lfnetwork.com mark read register faq members calendar

Thread: Opening the lock at the bone dam (aka: Apostrophe debate)
Thread Tools Display Modes
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Old 07-06-2007, 01:23 PM   #1
hermoda
Lurker
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1
Opening the lock at the bone dam (aka: Apostrophe debate)

Hi there!

I am at the at the exit of the woods and I have taken care of the beavers, but I do not know how to open the lock on the outside so that I can drive through with Glottis. Can someone please give me a tip on how to accomplish this?
hermoda is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-06-2007, 02:03 PM   #2
Du Man
Junior Member
 
Du Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 374
Hi to you back!

but your question is in the wrong forum. Go one up and go to Glottis' Garage for game help. none the less though, i'll answer.

have you come across the area with a circle of trees and a single arrow sign roughly in the middle?

by the way, I believe it should be Glottis's Garage, you only use the apostrophy with a possesive plural, so the moderator might like to correct that too as well as moving this thread.
Du Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-07-2007, 07:46 PM   #3
Frenkieee
Rookie
 
Frenkieee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Breda, the Netherlands
Posts: 177
edit: I just read in another thread that English is your mother tongue, so I guess I can't argue with you about this matter


We may have years, we may have hours, but sooner or later, we push up flowers.

Last edited by Frenkieee; 07-08-2007 at 06:35 AM.
Frenkieee is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-07-2007, 08:33 PM   #4
Thrik
Symbolically Compelling
 
Thrik's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 4,202
Hot Topic Starter Forum Veteran LFN Staff Member 
Man, can't believe I didn't notice that!

I did believe the way it's written was correct when I created the forum, but've since learnt otherwise in an unrelated context. Consider it changed. ;

By possessive plural he means the word in question is not only a possessive but also a plural. For example it'd be correct if it were Mechanics' Garage, but since there's only one Glottis it's wrong.


Thrik is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-08-2007, 06:34 AM   #5
Frenkieee
Rookie
 
Frenkieee's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Breda, the Netherlands
Posts: 177
Thanks, never knew that.


We may have years, we may have hours, but sooner or later, we push up flowers.
Frenkieee is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-16-2007, 12:59 AM   #6
Stickywulf
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thrik
By possessive plural he means the word in question is not only a possessive but also a plural. For example it'd be correct if it were Mechanics' Garage, but since there's only one Glottis it's wrong.
The correct spelling is Glottis' Garage
or mechanic's garage. (singular - only one mechanic)
or mechanics' garage. (plural - more than one mechanic)

Since the plural and singular of Glottis is both spelt the same, the only correct spelling of the possessive proper noun is Glottis' Garage. The 's' is emphasised in pronunciation, although there is no additional 's' added to the spelling.

Last edited by Stickywulf; 07-16-2007 at 10:04 AM.
Stickywulf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-16-2007, 04:48 AM   #7
Thrik
Symbolically Compelling
 
Thrik's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 4,202
Hot Topic Starter Forum Veteran LFN Staff Member 
There isn't a plural of Glottis, though. It's implicitly singular as it's the name of a single character (although I'm aware the name is based on a word that can legitimately be plural).


Thrik is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-16-2007, 09:36 AM   #8
Du Man
Junior Member
 
Du Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 374
what word is that and what does it mean?
Du Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-16-2007, 09:58 AM   #9
Stickywulf
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thrik
There isn't a plural of Glottis, though. It's implicitly singular as it's the name of a single character (although I'm aware the name is based on a word that can legitimately be plural).
Whether there is a plural for Glottis is irrelevant. The apostrophe is to show that the garage belongs to Glottis. Adding 's after the noun to show ownership is not normally used for words ending in s,x or z.

Examples:
Archimedes' principle.
Marx' theory of history.
Jesus' teachings.
Glottis' garage.

It's OK though. The mispelling has become so common that both are accepted. I prefer the traditional sense, you have embraced the new age.
Stickywulf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-16-2007, 02:31 PM   #10
Du Man
Junior Member
 
Du Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 374
sorry to be a dick, but at least i'm starting to learn more about grammar on my own (even if i never spell right)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickywulf
Adding 's after the noun to show ownership is not normally used for words ending in s,x or z.
Not so according to this source, where not ending a possisve "s" ending noun with an s is considered rather archaic, so I don't see what's "new age" about it.

