somebody wrote:
> The "'s" (i.e. "of") need not always indicate possession; "a day's work"
> doesn't mean the day owns the work. A "day's work" is "work _of_ a day('s
> worth)", a "week's notice" is "a notice _of_ a week('s duration)"...

Which is possession.  "The property of Tim" is grammatically equivalent 
to "Tim's property".  "A day's work", as shorthand for "a day's worth of 
work", that is to say, is equivalent to "the worth of a day of work"; 
the day possesses the *value* of the work done.

...I think.

I just made myself really confused trying to re-read that, so I'll shut 
up now.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.digitalartsuk.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Which is possession.  "The property of Tim" is grammatically equivalent 
> to "Tim's property".  "A day's work", as shorthand for "a day's worth of 
> work", that is to say, is equivalent to "the worth of a day of work"; 
> the day possesses the *value* of the work done.

  When I was in school they told us that in English "'s" should only be
used with people, otherwise the "of" version should be used. For example,
you shouldn't say "the house's window" but "the window of the house".

  However, I see this "rule" being broken constantly everywhere, so I'm not
at all sure if it really applies, or if it does, when. I have to admit that
for example "a day's work" sounds ok, perhaps even better than "the work of
a day".

  OTOH, there are situations where it's clearly misused. For example,
I have seen "not as scary as you two's faces", which sounds really awkward.
I would say "not as scary as the faces of you two" would be much better.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I'm loving how they mix "week's" and "weeks'". Mmm, nice grammar.

  Look who's talking. ;)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> You did know you wee chantie rascal :)

Of course *I* know it - how am I going to award points if I don't know 
the correct answer myself? ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   However, I see this "rule" being broken constantly everywhere, so I'm not
> at all sure if it really applies, or if it does, when. I have to admit that
> for example "a day's work" sounds ok, perhaps even better than "the work of
> a day".
> 
>   OTOH, there are situations where it's clearly misused. For example,
> I have seen "not as scary as you two's faces", which sounds really awkward.
> I would say "not as scary as the faces of you two" would be much better.

FWIW, I agree.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:

> Actually, it's "weeks'" - it's a possessive plural.

Indeed.

>>> Hey, I've been meaning to mention, you'd make a good writer. 
>>> Seriously, you use the English language quite well.
>> Really? Apart from the minor detail that I can't spell? (Indeed, that
>> guy fron Finland can spell English words better than I can...)
> 
> Well, apart from "fron" in the above paragraph, I hadn't noticed your 
> inability to spell.  Reading your posts here and in your blog, I've been 
> impressed by the quality of writing you turn out.

That's a typing error, not a spelling error. ;-)

> Besides, spelling and grammar checking are what editors are for. :-)

Heh! Who wants to be editor for my NG submissions? :-D

Oh, wait... nothing would ever get submitted. :-S

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I'm loving how they mix "week's" and "weeks'". Mmm, nice grammar.
> 
>   Look who's talking. ;)

Thanks for that. :-P

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Which is possession.  "The property of Tim" is grammatically equivalent
>> to "Tim's property".  "A day's work", as shorthand for "a day's worth of
>> work", that is to say, is equivalent to "the worth of a day of work";
>> the day possesses the *value* of the work done.
>
>  When I was in school they told us that in English "'s" should only be
> used with people, otherwise the "of" version should be used. For example,
> you shouldn't say "the house's window" but "the window of the house".

Yeh I was told that too, the reasoning being that only people could own 
things in the strictest sense of possession.  I try to use that most of the 
time but often it just sounds wrong.

What also confused me at an early age was why "its" didn't have an 
apostrophe, as in  "its lid is hot".  In my mind, it was indicating 
possession, like saying "the car's roof is red", why not "it's roof is red" 
(when you're using "it" instead of "the car")?

>  OTOH, there are situations where it's clearly misused. For example,
> I have seen "not as scary as you two's faces", which sounds really 
> awkward.
> I would say "not as scary as the faces of you two" would be much better.

"not as scary as your two faces" sounds better to me.  No idea if it's 
correct or not.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Wed, 06 Feb 2008 22:00:18 -0000, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull>  
did spake, saying:

> Stephen wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 21:53:53 +0000, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>
>>> For 5 points, somebody tell me which one of those is the *correct* one  
>>> given the intended meaning. [Yes, they mean different things. No, you  
>>> can't just pick whichever one you fancy...]
>>  The rule is: apostrophe "s" if it belongs to the word. Plain "s" if it  
>> is a
>> plural.
>
> And if it belongs *and* is plural... apostrophe *after* the S. (But not  
> a lot of people know that.)
>
> So it should, in fact, be "one week's notice" and "four weeks' notice"  
> respectively. Interesting how they got it right later but messed up at  
> the beginning...

Or as Warp suggests a "notice of one week" and a "notice of four weeks".  
I'm still stuck on a site near me - is it "Weavers Wharf" as advertised,  
"Weaver's Wharf" as the council put it, or possible "Weavers' Wharf" which  
is what I called it?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> "not as scary as your two faces" sounds better to me.  No idea if it's 
> correct or not.

  That would mean a person with two faces... :P

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message