Conference thebay::joyoflex

    If "Duga" is the name of the store's owner, then the proper us of
    the apostrophe would be "Duga's."  If the owner's name is "Dugas,"
    then the proper use would be "Dugas's." 
    
    Bernie

    Re .1:
    
    Now that depends ... on quite what seems to be debatable also ...
    
    Some would have us believe that the only exception to the general
    rule is 
    
    St James's Park
    
    otherwise the formation is if the owner ends in 's', either in the
    singular or plural then add an apostrophe only, otherwise add an
    apostrophe and 's'.
    
    Others would have us use rules according to .1 

    Re: .2
    
    Not so.  The rule in English is that possessive singular of nouns
    is formed by adding 's.  Here, for example, is what Strunk and
    White say in _The Elements of Style_:
    
    	1. Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's.
    
    	Follow this rule whatever the final consonant.  Thus write,
    
    		Charles's friend
    		Burns's poems
    		the witch's malice
    
    	Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in -es and
    	-is, the possessive _Jesus'_, and such forms as _for conscience'
    	sake_, _for righteousness' sake_.
    
    Bernie

    The Harbrace College Handbook, Ninth Edition (1982) says that
    either Dugas' or Dugas's would be correct; it indicates that
    common [American] practice is to use the extra "s" except before
    words beginning with an s or z sound. 
    
    "Superette" does begin with an S, so the spelling "Dugas'
    Superette" conforms to the most common American practice. 

    --bonnie
    
    p.s. Strunk and White are wonderful.  If you adhere strictly to
    their rules, you will have a wonderful style.  But you're also
    likely to think that the English language is simpler and more
    structured than it is.  They are prone to oversimplify.

    The classic "rootless" word is "bus" (as in Greyhound).
    Its origin is "omnibus"--meaning transport for all classes,
    and the "-bus" part is just a Latin grammatical ending.
    
    				-John Bishop

    Re .4
    
>>    p.s. Strunk and White are wonderful.  If you adhere strictly to
>>    their rules, you will have a wonderful style.  But you're also
>>    likely to think that the English language is simpler and more
>>    structured than it is.  They are prone to oversimplify.

    Shouldn't that be:
    
    p.s. Strunk and White is wonderful.  If you adhere strictly to
    its rules, ...        ^^
    ^^^
    
    Dan

    re:.6
    
    Well, doesn't it all depend on whether Bonnie was referring
    to "Strunk and White" as a book, or "Strunk and White" as the
    authors of said book?
    
    I suppose it could go either way, but I would side with Bonnie's
    usage. Consider a different example with only one author, THE
    MISS MANNERS GUIDE TO EXCRUCIATINGLY CORRECT BEHAVIOR, which is
    referred to as simply "Miss Manners" as much as STRUNK & WHITE'S
    MANUAL OF STYLE is referred to as simply "Strunk & White". Which
    of the following would you be more likely to say?
    
    (a) "Miss Manners is wonderful. If you adhere strictly to its rules,
    	you will behave most correctly."
    
    or
    
    (b) "Miss Manners is wonderful. If you adhere strictly to her rules,
    	you will behave most correctly."
    
    I'd be inclined to use (b), which is the form that Bonnie used.
    
    --- jerry

    Re: .4
    
    It's a beautiful spring day in the Rocky Mountains, so what the
    hell...
    
    At the risk of causing another round of indignant comments about
    elitism: Harbrace is dead wrong if it says that that is the rule
    in English.  Or, to paraphrase Mr Bumble: If that's what Harbrace
    says, then Harbrace is an ass.
    
