Grammar question

Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2

Grammar question; double possessive
Tweet Topic Started: Nov 21 2012, 05:17 AM (460 Views)
Axtremus	Nov 21 2012, 05:17 AM Post #1
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 35,700 Group: Members Member #15 Joined: April 18, 2005	I just wrote this snippet: Papa John's CEO ... Since the name is actually Papa John's (already in the form of a possessive), when referring to its CEO, should it have been: Papa John's's CEO ... ? Also, regarding the title, should be it "double possessive" or "double possessives"?



LWpianistin	Nov 21 2012, 05:30 AM Post #2
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 12,670 Group: Members Member #306 Joined: January 1, 2006	The CEO of papa johns. Problem solved.
	And how are you today?


LWpianistin	Nov 21 2012, 05:30 AM Post #3
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 12,670 Group: Members Member #306 Joined: January 1, 2006	The CEO of papa johns. Problem solved.
	And how are you today?


John D'Oh	Nov 21 2012, 05:37 AM Post #4
MAMIL Posts: 53,812 Group: Members Member #276 Joined: October 19, 2005	You can say that again. Filthy Papa John's's. We hates them.
	What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?


Klaus	Nov 21 2012, 05:45 AM Post #5
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 19,403 Group: Members Member #350 Joined: May 21, 2006	The 's operation is idempotent.
	Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman


Klaus	Nov 21 2012, 05:56 AM Post #6
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 19,403 Group: Members Member #350 Joined: May 21, 2006	While we are talking about properties of the English genitive, I wonder whether some kind of distributive law holds for it. For instance, the following are obviously correct sentence fragments: My father My father's father If I want to talk about the father of my father's father, it seems that, semantically, I should write: My (father's father)'s father. Does the distributive law hold: My (father's father)'s father == My father's's father's father Or maybe a right-biased distributive law: My (father's father)'s father == My father's' father's father And how should I write the common: My (father's father) (father's (father's father))'s father?
	Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman


John D'Oh	Nov 21 2012, 06:16 AM Post #7
MAMIL Posts: 53,812 Group: Members Member #276 Joined: October 19, 2005	I'd just say 'great great great great great grandad' He was really great.
	What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?


Aqua Letifer	Nov 21 2012, 06:40 AM Post #8
ZOOOOOM! Posts: 45,901 Group: Members Member #262 Joined: September 22, 2005	Klaus Nov 21 2012, 05:56 AM While we are talking about properties of the English genitive, I wonder whether some kind of distributive law holds for it. It doesn't. Father's father's father's father is perfectly legit, no need to use a punctuation that wasn't even a part of the original language in the first place. The thing about English is that it's not a romance language. Monks who began transcribing its earliest works used Latin as a model for explaining its grammar, because Latin was for them the language of learning and philosophy. But English doesn't at all work that way. We have gerunds, passive vs. active voice and adverbial phrases because the key to English is that where the words are in a sentence is not all that important. And back in the days of Old English, it didn't matter at all. As long as you got the verb conjugation, verb tense, pronoun group and noun declension correct (which, yes, is a lot of crap to know), you can say the words in just about any order you want and the sentence will still make just as much sense. (Just as much sense, but the meaning would change slightly, and that's where it gets extremely interesting. ) English has gone through a hell of a lot of changes in the past 1,000 years but this is still the core of it, and you can see it everywhere. So possessives, verb attribution and noun agreement are the big things you have to get right. How you put those things together is very much up to you.
	I cite irreconcilable differences.


JBryan	Nov 21 2012, 06:46 AM Post #9
I am the grey one Posts: 28,082 Group: Members Member #32 Joined: April 19, 2005	So, is there an answer to Ax's question in all that? Or - So, question an in that there to all Ax's is answer?
	"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter.