And for those that might be interested, we are talking about a specific case of the Saxon Genitive

The two reasons why I do it is because (a) it makes sense and makes it visually easier to tell if a word is plural or singular as either way you will already know it's possesive (b) I read an independent (that is, kinko published) comic that devoted a whole panel to explaining why you add an extra "s" after the apostrophy.
Du Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-16-2007, 08:07 PM   #11
Stickywulf
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Du Man
sorry to be a dick, but at least i'm starting to learn more about grammar on my own (even if i never spell right)



Not so according to this source, where not ending a possisve "s" ending noun with an s is considered rather archaic, so I don't see what's "new age" about it.

And for those that might be interested, we are talking about a specific case of the Saxon Genitive

The two reasons why I do it is because (a) it makes sense and makes it visually easier to tell if a word is plural or singular as either way you will already know it's possesive (b) I read an independent (that is, kinko published) comic that devoted a whole panel to explaining why you add an extra "s" after the apostrophy.
The exception is when the pronunciation would be difficult. Also it is important to keep spelling consistent throughout the document so that the same word is not spelt differently on two different occassions.

Punctuation is used to indicate the writers intended pronunciation of the words.

The spelling Glottis's Garage implies pronunciation similar to Glottises Garage. (With two distinct ess sounds).
The spelling Glottis' Garage implies pronunciation similar to Glottiz Garage. (The ess sounds are slurred together).

Imagine the writer needed to describe what tools Glottis has in his garage. Consider these three examples:
a) In Glottis' Garage was Glottis' spanner.
or
b) In Glottis's Garage was Glottis's spanner.
or
c) In Glottis's Garage was Glottis' spanner.

Example 'c' is unnacceptable since it uses two different spellings of the same word. Example 'b' is also unacceptable since it contains a triple sibilant which can be difficult to pronounce. Example 'a' is correct since the spelling is consistent and the implied pronunciation is fluid.

The focus is mostly on Proper Nouns, which are commonly used in different context within the same document. This is why the examples you see as exceptions to the rule are Proper Nouns. In my understanding, the best practice is to punctuate this way if for no reason other than to avoid possible situations where difficult pronunciation would be encountered. The spelling must remain consistent at all times.

This is a much debated topic and I understand that we have different points of view. In the link which you gave, I notice the references are modern and American publications, so it is possible there is a difference depending on geographic location. I admit that since in this case "Glottis's Garage" is a title in a forum which is most likely filled with bad spelling, that either spelling would be correct and the point is somewhat moot.
Stickywulf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-16-2007, 11:05 PM   #12
Du Man
Junior Member
 
Du Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickywulf
The exception is when the pronunciation would be difficult.
I'm not talking about pronunciation, I'm talking about writing, which is what we are doing here.

Quote:
Also it is important to keep spelling consistent throughout the document so that the same word is not spelt differently on two different occassions.
Agreed.

Quote:
Punctuation is used to indicate the writers intended pronunciation of the words.

The spelling Glottis's Garage implies pronunciation similar to Glottises Garage. (With two distinct ess sounds).
The spelling Glottis' Garage implies pronunciation similar to Glottiz Garage. (The ess sounds are slurred together).
This "iz" sound you're making is "es," which is what we normally add to the end of a word when writing to deal with this problem, as in " the classes' ." Also note the word "class" is not a name, thus you can change its spelling.

As for "Glottiz," those ess sounds cannot possibly be slurred together with those two e vowels. You are no longer using the ess sound, you're using iz.

Quote:
Imagine the writer needed to describe what tools Glottis has in his garage. Consider these three examples:
a) In Glottis' Garage was Glottis' spanner.
or
b) In Glottis's Garage was Glottis's spanner.
or
c) In Glottis's Garage was Glottis' spanner.

Example 'c' is unnacceptable since it uses two different spellings of the same word. Example 'b' is also unacceptable since it contains a triple sibilant which can be difficult to pronounce.
(b) is not bad pronounciation, it's bad writing. (b) should be "In Glottis's Garage was his spanner." You already know the name of the subject, no need to repeat it.

Quote:
Example 'a' is correct since the spelling is consistent and the implied pronunciation is fluid.
Great, except I don't know whether Glottis is a place or an actual person, nor do I quickly grasp that Glottis owns the garage.

Quote:
In my understanding, the best practice is to punctuate this way if for no reason other than to avoid possible situations where difficult pronunciation would be encountered. The spelling must remain consistent at all times.
Again, we're not pronouncing, we are writing, and in my understanding good writing puts clarity before pronouncation. I already know the word is a possesive, but it's not clear whether it's singular or plural. It can be Jenny's and it can be Bob's, but I can't tell whether they are James' or it is James's. Frankly I hope you never walk into a room of James. And again, I agree the grammar/spelling must be consistent thoughout the entire document, I'm not stupid.