    It is certainly true that in many places it is common practice to
    form the singular possessive by adding only the apostrophe, and
    where that is done it is regarded as acceptable.  It is not, however,
    the rule.  The rule is stated succinctly in the _Oxford Guide to
    English Usage_ (the biggest gun I could find):
    
    	Nouns ending in s add 's for the singular possessive, e.g.
    
    		boss's			Hicks's
    		Burns's			St James's Square
    		Charles's		Tess's
    		Father Christmas's	Thomas's
    
    No one is saying that people who add only the apostrophe are stupid
    or are working an evil on the world or are not making themselves
    understood.  They are simply violating the rule.  If they don't
    like the rule, for whatever reason, they are free to ignore it.
    
    Bernie
            

    Re: .6 & .7
    
    After he made _The Birds_, Alfred Hitchcock appeared in the television
    commercials for the film.  He seemed to enjoy standing with a crow
    on his shoulder, looking directly into the camera, and saying slowly
    
    		_The Birds_ is coming.
    
    
    Incidentally, Hitchcock's statement and the point Jerry made in
    .7 show how powerful English can be if it is used properly.  When
    Bonnie says "Strunk and White are wonderful," we _know_ from the
    verb form that she refers to the authors.  Had she said "Strunk
    and White is wonderful," we would have known that she referred to
    the book.  Both statements are correct; they have different meanings.
    I believe that Bonnie knows this and that she said what she meant.
    
    Bernie
    

    re:.8
    
    If you're going to paraphrase Mr. Bumble, at least do it
    correctly:
    
    "If that's what Harbrace says, then Harbrace is a ass."
    						    ^
    --- jerry

    re: .9
    
    Thank you, Bernie.  I only wish more readers would give the author
    that much benefit of the doubt. 
    
    However:
    
    re: .8
    
    And what makes Oxford more correct than Harbrace, beyond the
    fact that Oxford happens to agree with you?  Who is to say?
    
    My whole point is that when major authorities can't agree on how
    the language works, we are not being helpful or correct to accuse
    someone of breaking a rule. 
    
    There is no single rule for this case.  There are choices. The
    whole English language is full of choices for which there are no
    useful rules and barely any guidelines.  There are choices that
    may influence meaning, there are choices that change the
    connotation, there are choices that may impact style, there are
    choices that make the rhythm limp, and there are choices that
    don't seem to really matter in a given context.  On a small
    shop's sign, the presence or absence of the s after the apostrophe
    is most likely immaterial; in a poem, where adding the s also
    adds a syllable, the difference might be critical.  
    
    These choices give a writer incredible flexibility and power in
    expressing thought, mood, and emotion.  The words resonate with
    history, with the possibly ambiguous meaning and the implications
    of why the author chose this word rather than that, this usage
    rather than that, a complex parallel construction in a single
    sentence rather than a series of parallel sentences. 
    
    The style advocated by Strunk and White is willing to sacrifice
    much of this power and flexibility for the sake of simplicity
    and clarity.  To reach those ends, they treat as absolute rules
    matters that are in fact a matter of choice.  
    
    That's fine if you like it; certainly when I'm writing a user
    manual I keep the style simple and stay as close as I can to
    traditional grammar.  But the Strunk and White style is not the
    only possible style. Nor is it the single ideal. 
    
    --bonnie

    Re: .10
    
    I think you've raised nit picking to a new level.
    
    If you're going to correct the paraphrase, at least do it right.
    Mr Bumble said "If that's what the law expects, then the law is a
    ass."                                  ^^^^^^^
    
    This raises an interesting question: when is a paraphrase to be
    considered incorrect?  In so far as a paraphrase is a rewording,
    doesn't the paraphraser have the option of choosing which words
    to change? 
    
    Re: .11
    
    Your whole description of choices in the language is probably true,
    but it is probably no more true of English than it is of any other
    language on the planet.  So what?  One can make good choices or
    bad choices, one can violate rules accepted by the literate or violate
    them, one can communicate or fail do do so.
    
    > What makes Oxford more correct than Harbrace, beyond the fact
    > that Oxford happens to agree with you?  Who is to say?
    