Aqua Letifer	Nov 21 2012, 06:50 AM Post #10
ZOOOOOM! Posts: 45,901 Group: Members Member #262 Joined: September 22, 2005	JBryan Nov 21 2012, 06:46 AM So, is there an answer to Ax's question in all that? Or - So, question an in that there to all Ax's is answer? Yeah, I really don't listen too much to what Ax says. I saw the thread was about grammar and wanted to say something. LW has it right. I suppose Papa John's's wouldn't be incorrect, but it is damn barbarous so the question becomes moot anyway. Do what LW suggests.
	I cite irreconcilable differences.


Renauda	Nov 21 2012, 06:53 AM Post #11
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 10,507 Group: Members Member #505 Joined: September 5, 2007	Aqua Letifer Nov 21 2012, 06:40 AM And back in the days of Old English, it didn't matter at all. As long as you got the verb conjugation, verb tense, pronoun group and noun declension correct (which, yes, is a lot of crap to know), you can say the words in just about any order you want and the sentence will still make just as much sense. (Just as much sense, but the meaning would change slightly, and that's where it gets extremely interesting. ) Slavic languages are still like that.



Axtremus	Nov 21 2012, 06:54 AM Post #12
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 35,700 Group: Members Member #15 Joined: April 18, 2005	Or may be just Papa John's' CEO ... omitting the "s" for the possessive if the noun already ends with an "s."



Aqua Letifer	Nov 21 2012, 06:58 AM Post #13
ZOOOOOM! Posts: 45,901 Group: Members Member #262 Joined: September 22, 2005	Axtremus Nov 21 2012, 06:54 AM Or may be just Papa John's' CEO ... omitting the "s" for the possessive if the noun already ends with an "s." Nope, I wouldn't. Because then what would you do if Papa John's had more than one CEO?
	I cite irreconcilable differences.


Axtremus	Nov 21 2012, 07:09 AM Post #14
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 35,700 Group: Members Member #15 Joined: April 18, 2005	Aqua Letifer Nov 21 2012, 06:58 AM Axtremus Nov 21 2012, 06:54 AM Or may be just Papa John's' CEO ... omitting the "s" for the possessive if the noun already ends with an "s." Nope, I wouldn't. Because then what would you do if Papa John's had more than one CEO? Papa John's' CEOs?



Aqua Letifer	Nov 21 2012, 07:14 AM Post #15
ZOOOOOM! Posts: 45,901 Group: Members Member #262 Joined: September 22, 2005	Axtremus Nov 21 2012, 07:09 AM Aqua Letifer Nov 21 2012, 06:58 AM Axtremus Nov 21 2012, 06:54 AM Or may be just Papa John's' CEO ... omitting the "s" for the possessive if the noun already ends with an "s." Nope, I wouldn't. Because then what would you do if Papa John's had more than one CEO? Papa John's' CEOs? Yep. So Papa John's' CEO is not as correct as it should be.
	I cite irreconcilable differences.


Axtremus	Nov 21 2012, 07:19 AM Post #16
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 35,700 Group: Members Member #15 Joined: April 18, 2005	Aqua Letifer Nov 21 2012, 07:14 AM Axtremus Nov 21 2012, 07:09 AM Aqua Letifer Nov 21 2012, 06:58 AM Axtremus Nov 21 2012, 06:54 AM Or may be just Papa John's' CEO ... omitting the "s" for the possessive if the noun already ends with an "s." Nope, I wouldn't. Because then what would you do if Papa John's had more than one CEO? Papa John's' CEOs? Yep. So Papa John's' CEO is not as correct as it should be. But if we're referring to only one CEO, then "Papa John's' CEO" would be correct, right?



JBryan	Nov 21 2012, 07:23 AM Post #17
I am the grey one Posts: 28,082 Group: Members Member #32 Joined: April 19, 2005
	"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter.


Aqua Letifer	Nov 21 2012, 07:31 AM Post #18
ZOOOOOM! Posts: 45,901 Group: Members Member #262 Joined: September 22, 2005	Axtremus Nov 21 2012, 07:19 AM But if we're referring to only one CEO, then "Papa John's' CEO" would be correct, right? Nope. If it's a singular noun then you need the "s".
	I cite irreconcilable differences.


