Grammar Q's and A's

[dantilley]

Here's one, which we were discussing at work when writing text for a website.

Should a special offer for some free hotel rooms be written:

"Win 2 nights accommodation"

"Win 2 nights' accommodation"

or "Win 2 night's accommodation"

We settled on the second one at the time, but weren't really 100% sure it was correct.

Is there a difference between the last two?

Yes, apostrophe before or after the last "s" after the word night.

So if the accommodation belongs to a single night (2 night's accommodation) or the 2 nights together, collectively (2 nights' accommodation)

Edited December 8, 2006 by dantilley

[Jessy]

It's is simply short for 'it is' or 'it has'. An apostrophe in this case is there to show that letters have been ommitted.

[PeaceBlondie]

Shouldn't this thread be on ajarn.com?

This is theTeaching in Thailand forum of ThaiVisa. This thread belongs here, and on any other discussion about fine points of grammar.

[gpt]

Here's one, which we were discussing at work when writing text for a website.

Should a special offer for some free hotel rooms be written:

"Win 2 nights accommodation"

"Win 2 nights' accommodation"

or "Win 2 night's accommodation"

We settled on the second one at the time, but weren't really 100% sure it was correct.

Is it possessive? No' So I would say that the apostrophe is superfluous. Just done a quick search on the net and the most commonly used one is "nights"

[gpt]

Just a further thought - '2 nights' could be considered as an compound adjective. We would say 'one nights accommodation' not because of its possessiveness but because it sounds better. If you want to put an apostrophe in, the possessive noun would be 'night' so it would be night's no matter how many nights there are.

[davidjtayler]

Just a further thought - '2 nights' could be considered as an compound adjective. We would say 'one nights accommodation' not because of its possessiveness but because it sounds better. If you want to put an apostrophe in, the possessive noun would be 'night' so it would be night's no matter how many nights there are.

Bloody ell .. and I thought Thai was difficult .....

[Mid]

Apostrophes are NEVER ever used to denote plurals! Common examples of such abuse (all seen in real life!) are:

The Apostrophe Protection Society

[Gary A]

I can sum up the entire thread by saying that I could NOT care less. My problem is how to explain to my wife the vagaries of the English language.

[Neeranam]

QUOTE(Neeranam @ 2006-12-08 17:39:42)

Shouldn't this thread be on ajarn.com?

This is theTeaching in Thailand forum of ThaiVisa. This thread belongs here, and on any other discussion about fine points of grammar.

This is the General Forum for things about Thailand.

[VanZam]

Who ever thought grammar would generate such a reaction!

If anything it paints a very scary picture of some english teachers working in Thailand.

[Mid]

I can sum up the entire thread by saying that I could NOT care less. My problem is how to explain to my wife the vagaries of the English language.

too true ,

gotta have respect for those trying to learn it as a second language,

'specially the way the native speakers murder it

[PeaceBlondie]

QUOTE(Neeranam @ 2006-12-08 17:39:42)

Shouldn't this thread be on ajarn.com?

This is theTeaching in Thailand forum of ThaiVisa. This thread belongs here, and on any other discussion about fine points of grammar.

This is the General Forum for things about Thailand.

Ooops; thanks. Merging topics is very difficult. Okay, back to Teaching forum.

[stevejones123]

It is the King James Bible (no apostrophe) and you have just demonstrated the "greengrocer's apostrophe".

Correct about the King James Bible, wrong about the greengrocer's apostrophe, which is using the apostrophe for plurals, e.g "apple's and orange's".

There are half a dozen pages in Truss on whether to use s's or s' for names ending in "s".

Now what about the possessive form of James, is it James' or James's? Exeter City play at St James Park, Newcastle play at St James' Park and there is a St James's Park in London. The first version is named after St James and therefore is not possessive, we do not say 'Lumpini's Park do we? For whatever reason those who named the other two parks decided to use the possessive. I think the main difference is how it is said in the local dialect, I would always use James's in preference to James'

I suspect it's just a matter of chance as to whether James is viewed as being possessive or not in these cases. I fail to see any logical reason why London has Albert Square, Victoria Station but St. John's Wood. And in Australia it is normally St. Johns Wood but St. James' Cathedral.