    I am surpised you would ask that.  Do you believe that any book
    on grammar is as good as any other?  Surely some are better and
    some are very bad.  Comparing Oxford and Harbrace is like comparing
    chicken salad with chicken shit.  First of all, Oxford doesn't agree
    with me; I look to it as an authority; I read what it says, and
    I accept the fact that 's forms the singular possessive.  I do this
    because I recognize the fact that the prime movers in the language,
    whom I respect - novelists, editors, critics, etc look to the language
    publications of Oxford University Press as the most accurate, practical,
    consistent, and scholarly available.  One would look to Harbrace
    only if he or she wished to follow the practices of half-literate
    American college freshmen.
    
    Again, if anyone doesn't like the rule, or decides not to follow
    it for whatever reason, they may do so.  What they may not do is
    deny its existence.  In other words, there _is_ a single rule for
    this case, although there is not a single practice.
    
    Bernie                                     
    
    Bernie

    re:.12
    
    To keep this topic from digressing, I started a new topic on
    paraphrasing.
    
    --- jerry

    And I'll reinstate the original topic, by posting a sort of reply.
    I say `sort of' because, mercifully, this `word' hasn't found its
    way into the language.
    
    A recently televised repeat of an early Bond film has The Villain
    referring to his one-man submarine as a `bathysub' - that's (Gk)
    batho-, meaning deep, and (Lat) sub, meaning under. I suspect that the
    jargon associate with new technology often strings prefixes and
    suffixes together like that, but I can't cite any real examples as I'm
    not conversant with developments in language like that (although the
    people I work with might expect me to be).
    
    b 
     

    re: .12
    
    Other than your obvious reverence for British academics and some
    name-calling, your note did not give one solid reason why the
    people who wrote the Harbrace handbook are inferior in education,
    credentials, or experience to the people who wrote the Oxford
    guide.  
    
    True, many editors, novelists, et cetera turn to the Oxford
    guide as if it had a right to impose rules.  However, a great
    many novelists, editors, and so on DON'T think it's the greatest
    thing since sliced bread.  
    
    The argument that I should use this guide because all the right
    people do it reminds me of a cigarette campaign from my childhood
    when R. J. Reynolds tried to convince us we should smoke brand X
    because all the right people in business and entertainment said it
    was a clearly superior smoke. 

    --bonnie

    Talking about "rootless words" , oxymorons, and least favourite
    words, I nominate the horrible TELETHON and WALKATHON. 
    
    	roger    	

    Re: .15
    
    > Other than your obvious reverence for British academics and some
    > name-calling, your note did not give one solid reason why the
    > people who wrote the Harbrace handbook are inferior in education,
    > credentials, or experience to the people who wrote the Oxford
    > guide.
    
    Pure sophistry.
    
    I explained why I look to the Oxford publications.  You did not
    explain why you don't.  "Reverence" is an interesting word.  In
    so far as it implies respect, I have that for the Oxford publications
    along with virtually every editor, publisher, and writer in the
    language.  In so far as it implies that the object of admiration
    is sacred, nothing I said warrents the word.
    
    I used descriptive language, but did no name calling.
    
    It was not my purpose to attack the authors of Harbrace.  In fact,
    I did not think it was necessary.  All one need do is read through
    it and its horrors become apparent.
    
    > The argument that I should use this guide because all the right
    > people do it reminds me of a cigarette campaign from my childhood
    > when R. J. Reynolds tried to convince us we should smoke brand
    > X because all the right people in business and entertainment said
    > it was a clearly superior smoke.
    
    How strange.  Why should it remind you of that?  My point was quite
    different.  The analogy that holds would compare what I said to
    a rational conclusion that one should _avoid_ tobacco based on the
    evidence provided by experts in medical research.  Nothing I said
    should lead you to the conclusion that the experts I admire are
    false - quite the opposite.  R. J. Reynolds has no expertise in
    medicine or biology.  Oxford does have vast expertise in English
    grammar and usage.  You could draw your conclusion only if you first
    assume that Oxford has no more claim to expertise in English than
    a tobacco company has in medicine.  Do you wish to make that
    assumption?
    