John D'Oh	Nov 21 2012, 07:52 AM Post #19
MAMIL Posts: 53,812 Group: Members Member #276 Joined: October 19, 2005	Wouldn't it be easier to just refer to 'that asshole'?
	What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?


Klaus	Nov 21 2012, 08:06 AM Post #20
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 19,403 Group: Members Member #350 Joined: May 21, 2006	Aqua Letifer Nov 21 2012, 06:40 AM Klaus Nov 21 2012, 05:56 AM While we are talking about properties of the English genitive, I wonder whether some kind of distributive law holds for it. It doesn't. Father's father's father's father is perfectly legit, no need to use a punctuation that wasn't even a part of the original language in the first place. But the point is: There is a difference between my dad's grandpa, and my grandpa's dad. Or, to make the difference more clear: The mother of my father's father is not the same as my father's mother of my father. So, my (father's father's) mother is not the same as my father's (father's mother). It seems that there is a language ambiguity without the brackets!
	Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman


Aqua Letifer	Nov 21 2012, 08:07 AM Post #21
ZOOOOOM! Posts: 45,901 Group: Members Member #262 Joined: September 22, 2005	Klaus Nov 21 2012, 08:06 AM It seems that there is a language ambiguity without the brackets! There are always a couple of different ways to say what it is you want to say.
	I cite irreconcilable differences.


Klaus	Nov 21 2012, 08:20 AM Post #22
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 19,403 Group: Members Member #350 Joined: May 21, 2006	Aqua Letifer Nov 21 2012, 08:07 AM Klaus Nov 21 2012, 08:06 AM It seems that there is a language ambiguity without the brackets! There are always a couple of different ways to say what it is you want to say. In the formal language community, we tend to avoid ambiguities like the plague! Ambiguity is the Vietnam of grammar theory If I could redesign English, we'd all speak and write in s-expression syntax. Well, I guess it is better that I can't
	Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman


Aqua Letifer	Nov 21 2012, 08:23 AM Post #23
ZOOOOOM! Posts: 45,901 Group: Members Member #262 Joined: September 22, 2005	Klaus Nov 21 2012, 08:20 AM In the formal language community, we tend to avoid ambiguities like the plague! Ambiguity is the Vietnam of grammar theory Well good luck with that. As you know, language is not a uniform and homogeneous mode of communication, and each language has its particular strengths, weaknesses and exceptional cases. But if your writing or speaking draws attention to these inconsistencies then ur doin it rong.
	I cite irreconcilable differences.


Klaus	Nov 21 2012, 08:32 AM Post #24
HOLY CARP!!! Posts: 19,403 Group: Members Member #350 Joined: May 21, 2006	Aqua Letifer Nov 21 2012, 08:23 AM Klaus Nov 21 2012, 08:20 AM In the formal language community, we tend to avoid ambiguities like the plague! Ambiguity is the Vietnam of grammar theory Well good luck with that. As you know, language is not a uniform and homogeneous mode of communication, and each language has its particular strengths, weaknesses and exceptional cases. But if your writing or speaking draws attention to these inconsistencies then ur doin it rong. Well, I for one am not one of the hardliners when it comes to ambiguity. I think in natural language a certain controlled form of ambiguity is not a flaw but a feature of the language. It means that a text can be understood in different ways, and this can sparkle creativity, even in ways not intended by the author. Even formally unambiguous texts can be quite ambiguous; for instance, if I ask my wife whether she feels alright and she answers "yes", this can mean a million things, the least likely of which is "yes". But not being able to distinguish a father-mother-father line from a father-father-mother line is just stupid. By the way, Aqua, since we are here talking about language anyway: Do you know deconstruction? What do you think of it? I am currently evaluating whether it is worth looking into it more seriously.
	Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman


JBryan	Nov 21 2012, 08:48 AM Post #25
I am the grey one Posts: 28,082 Group: Members Member #32 Joined: April 19, 2005	We could always just do like the Germans and hang the verb on the end.
	"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it". Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody. Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore. From The Lion in Winter.

Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience. Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2