Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 2 of 30 pages
Sorry, it's the latter. Singular plural, you add apostrophe S. I don't think there are any exceptions.
In AP style, if a proper noun ends in s or an s sound, add an apostrophe only.
Chris‘ exam scores were higher than any other students.
OK, OK, no need to get snarky about it.
Many respected authorities recommend that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe so that the spelling reflects the underlying pronunciation. Examples include Oxford University Press, the Modern Language Association, the BBC and The Economist. Such authorities demand possessive singulars like these: Senator Jones's umbrella; Tony Adams's friend. Rules that modify or extend the standard principle have included the following:
-If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added sibilant, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by The Guardian, Yahoo! Style Guide, The American Heritage Book of English Usage. Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates' later suggestion; or Achilles' heel if that is how the pronunciation is intended.
-Classical, biblical, and similar names ending in a sibilant, especially if they are polysyllabic, do not take an added s in the possessive; among sources giving exceptions of this kind are The Times and The Elements of Style, which make general stipulations, and Vanderbilt University, which mentions only Moses and Jesus. As a particular case, Jesus' is very commonly written instead of Jesus's – even by people who would otherwise add 's in, for example, James's or Chris's. Jesus' is referred to as "an accepted liturgical archaism" in Hart's Rules.
However, some contemporary writers still follow the older practice of omitting the extra s in all cases ending with a sibilant, but usually not when written -x or -xe. Some contemporary authorities such as the Associated Press Stylebook and The Chicago Manual of Style recommend or allow the practice of omitting the extra "s" in all words ending with an "s", but not in words ending with other sibilants ("z" and "x"). The 15th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style still recommended the traditional practice, which included providing for several exceptions to accommodate spoken usage such as the omission of the extra s after a polysyllabic word ending in a sibilant. The 16th edition of CMOS no longer recommends omitting the extra "s".
Also, I've changed my tune on words and expressions, figuring that things just change over time.
I agree, but I've moved on to "language exists to convey ideas", so when someone says "I could care less", every single English language speaking person knows what they mean, so it's a perfectly fine expression.
What's the standard for possessive when the word ends with an S? Charles' or Charles's?
So, regarding politics, I have a question for the conservative elements and camp here. Are the conservatives in the capital and on the hill upset at the sequester because they are being BLAMED for it? Because the American people are being told it's terrible when it is what the conservatives are saying is what needs to happen?
Jesus' is referred to as "an accepted liturgical archaism" in Hart's Rules.
Disinterested is a great word, with a useful specific meaning, so it's a shame that it's being used as an unnecessary synonym of "uninterested."
Edit: Since this is the Grammar Nazi thread, I am 87% sure that it should be 'synonym for', but went with the original.
This politics thread was good at first but then the style manual discussion went too far.
With the Dow Jones industrial average flirting with a record high, the split between American workers and the companies that employ them is widening and could worsen in the next few months as federal budget cuts take hold.
That gulf helps explain why stock markets are thriving even as the economy is barely growing and unemployment remains stubbornly high.
With millions still out of work, companies face little pressure to raise salaries, while productivity gains allow them to increase sales without adding workers.
“So far in this recovery, corporations have captured an unusually high share of the income gains,” said Ethan Harris, co-head of global economics at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “The U.S. corporate sector is in a lot better health than the overall economy. And until we get a full recovery in the labor market, this will persist.”
The result has been a golden age for corporate profits, especially among multinational giants that are also benefiting from faster growth in emerging economies like China and India....
With $85 billion in automatic cuts taking effect between now and Sept. 30 as part of the so-called federal budget sequestration, some experts warn that economic growth will be reduced by at least half a percentage point. But although experts estimate that sequestration could cost the country about 700,000 jobs, Wall Street does not expect the cuts to substantially reduce corporate profits — or seriously threaten the recent rally in the stock markets.
“It’s minimal,” said Savita Subramanian, head of United States equity and quantitative strategy at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Over all, the sequester could reduce earnings at the biggest companies by just over 1 percent, she said, adding, “the market wants more austerity.”...
My god, I'm surrounded by nerds.
What's the basis for deciding when language is used poorly and incorrectly?
Rather than think of change in this censorious mode, why not look at it from a mental or psychological standpoint. Why does the mind of so many want to conflate this?
Morty, you're just complicating it unnecessarily.
Let me just say more thing, then I will clear the floor as to this subject.
sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
... for all the institutional benefits of being a Bush—a ready-made political and fundraising structure fueled by the promise of restoration to power—the reality is that his prospects would be far better if his last name were anything but “Bush.”
With another surname, Jeb would have catapulted to the top ranks of contenders back in 2012 on his own merits, as a popular former swing-state governor with a bold record as an education reformer and demonstrated success at winning over Hispanic voters. After Mitt Romney tanked the party’s performance with Hispanics in the last election, most Republicans realize that they need to change course and begin reaching out in earnest. That’s why Jeb’s leadership pushing for comprehensive immigration reform, alongside his brother’s Commerce secretary Carlos Gutierrez and Jeb’s Florida mentee Marco Rubio, is one of the most hopeful prospects for breaking through Washington gridlock this Congress.