    
    I suspect that the real issue here is that some of us are
    unwilling to admit that there really are rules of English grammar
    and that some familiar usages may violate those rules.  There seems
    to be a trend in recent years towards a kind of grammatical
    egalitarianism, a view that no one grammatical practice is better
    than another.  So long as people use it, it is correct.  The notion
    of poor grammar is regarded as false.  I am not one of those people.
    I believe there are rules of English grammar and (for the reasons I
    gave in .12) that the Oxford publications are the best source for
    learning them.
    
    Bernie
    of all of the sources for determining the rules, that 

    G'day,
    
    re -.1 last para.. Couldn't have put it better myself.

    I, too, agree; I think the rot can be traced to Chomsky who avowedly
    used the term `grammar' with what he called `systematic ambiguity'.
    Usually he, and his myriad disciples, use the word `grammar' in
    a specialist sense that I shan't try to explain this late on a Friday
    afternoon.
    
    I hope no one will overinterpret `rot'.  I'm not saying anyone wrote
    rot; I'm referring to a process.  That process may well have started
    long before 1957 (or whenever Chomsky's first book-length publication
    was dated).  But I date my awareness of the process to the day I first
    met the words `systematic ambiguity'. 

    b

    All this argument about the name Dugas, and how to form the possessive
    correctly - and nobody pointed out the obvious.  This is not a normal
    word ending in s, as the s is silent (it's a French name).  The
    possessive shouldn't add an 's' sound, therefor the form Dugas'
    is in my book correct.
    
    Jeff

    The `word' "telethon" has already been listed somewhere here (I
    think as someone's least-favoured word). If people accept it as
    a word (and lots of people do, especially since DIGITAL has got
    involved in one), I think it's a candidate for this note. I say 
    `think' because I haven't done any research on the `-thon' part.

    The `tele-' (as in television, telepathy, telemetry etc.) means
    something like distant; it doesn't, as the coiners of `telethon' would
    prefer, mean of or pertaining to television. I suspect the `-thon' part
    is the neuter singular ending of an adjective referring to the place in
    Greece known as Marathon. Or perhaps it's just a locative suffix. At
    any rate, `-thon' doesn't mean a sustained or gruelling effort (as the
    coiners of `telethon' would prefer). 

    b

	As this word has also been used on French television I
	suppose you could insist on using the word 'thon' as a
	noun...

    re: .7
    
    > re:.6
    >
    > Well, doesn't it all depend on whether Bonnie was referring
    > to "Strunk and White" as a book, or "Strunk and White" as the
    > authors of said book?
    
    Off on a quasi-related tangent:
    Is the southern food grits singular, plural, or both?  For example,
    is it more proper to say "Grits is good for you." or "Grits are
    good for you." ?
    
    duane

    What about the new news thing of linking past events to new ones
    via the use of a common pre/suf fix?
    
    Watergate -> Irangate    + several others
    ABSCAM    -> Iranscam

    I, for one get really tired of seeing a 15 year old news story keep
    rearing its ugly face, simply because your average journalist needs
    to spoon-feed Joe Q. Public news he can understand.  Maybe even
    some of the communications skills some journalists once possessed(?)
    have simply atrophied with continued disuse?

    duane

    Re .23 (Duane):
    
    Semi-plural.  Whenever I was in restaurants in Huntsville (in the
    old Space Program days), pointing at grits, the servers would refer
    to the stuff as "they" or "them."  But I've heard it used in singluar
    form, too (and no puns, please).
    
    My wife _refuses_ to eat grits because the name sounds terrible
    to her.
    
    Grits is/are delicious, though.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    A girl from Alabama told me years ago that the problem arises
    because the food known as grits is not normally consumed in areas
    where standard English is normally spoken. 
    