Quote:
This is a much debated topic and I understand that we have different points of view. In the link which you gave, I notice the references are modern and American publications, so it is possible there is a difference depending on geographic location.
Well according to that same site on the Saxon Genitive "Many English writers have adopted the nonstandard usage (even in formal writing) of adding only an apostrophe for the singular possessive of a noun ending in "s"." Though yes, I understand the site lacks a citation for this, but in my defense you have yet to confront me with another source besides a wiki link.

And yes, I know the Americans haven't used English for years (cookie for the reference), but according do the University of Sussex (which I believe is in Englang, correct?), Larry Trask writes "Do not write things like Jones's, Steve's, Julie's or Eleanor Cross's if you are merely talking about more than one person or thing with that name." "Unless" would be a better word than "merely" to use here, but either way unless you are talking about more than one person or a thing (or locations as you tend to do in England, though London seems to be filled with crazy people), you should add that extra s after the apostrophe for a possesive name ending in s.

Quote:
I admit that since in this case "Glottis's Garage" is a title in a forum which is most likely filled with bad spelling, that either spelling would be correct and the point is somewhat moot.
Just because there's bad spelling dosn't mean one shouldn't bother to correct oneself.
Du Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-17-2007, 04:05 AM   #13
Stickywulf
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Du Man
I'm not talking about pronunciation, I'm talking about writing, which is what we are doing here.
The University of Sussex which you linked to earlier supports spelling the possessive proper noun in cooperation to the way is is pronounced.
"a name ending in s takes only an apostrophe if the possessive form is not pronounced with an extra s. Hence:

Socrates' philosophy
Saint Saens' music
Ulysses' companions
Aristophanes' plays
"

The pronunciation of Glotis's Garage would imply plural even though it is singular. Since the pronunciation could be misinterpreted, the 's' is excluded and the word is pronounced "Glotiz Garage".

Quote:
This "iz" sound you're making is "es," which is what we normally add to the end of a word when writing to deal with this problem, as in " the classes' ." Also note the word "class" is not a name, thus you can change its spelling.
Class becomes classes when it becomes plural. Classes becomes classes' when indicating possession. The ending 's' (classess's) is omitted since the spelling would not correctly convey the pronunciation of the writing (as is the case when showing possession of all plural nouns).

Quote:
As for "Glottiz," those ess sounds cannot possibly be slurred together with those two e vowels. You are no longer using the ess sound, you're using iz.
If you pronounce Glottis's with an ess sound (Glottises) the pronunciation would imply a plural term. Since Glottis is only singular, the pronunciation should be with an elongated ess (Glottiz) so there is no confusion as to whether Glottis is plural or singular.

Quote:
(b) is not bad pronounciation, it's bad writing. (b) should be "In Glottis's Garage was his spanner." You already know the name of the subject, no need to repeat it.
I only used this example to make it simple. Instead, use two sentences:
Manny walked into Glottis's Garage. He then picked up Glottis's spanner.

Quote:
Great, except I don't know whether Glottis is a place or an actual person, nor do I quickly grasp that Glottis owns the garage.
A name can not distinguish itself as a person or place since it is only a name. The possession is shown with the apostrophe, as is its use in the English language.

Quote:
Again, we're not pronouncing, we are writing, and in my understanding good writing puts clarity before pronouncation. I already know the word is a possesive, but it's not clear whether it's singular or plural. It can be Jenny's and it can be Bob's, but I can't tell whether they are James' or it is James's. Frankly I hope you never walk into a room of James. And again, I agree the grammar/spelling must be consistent thoughout the entire document, I'm not stupid.
It is important to have both clarity and pronunciation conveyed. The apostrophe cannot be used to indicate a plural word. You would be walking into a room full of Jameses. There is no apostrophe in this case.

Quote:
Well according to that same site on the Saxon Genitive "Many English writers have adopted the nonstandard usage (even in formal writing) of adding only an apostrophe for the singular possessive of a noun ending in "s"." Though yes, I understand the site lacks a citation for this, but in my defense you have yet to confront me with another source besides a wiki link.
I cannot find a truly reputable source on the internet. Besides wikipedia, I can give University of Sussex and The Story of the Apostrophe
Quote:
And yes, I know the Americans haven't used English for years (cookie for the reference), but according do the University of Sussex (which I believe is in Englang, correct?), Larry Trask writes "Do not write things like Jones's, Steve's, Julie's or Eleanor Cross's if you are merely talking about more than one person or thing with that name." "Unless" would be a better word than "merely" to use here, but either way unless you are talking about more than one person or a thing (or locations as you tend to do in England, though London seems to be filled with crazy people), you should add that extra s after the apostrophe for a possesive name ending in s.
There is St James Park, St James' Park (both pronounced St James/z) and also St James's Park (pronounced St Jameses). The spelling indicates how the creator wishes the words to be pronounced. None of these are plural, they are all named after a singular St James (separately of course). The final spelling would convey a plural of St James through pronunciation although the writing suggests it is singular. Therefore, although the spelling is sometimes accepted, it can be confusing so the final 's' should be dropped.


