."

When an "s" has a "z" sound, pretty much all references agree that a simple apostrophe is correct. However, some refrences do contend that when an "s" sounds like an "s," then the apostrophe would be followed by another "s."

[eek]

I don't like 'text speak', lol! Come on, if English is to be the Language of the World why make it even more difficult for foreign speakers by adding more confusion. U may thnk its ezer this way, but it isn't. LMAO

As for Thai words that have more than one meaning, they are nearly always pronounced and written differently.

Actually English isn't based on other languages but has borrowed from other languages and over time some of those words have altered, to make them easier to spell and pronounce, to where we are now. You'll find nearly every language borrows from others now. Even in the U.S!

And if American English doesn't exist how can it piss you off?

Learn other languages, learn about other cultures, immerse yourself in a foreign country and its people. Travel is education.

I am English, not British, and proud of it.

If you are English, then how are you not British?

[Gerontion]

"It was the cats' yowling which kept me up." "It was the rotting bones' smell that permeated the room." "That is Mr. Peters' hat."

When an "s" has a "z" sound, pretty much all references agree that a simple apostrophe is correct. However, some refrences do contend that when an "s" sounds like an "s," then the apostrophe would be followed by another "s."

I'm not sure about your explanation. Without wishing to be too much of a pedant, it doesn't seem to be correct. "It was the cats' yowling which kept me up." "It was the rotting bones' smell that permeated the room." In these two cases, you have plural possessives, so they have an s'. If there were a single cat or a single bone, one would write "It was the cat's yowling...it was the rotting bone's.." In the third case, I'm guessing that the name is Mr Peters, in which case the rule is that the possessive is formed by adding 's (as in my earlier post). Mr Peters's. Although this is a rule which is often ignored, it is a rule nevertheless. I'm not sure where the distinction between /s/ and /z/ comes from but it's not relevant to the use of apostrophes.

[mahtin]

Definately:............... For sooooo long I have been spelling this word as such.

It was actually from TV that I learned, not so long ago, that all these years I have been mis-spelling it and the correct spelling is: Definitely

You're welcome, and congratulations on taking the trouble to learn

[dumball]

Petesear is probably illuding to the fact he speaks the ENGLISH language , there is no BRITISH language only British PEOPLE who speak English , the other three have a celtic language of thier own .

[Maestro]

“Dilema” in a topic title always makes me smile, because I see it as a contraction of “diluted enema”

--

Maestro

[dumball]

That should read 'Alluding'

[xsplat]

... That is the use of the word 'lose.' The number of people who use the word loose (= not tight) instead of lose drives me nuts every time I see it. The phrase 'I am loosing it' used instead of I am losing it...

And I thought I was the only guy with that difficulty.

I would wish common usage changes the spelling of loose. Lose should rhyme with hose.

[bonobo]

"It was the cats' yowling which kept me up." "It was the rotting bones' smell that permeated the room." "That is Mr. Peters' hat."

When an "s" has a "z" sound, pretty much all references agree that a simple apostrophe is correct. However, some refrences do contend that when an "s" sounds like an "s," then the apostrophe would be followed by another "s."

I'm not sure about your explanation. Without wishing to be too much of a pedant, it doesn't seem to be correct. "It was the cats' yowling which kept me up." "It was the rotting bones' smell that permeated the room." In these two cases, you have plural possessives, so they have an s'. If there were a single cat or a single bone, one would write "It was the cat's yowling...it was the rotting bone's.." In the third case, I'm guessing that the name is Mr Peters, in which case the rule is that the possessive is formed by adding 's (as in my earlier post). Mr Peters's. Although this is a rule which is often ignored, it is a rule nevertheless. I'm not sure where the distinction between /s/ and /z/ comes from but it's not relevant to the use of apostrophes.

For one cat, it is the "cat's yowling." For two cats going at it, it is the "cats' yowling."

If the name is "Peters," then the possessive is "Peters'," not "Peters's."

And yes, the "s" and "z" sounds do take on different rules according to some style manuals. And there certainly may be difference between different countries. I had to use The Chicago Manual of Style for both my doctoral dissertation and for a course I took on public affairs in the military, and this manual, perhaps considered the most authorative in the US, contends that there is no difference depending on the sound of the "s." According to that manual, a word which ends with an "s" merely gets an apostrophe to indicate its possessive, not an apostrophe and an extra "s."

However, to add further confusion, the MLA Style Manual is one of the few which contend that an extra "s" has to be added to any word after the apostrophe to indicate the possessive. This manual is mostly used in the humanities, but it is not as highly accepted at The Chicago Manual of Style.

[Gerontion]

Quick diversion into pendants' corner here:

For one cat, it is the "cat's yowling." For two cats going at it, it is the "cats' yowling."

Which is why I wrote: 'If there were a single cat or a single bone, one would write "It was the cat's yowling...it was the rotting bone's.."' The placement of the apostrophe is governed by plurality, not phonology.

If the name is "Peters," then the possessive is "Peters'," not "Peters's."

Not according to the Chicago Manual of Style (at http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ch07/ch07_sec018.html)

The general rule covers most proper nouns, including names ending in s, x, or z, in both their singular and plural forms, as well as letters and numbers.