This kind of uncertainty as to whether something is possessive or not also applies to examples like 'three months['] accomodation' 'in six days['] time". We consider these to be possessives because otherwise we can't explain the singular form "one month's accommodation", "one day's time", yet the relationship of possession is obscure to say the least.

Incidentally I suspect the reason for chosing James's over James' is more a generational one than a regional one.

As for "Did you eat lunch yet", that would be incorrect in BrE, though perfectly correct in AmE.

Edited December 8, 2006 by stevejones123

[gpt]

It is the King James Bible (no apostrophe) and you have just demonstrated the "greengrocer's apostrophe".

Correct about the King James Bible, wrong about the greengrocer's apostrophe, which is using the apostrophe for plurals, e.g "apple's and orange's".

As for "Did you eat lunch yet", that would be incorrect in BrE, though perfectly correct in AmE.

The greengrocer's apostrophe is any inappropriate use of the apostrophe, including misuse for plurals.

'Did you eat.....' It has always been used by my family & friends and we are British.

Incidentally I suspect the reason for chosing James's over James' is more a generational one than a regional one.

If it were then grandparents would use one form, parents another and children another'

'three months['] accommodation' 'in six days['] time

'three months' is describing the accommodation and is not possessive. 'Six days time is, in my opinion, not possessive but describing the length of time,

[dantilley]

Just a further thought - '2 nights' could be considered as an compound adjective. We would say 'one nights accommodation' not because of its possessiveness but because it sounds better. If you want to put an apostrophe in, the possessive noun would be 'night' so it would be night's no matter how many nights there are.

Thanks for this. So I guess it's kind of like the "of" is being dropped from "2 nights of accommodation".

[mbkudu]

In business English writing the sexist 'he' and 'she' has been out for awhile. Many writers have adopted 'their' as a neutral pronoun. This is still not acceptable because the subject and pronoun don't agree.

For example: 'Each supervisor must certify that the time sheet for their department is correct.'

A better way to write it would be: 'Supervisors must certify that the time sheets for their departments are correct.' By making the subject plural, the pronoun 'their' agrees. Second person 'you' can be used if the subject is singular. For example: 'You must certify that the time sheet for your department is correct.'

Or, 'Please certify that the time sheet for your department is correct.'

[gpt]

Isn't English grammar a fascinating subject? There are exceptions that prove the rule and 'Each supervisor must certify that the time sheet for their department is correct' is one example. A (or The) supervisor means that there is only one whereas 'each (or every) supervisor' refers to multiple supervisors. So I would say that the quoted example is correct.

Edited December 10, 2006 by gpt

[PeaceBlondie]

'Each' and 'every' refer usually to the singular, or to one individual at a time. "Each person who sees it is amazed."

Grammar is fascinating, and it gets as complex as you care to make it. Grammarians sometimes resembled those theologians who argued about how many angels could dance on a pinhead. No issue is too small to argue.

Conservative guardians of a language insist on still enforcing their grandparents' rules. Pronouns changed in 500 years. In 1612, the King James Bible did not use 'its' but instead used 'his,' and 'you' was always plural. I know a language where 'we' has two forms: including the audience being addressed, and excluding the audience.

[gpt]

'Each' and 'every' refer usually to the singular, or to one individual at a time. "Each person who sees it is amazed."

You hit the nail on the head when you said 'refer usually'. I would use "Each supervisor...............their department..." in preference to the more cumbersome 'he/she' or '(s)he' wordings. An alternative would be to a disclaimer in the document stating "The use of the word 'he' in this document refers to any company employee irrespective of gender"

I'm sorry but I can't answer your angels question

[PeaceBlondie]

I once thought 989 angels could dance on the head of a pin, but their halos keep getting tangled.

[meadish_sweetball]

Just a further thought - '2 nights' could be considered as an compound adjective. We would say 'one nights accommodation' not because of its possessiveness but because it sounds better. If you want to put an apostrophe in, the possessive noun would be 'night' so it would be night's no matter how many nights there are.