Ultimately, the decision is with the author and how he would like the title to be pronounced. In my opinion, the most clear and precise spelling is Glottis' Garage. Then once Grim Fandango 2 is released (I wish), and there is another Glottis, the plural and the possessive noun will not be confused.
Stickywulf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-17-2007, 10:53 AM   #14
Du Man
Junior Member
 
Du Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 374
How about I make this clear. Cite a reputable sources other than my own that supports your opinions, and I'll believe you.

However, you flagrantly passed the parts in one of my sources that did not support your opinion. Again Trask wrote, "An apostrophe is used in a possessive form, like Esther's family or Janet's cigarettes, and this is the use of the apostrophe which causes most of the trouble. The basic rule is simple enough: a possessive form is spelled with 's at the end." "This rule applies in most cases even with a name ending in s: Thomas's job, the bus's arrival, James's fiancée, Steve Davis's victory."

Curiously, if you compare these words to the examples you listed, " Socrates' " and " Ulysses' ," they all are multi-syllabic, familiar (as in widely known) names, while such multi-syllabic names such as "Thomas's" or "Davis's" escapes this rule. Notice that "Glottis" is also a multi-syllabic yet not a publicily well known name.

Oh and I am so amazed you found the Story on the Apostrohpe on your own! Let me guess, you found it in the references of the MB site that I found for you? And even better, you decided to not even bother citing a relevant passage from it, leaving me to read it for you. On the top of page 5 of that document in the box under rule 2.c.1 "Add 's to form the possessive of single-syllable nouns and proper names ending in a sibilant in the singular."

If you search through that document own your own you might be able to conjure up a counter argument, but remember, it is an american source. And excuse me for writing in this tone, but I dislike it when someone takes pot shots at an argument without citing relivant sources (that is giving the source and explaining why they are using that source).
Du Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-17-2007, 01:34 PM   #15
Du Man
Junior Member
 
Du Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 374
And just one more thing that was causing my skin to itch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickywulf
The pronunciation of Glotis's Garage would imply plural even though it is singular. Since the pronunciation could be misinterpreted, the 's' is excluded and the word is pronounced "Glotiz Garage"...

Class becomes classes when it becomes plural. Classes becomes classes' when indicating possession. The ending 's' (classess's) is omitted since the spelling would not correctly convey the pronunciation of the writing (as is the case when showing possession of all plural nouns)....

If you pronounce Glottis's with an ess sound (Glottises) the pronunciation would imply a plural term. Since Glottis is only singular, the pronunciation should be with an elongated ess (Glottiz) so there is no confusion as to whether Glottis is plural or singular...

It is important to have both clarity and pronunciation conveyed. The apostrophe cannot be used to indicate a plural word. You would be walking into a room full of Jameses. There is no apostrophe in this case.
Yes, and if the room was there's you would say "Jameses' room" just as you would say "the classes' room." By adding an apostrophe, you already know the word must be possessive, but unless you modified the spelling of the word you still don't know whether it is plural or singluar. By adding an 's you make that word's singularity unquestionable since no possesive plural would be spelled like that.

As for confusing singular with plural, I can see this would happen if you read the title to a person out loud, but either way when you are denoting a possessive you are already modifying the pronounciation of the word. Now which is worse, assuming Glottises is a family run business or assuming Glottiz is a totally different person from Glottis?

Knowing that not every one has perfect pronounciation unlike the British, this is probably why so many american literature associations (though you haven't presented an English literature association that supports your opinion) require the 's to end the ambiguity. As you are already modifying the pronounciation, Glottises' and Glottis' become indistinguishable just as James' and Jameses' do.
Du Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-17-2007, 10:55 PM   #16
Stickywulf
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Du Man
How about I make this clear. Cite a reputable sources other than my own that supports your opinions, and I'll believe you.
Is this a joke? You wont even believe your own sources? Additionally, I have given "The Story of the Apostrophe", which is reputable and cites its own sources. (Found by googling "history +apostrophe" - it is the first result).