A mark of Jeb’s seriousness is his willingness to criticize party power players. Romney comes under particular fire in Immigration Wars for his primary-campaign tactics. “By sharply criticizing Texas governor Rick Perry for his in-state tuition program for certain children of illegal immigrants, and by making his leading immigration advisor a prominent proponent of ‘self-deportation,’ Mitt Romney moved so far to the right on immigration issues that it proved all but impossible for him to appeal to Hispanic voters in the general election,” Bush and Bolick write. “However little or much anti-immigration rhetoric counts in Republican primaries, it surely succeeds in alienating Hispanic voters come the general election.”
This is true—and rarely said so bluntly by Republicans with presidential aspirations.
Certainly, but it remains the fact that W. was always the f@ck-up (and continued to be through 8 years in the White House), and Jeb was always the smart one. And if in fact Jeb wasn't a Bush, there's no question that he would be on the very short list of serious early contenders for the 2016 nomination.
aided & abetted by Three-Finger Tony Scalia & his amazing non-talking puppet, Li'l Clarence
Gingrich offers this assessment of 2012:
“I think conservatives in general got in the habit of talking to themselves. I think that they in a sense got isolated into their own little world. So [did] our pollsters, many of whom were wrong about turnout … You just sort of have to say that to some extent the degree to which we believed that the other side was kidding themselves, it turned out in fact in the real world—this is a part of what makes politics so fascinating—it turned out in the real world we were kidding ourselves.”
That’s a stunning admission. He’s obviously including himself in this indictment, saying he was simply out of touch with objective reality.
Gingrich calls Karl Rove the “final symbol” of this disconnect for arguing with the Fox News decision desk’s election night call on Ohio. That moment, he told Steve Kornacki, “personified a mindset that I was part of and that an amazing number of people were part of.”
Making his first public comments since losing November's presidential election, Romney appeared mystified still that the country didn't see things his way. … Explaining the defeat, Romney and wife Ann spread the blame around -- Mitt to Obama winning over so many blacks and Hispanics by enacting universal healthcare, Ann to a news media she believed unfairly caricatured her husband. … Up until Election Day, husband and wife said, they thought they would win. "We were a little blindsided," Ann Romney told Fox anchor Chris Wallace.
One unintended consequence of Ray putting me on ignore is that whenever I make a new thread, he doesn't see it. That's probably the reason why he hasn't commented recently in these threads.
Explaining the defeat, Romney and wife Ann spread the blame around -- Mitt to Obama winning over so many blacks and Hispanics by enacting universal healthcare
It's worse than that. It's the glib assumption that healthcare is perceived differently by blacks and Hispanics than by whites. Gosh, why might black and Hispanic voters be less than delighted by that?
Mitt to Obama winning over so many blacks and Hispanics by enacting universal healthcare
Uh-huh. Especially if they're, you know, black or Hispanic.
The key to the 2012 election summed up. Obama promised Pet Liberal Victims that he would give them a bunch of free stuff, and that caused enough of them to vote for him to make the difference.
By general rule of thumb, liberals lazy, leeching minorities on the lower end of the wealth scale want free stuff; conservatives good, hard-working white people on the lower end of the wealth scale don't.
Translated from Rayspeak.
Many people who say the things Ray constantly says believe the things you say @178,
It it walks like a duck ...
By general rule of thumb, liberals on the lower end of the wealth scale want free stuff; conservatives on the lower end of the wealth scale don't.
It is sometimes a goose. If Ray says something racist, I'll be one of the first to take him down for it. But he hasn't, and your accusation above is out of line.
But that's just it: it isn't just Ray saying it.
This seems, to me, to imply a lot more thought on the part of voters than they actually exercise. I highly doubt the liberal base voted for Obama because of anything he promised; they voted for him because he was a Democrat.
It's the glib assumption that healthcare is perceived differently by blacks and Hispanics than by whites.
I think health insurance is perceived differently by people who think it's something to be earned through working to pay for it, and people who think it's something to be handed to them by others who work to pay for it.
Of course, what we have seen with regard to the issue of race is that liberal policies have done great harm to the black community by (1) telling minorities they are victims and condescending to them, and (2) marginalizing the father since the ever-increasing welfare state replaces the father meaning that there's no longer any need for the father. And that's what we see in minority communities far too often: children being raised by mothers and aunts and grandmothers, no father in the picture. This is a stark contrast with other communities. Do people dispute this?
Obama voters voted for Obama because they agreed with his vision of what government is there for - social justice and defense of the weak against the predation of the strong - moreso than they agreed with Mitt Romney's vision of what government was for.
Do you see how the inference could reasonably be made?
Father's have disappeared from the AA community because "conservative" "tough on crime" laws and a police state apparatus that is still functionally, if not intentionally, racialist in practice, has thrown the fathers in prison in a fit of drug and culture hysteria.
Of course, what we have seen with regard to the issue of race is that liberal policies have done great harm to the black community by (1) telling minorities they are victims
(2) marginalizing the father since the ever-increasing welfare state replaces the father meaning that there's no longer any need for the father. And that's what we see in minority communities far too often: children being raised by mothers and aunts and grandmothers, no father in the picture. This is a stark contrast with other communities. Do people dispute this?
Then why did he campaign at all? He had a D next to his name, which -- presto! -- is according to you an instant Can O' Victory! He could have saved a lot of time, money, and hassle.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 3.1079 seconds, 74 querie(s) executed