We would say 'one nights accommodation' not because of its possessiveness but because it sounds better

I see two acceptable ways of writing this

Two nights accommodation (by logic ruling out the possessive, arguing that it is just formalia and not a 'real' possessive)

Two nights' accommodation (observing the possessive, the more correct formal alternative)

*Two night's accommodation is in all events completely incorrect. Why?

Because 's indicates a.) the possessive b.) contraction of 'is' or 'has'. It is obviously not an 'is' or 'has' here, as that would give us *Two night is accommodation/Two night has accommodation, completely ungrammatical sentences. So that means the 's' here has to indicate the possessive - and if it does, it has to agree with the number - but it doesn't.

Out of interest, you could contrast it with Swedish, another Germanic language with a similar sentence structure and word order, and where the writing and inclination in a similar expression clearly shows the possessive:

Två nätters vistelse - two nights' stay.

(Night = natt / Nights = nätter)

's' (no apostrophe) in Swedish only marks the possessive, never plural or contractions of verbs.

Danish and Norwegian would be the same. I imagine Dutch would also show a similar pattern. With German, I don't know.

[mbkudu]

Isn't English grammar a fascinating subject? There are exceptions that prove the rule and 'Each supervisor must certify that the time sheet for their department is correct' is one example. A (or The) supervisor means that there is only one whereas 'each (or every) supervisor' refers to multiple supervisors. So I would say that the quoted example is correct.

I know it looks like splitting hairs and in conversation it doesn't really matter, but it can be important when writing contracts, especially with people in the US or Canada. Many Asian students are curious about PC language now, and want to learn it in order to deal with western businesses.

[mbkudu]

[quot

Sorry for double post.

Edited December 10, 2006 by mbkudu

[rods]

'I will do it' implies (to me) that it is something I intend to do at some time in the future. "I am going to do it" implies that I'm off to do it right now.

That's interesting, endure, because you're English. TEFLers from England tell me insistently that "I will do it" (spoken with no special inflection or emphasis) is definite, whilst "I am going to do it" is uncertain or indefinite. In American English, I'm 99% sure that there is no difference whatsoever.

The problem here is you are taking things without any context and you also seem to be assuming that each structure has one meaning or function. Both structures are used in a wide range of contexts, some of which overlap and some of which don't.

Will and Won't are brothers and they're both solicitors. Won't likes Will but Will doesn't like Won't, so we can say that Won't will write Will a will but Will won't write Won't a will.

I hope that clears this up for everyone!

But seriously; as you've said, it's about time context. When making an on-the-spot decision, we use 'will'/'won't'. When we've made a decision before the time of speaking we use 'going to' future:

"I'm going to the shops later."

"Oh good, we're out of milk."

"OK. I'll get some."

[rods]

So how does everyone feel about these? a. /b. / both

Though contributing absolutely nothing to the debate, I hope the following options will amuse.

1. "There's somebody outside."

a. That'll be John.

b. That's going to be John.

c. Actually it's an axe-wielding lunatic, but don't tell them - it'll spoil the surprise.

2. [At a dinner party]

a. Will you have some more wine?

b. Are you going to have some more wine?

c. If you get too drunk you can throw up in my handbag, darling.

"Thank you."

3. My brother's got great patience.

a. He will sit for hours waiting for a fish to bite.

b. He's going to sit for hours waiting for a fish to bite.

c. He's the happiest doctor I know! (groan)

4. "Goodbye."

a. Bye. I'll see you next week.

b. Bye. I'm going to see you next week.

c. Good.

5. "I'm taking my umbrella."

a. "Do you think it'll rain?"

b. "Do you think it's going to rain?"

c. What will I do if it rains, you selfish git?

6. "I've got a splitting headache."

a. If you lie down for a while you'll feel much better.

b. If you lie down for a while you're going to feel much better.

c. If you lie down for a while you'll probably throw up, too.