    The correct sentence is either "Grits is good for you," if you
    think they are, or "Grits ain't good for you" if you hold the
    opposite opinion. 
    
    --bonnie

     Re .-1
     
>>     If'n ya like 'em:         If'n ya hate 'em:
                    ^^^                       ^^^
     
     I count the above as a vote for plural. :-)
     
     Dan

    re:.23
    
    "Grits" is a comestible, "Grit" is a newspaper. :-)
    
    re:.24
    
    I share your loathing for the "-gate" suffix. I have to admit,
    however, that it was almost worth putting up with just so some
    wit could (and did) refer to the Jim Bakker scandal as "Pearly-
    gate".
    
    --- jerry

    I heard that 'grits' is a corruption of 'groats'.  As a Scotsman
    you should know what they are :-)
    
    Jeff.

    re:.31
    
    I've neither heard nor considered that as an origin of "grits",
    not having even encountered the word "groats" in over 15 years
    (the only time I ever came across it is on a Firesign Theater
    album). I just looked it up in the AHD, but there's no etymology
    given for "grits". That it comes from "groats" certainly makes
    sense, though, since both foods are essentially the same thing.
    
    --- jerry

    Re .32
    
    Both foods? I thought groats were 4d. Perhaps that's what grits cost?

    b
    

  So, when you order grits, hominy do you get?

  JP
    

    I always thought they called it grits because it tasted like sand
    between your teeth! 

    Webster's Ninth Collegiate says that the word "grits" dates back
    to (are you ready for this?) at least the 12th century.
    Definition: ground hominy with the germ removed.  It's derived
    from the Middle English "gryt", OE "grytt". 
    
    "Groats" is the same age.  It's defined as "hulled grain broken
    into fragments larger than grits." A groat, singular, is "a grain
    (as of oats) exclusive of the hull."  It's derived from ME
    "grotes", OE "grotan", the plural of "grot". 
    
    Both "grytt" and "grot" are akin to "greot", the word for "grit"
    meaning sand. 

    Both grits and groats are described as "usually plural but
    singular or plural in construction."
    
    --bonnie

    No one in the South serves grits.  Although they seem rather fond of
    gree'-its.
    
    Bernie                                                      

    Waitress at the Opryland Hotel, in reply to the question, "How're
    the grits?":
    
    "I don't eat them grits.  Them grits make yuh stupid."
    

        When I heard (on Television?) that grits were corn soaked in
        lye, there was no way to get me to eat it/them.

    Re: .20
    
    Even if the name is French, it doesn't make a difference to Oxford:
    
    	French names ending in silent s or x add -'s, which is pronounced
    	z, e.g.
    
    		Dumas's (= Dumah's)    Cremieux's
    
    Bernie

    As a response to this discussion I actually bought a box of
    instant grits a week ago.  I cooked them in boiling salted
    water and ate them hot with a bit of butter...they were quite
    good! they tasted kind of like the pasten pasta that is sold
    for babies...but a slighty more corny taste..
    
    Bonnie J

    Re .31 .32 .33 .34 .35 .36 .37 .38 .40
    
    OK. I'll have the grits.
    
    
    Ian ;^}

    re: grits,
    
    since the food is extracted from the seeds of a grain, that does
    make them "rootless", doesn't it??

    Grits (yum!) remind me of a distant cousin to the topic.  Last night at
    a diner, I ordered a gyro and was asked, "Cohn, mash or rice?"  After
    some gesturing, I understood that I had a choice of corn, mashed
    potatoes or rice as a side dish.
    
    "Cohn" is easily explained by my being in Boston but "mash" (an
    adjective-noun combination replaced by the closest noun to the
    adjective) was new to me.
    
    Ray

    re .42                                               
    
    "mash" is pretty common in Britain for mashed potato - as in "bangers
    and mash" (sausages and mashed potato).
    
    John