Kansas’s legislature

Chicago’s lakefront

Burns’s poems

Marx’s theories

Berlioz’s works

Strauss’s Vienna

Dickens’s novels

the Lincolns’ marriage

Williams’s reputation

the Williamses’ new house

Malraux’s masterpiece

Inez’s diary

the Martinezes’ daughter

Josquin des Prez’s motets

dinner at the Browns’ (that is, at the Browns’ home)

FDR’s legacy

1999’s heaviest snowstorm

The rule applies equally to company names that include a punctuation point.

The Oxford Style Manual confirms this (p.114 of the 2003 edition).

Use 's after non-classical or non-classicizing personal names ending in an s or z sound: Charles's Marx's Dickens's Leibnitz's Onassis's Zacharias's Collins's Tobias's

And yes, the "s" and "z" sounds do take on different rules according to some style manuals. And there certainly may be difference between different countries. I had to use The Chicago Manual of Style for both my doctoral dissertation and for a course I took on public affairs in the military, and this manual, perhaps considered the most authorative in the US, contends that there is no difference depending on the sound of the "s."

So what is the difference? I'm curious to know because I've not heard this; I've always used apostrophes according to the rules above.

According to that manual, a word which ends with an "s" merely gets an apostrophe to indicate its possessive, not an apostrophe and an extra "s."

Not according to their online edition (as above). Perhaps the printed one is different. It does, however, say (at http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ch07/ch07_sec023.html)

7.23 An alternative practice

Those uncomfortable with the rules, exceptions, and options outlined above may prefer the system, formerly more common, of simply omitting the possessive s on all words ending in s—hence “Dylan Thomas’ poetry,” “Maria Callas’ singing,” and “that business’ main concern.” Though easy to apply, that usage disregards pronunciation and thus seems unnatural to many.

However, to add further confusion, the MLA Style Manual is one of the few which contend that an extra "s" has to be added to any word after the apostrophe to indicate the possessive. This manual is mostly used in the humanities, but it is not as highly accepted at The Chicago Manual of Style.

One of the few? I haven't seen any manuals recommending this. Which are they?

Edited February 26, 2009 by Gerontion

[PeaceBlondie]

Having been born in Chicago before the end of the war, I will now bow out with my dogs's's' pet dislikes.

[bonobo]

Not according to the Chicago Manual of Style (at http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ch07/ch07_sec018.html)

I missspoke (misstyped?) on this one. Yes, "Mr. Peters's" is correct, but in the plural, it is the same. "That is the Peters' house."

And yes, the "s" and "z" sounds do take on different rules according to some style manuals. And there certainly may be difference between different countries. I had to use The Chicago Manual of Style for both my doctoral dissertation and for a course I took on public affairs in the military, and this manual, perhaps considered the most authorative in the US, contends that there is no difference depending on the sound of the "s."

So what is the difference? I'm curious to know because I've not heard this; I've always used apostrophes according to the rules above.

According to those who follow this rule, if a word ends with the silibant s, it gets anotehr s added. I don't ahe a word offhand, but if it is a silibant s with a different spelling, such as "mice," then it is the "mice's lair."

According to that manual, a word which ends with an "s" merely gets an apostrophe to indicate its possessive, not an apostrophe and an extra "s."

Not according to their online edition (as above). Perhaps the printed one is different. It does, however, say (at http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/ch07/ch07_sec023.html)

I couldn't look this up as I keep getting a "page not available" message.

7.23 An alternative practice

Those uncomfortable with the rules, exceptions, and options outlined above may prefer the system, formerly more common, of simply omitting the possessive s on all words ending in s—hence "Dylan Thomas' poetry," "Maria Callas' singing," and "that business' main concern." Though easy to apply, that usage disregards pronunciation and thus seems unnatural to many.

Yes it often gives alternative rules.

However, to add further confusion, the MLA Style Manual is one of the few which contend that an extra "s" has to be added to any word after the apostrophe to indicate the possessive. This manual is mostly used in the humanities, but it is not as highly accepted at The Chicago Manual of Style.

One of the few? I haven't seen any manuals recommending this. Which are they?

Well, the MLA is the only one I know, but we were not allowed to use it.

[loong]

Language is ever changing with common usage. Rules that apply in one decade do not necessarily apply in the next.

I'm English and speak English, but I think that it is a really stupid language that has evolved for the snobs to look down on the "uneducated".

Cough

Bough

Enough

Though

How can the "ough" be pronounced totally differently for these 4 words.

Add a T to Though (Tho) and it becomes Thought (Thawt).

I feel really sorry for people that have to learn English as a second language.

Edited February 26, 2009 by loong

[scottyd]

One very famous English writer, George Bernard Shaw, felt very strongly about this. One day, to amuse himself and his audience, Shaw pointed out that "g-h-o-t-i" can spell fish, and spell it logically.

He showed that if you took:

gh as in "enough," you get the f sound

o as in "women," you get the i sound

ti as in "nation," you get the sh sound.

So the letters "g-h-o-t-i" can logically be used to spell fish.