7. "Jane's putting on weight"

a. She will have a baby.

b. She's going to have a baby.

c. She'll get pregnant for sure. Fat girls drive me crazy!

8. [stuck in traffic, a long way from the destination]

"The meeting starts in 10 minutes".

a. We'll be late.

b. We're going to be late.

c. Who gives a ****? This is Bangkok!

9. "You wanted to see me?"

a. Yes, it won't take long.

b. Yes, it isn't going to take long.

c. Just a photograph will do.

10. "You were a disgrace last night."

a. I promise I won't do it again.

b. I promise I'm not going to do it again.

c. Yes. I hope you had a good time, too.

[elkangorito]

I've been amused by a couple of things for years...the way that some people say "should of" instead of saying "should have" and why people "take" showers etc instead of using showers etc.

Also, I've recently been told by a foreign speaker of English that "narrower" and "shallower" cannot be used as correct words. Where I come from, these words are used frequently. I guess it's more to do with correctness of "sound and feel" moreso than correctness of grammar.

[mbkudu]

I've been amused by a couple of things for years...the way that some people say "should of" instead of saying "should have" and why people "take" showers etc instead of using showers etc.

Also, I've recently been told by a foreign speaker of English that "narrower" and "shallower" cannot be used as correct words. Where I come from, these words are used frequently. I guess it's more to do with correctness of "sound and feel" moreso than correctness of grammar.

Excuse me, I need to go take a sh!t; I mean leave one. BTW, narrower and shallower are correct because

narrow and shallow are only two syllables. This is 'funner' than I ever expected.

[the scouser]

Out of interest, you could contrast it with Swedish......

Danish and Norwegian would be the same. I imagine Dutch would also show a similar pattern. With German, I don't know.

German uses the possessive "s" but only in relation to proper nouns:-

Mark's bike = Marks Rad

Other than that, the genitive case (denoting possession) changes the structure of the article and sometimes the noun:-

The dog (nominative case) = der Hund, but the dog's bone = Der Knochen des Hundes.

Unfortunately, our chosen example of "two nights accommodation", when translated to German - " zwei Naechte Anpassung" - does not really demonstrate whether the genitive is used as "die Nacht" is feminine and, as such, does not take a genitive ending.

In English, I am undecided whether "two nights accommodation" is possessive or not. Applying the of/for test, i.e. "accommodation of two nights" or "accommodation for two nights" (the former being possessive and the latter not), I am leaning towards it not being possessive, as one would walk in to a hotel and ask for accommodation for two nights rather than accommodation of two nights.

Scouse.

[meadish_sweetball]

Out of interest, you could contrast it with Swedish......

Danish and Norwegian would be the same. I imagine Dutch would also show a similar pattern. With German, I don't know.

German uses the possessive "s" but only in relation to proper nouns:-

Mark's bike = Marks Rad

Other than that, the genitive case (denoting possession) changes the structure of the article and sometimes the noun:-

The dog (nominative case) = der Hund, but the dog's bone = Der Knochen des Hundes.

Unfortunately, our chosen example of "two nights accommodation", when translated to German - " zwei Naechte Anpassung" - does not really demonstrate whether the genitive is used as "die Nacht" is feminine and, as such, does not take a genitive ending.

In English, I am undecided whether "two nights accommodation" is possessive or not. Applying the of/for test, i.e. "accommodation of two nights" or "accommodation for two nights" (the former being possessive and the latter not), I am leaning towards it not being possessive, as one would walk in to a hotel and ask for accommodation for two nights rather than accommodation of two nights.

Scouse.

Good point, Scouse. I wasn't aware of that test, thanks for sharing. But then again, if I wanted to push the point, I could perhaps argue that it is essentially the same type of construction as 'a week's stay', not *'a weeks stay' or *'a week stay'...

[the scouser]

But then again, if I wanted to push the point, I could perhaps argue that it is essentially the same type of construction as 'a week's stay', not *'a weeks stay' or *'a week stay'...

..... at which point I give up and rest the blame squarely on the shoulders of English itself, for being such a bastard (literally and figuratively) language.

Scouse.