Thomas's, Davis's and James's do not escape this rule. They can also be written as Thomas', Davis' and James'. There is no confusion whether they are plural or singular because these are peoples names. There is no such thing as a single Thoma, Davi or Jame (or Glotti)

There is no point in citing more references. Besides the fact that the internet is inherently unreliable, there is already enough links in this thread to demonstrate my case. To show possession of a noun add apostrophe-s EXCEPT in the case of names which end in a sibilant. It seems you have no problem reading the first half of the sentence but for some reason you refuse to acknowledge there is exceptions to the primary rule.

The bottom line is the writer can choose his own spelling based on what he deems appropriate. So there is no point arguing the case, it is the writers choice.
Stickywulf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-18-2007, 02:09 PM   #17
Du Man
Junior Member
 
Du Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickywulf
Is this a joke?
I'm under the impression that what you just quoted from me was all you read or cared to read of my responses. I have always read, considered, and replied to your responses. Unless you do the same, I'll just assume I'm talking to a wall. Plus ignoring my criticisms will get you no where if you think all that matters is getting the last post.

Quote:
You wont even believe your own sources? Additionally, I have given "The Story of the Apostrophe", which is reputable and cites its own sources. (Found by googling "history +apostrophe" - it is the first result).
What? Seriously, what? I went through BOTH the sources you just cited and proved my point. University of Sussex supports that most cases permit Glottis's (as well as Thomas's, Davis's, and James's). The Story of the Apostrophe (which forgive me for doubting that you actually did a search for it, they also link to it on the MB site, but remember it's an american source) goes so far as to actually define the rules for the apostrophe and cites literary, published sources, and also supports the 's as Glottis is an unfamiliar and proper name.

Quote:
Thomas's, Davis's and James's do not escape this rule. They can also be written as Thomas', Davis' and James'.
First off, to you it's not a rule, it's a preference. In good writing, you must keep not only your spelling and grammar constant, but your terms as well.

Quote:
There is no confusion whether they are plural or singular because these are people's names. There is no such thing as a single Thoma, Davi or Jame (or Glotti)
Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickywulf
The pronunciation of Glottis's Garage would imply plural even though it is singular.
These are your words. Glottis is a name, but apparently there can be confusion whether it's plural or singular? Literary sources tell us that adding an 's denotes a singular possessive, so why not do it even for names ending in s to prevent confusion?

Quote:
There is no point in citing more references.
Then there is no more point in you posting unless you have an inferiority complex.

Quote:
Besides the fact that the internet is inherently unreliable, there is already enough links in this thread to demonstrate my case.
When I say "sources," I don't mean just wiki links or halfassed forum opinions, nor do I just mean websites, but I mean published literary sources. In fact, I would prefer published literary sources over a website any day. Give me a book, preferably multiple books (MLA cited, or with whatever citing format you use in Britain, WITH THE PAGE NUMBER) that supports your opinion and I'll check it for myself. And trust me, I will check it, I go to school near the second largest library collection in my country, one of them will be bound to be in there.

Quote:
To show possession of a noun add apostrophe-s EXCEPT in the case of names which end in a sibilant.
Read the only source you have found on your own (The Story of the Apostrophe) and say that again. To make it easier for you, read pages 4 to 5. See how I just told you the PAGE NUMBERS, that's the polite thing to do when you cite sources.

Quote:
It seems you have no problem reading the first half of the sentence but for some reason you refuse to acknowledge there is exceptions to the primary rule.
What sentence was this?

Quote:
The bottom line is the writer can choose his own spelling based on what he deems appropriate. So there is no point arguing the case, it is the writers choice.
Yeah, but if the writer wants people to read and understand him, he's going to have to follow a standard set of rules, which I believe we call the English language.
Du Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-18-2007, 09:46 PM   #18
tk102
Well past expiration date
 
tk102's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,766
Current Game: Fallout 2
Forum Veteran Helpful! Notable contributor 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Du Man
sorry to be a dick
right


I enjoyed this debate (and renamed the thread accordingly) and before reading it, I would have called Glottis's Garage a mistake like a silly American.

That said, I'm still set in my ways (singluar-possessive: s' not s's ). And s' to me reads as "sez" and doesn't require the ungainly s's to emphasize it.

Last edited by tk102; 07-19-2007 at 01:29 AM. Reason: clarification edit
tk102 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-19-2007, 12:08 AM   #19
Du Man
Junior Member
 
Du Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 374
Let me be honest. When I said "sorry to be a dick," I was insulting myself because I always find it annoying when people correct grammar or spelling, which is what I was doing in order to resolve what I thought was a pot hole in my knowledge. I then found a legitimate source and cited it as supporting the 's. But when Stickywulf not only criticized me without a citing a source but had the nerve to discredit it just based on the nationality of that source, that just set me off.

Well Stickwulf, I found this place in England called "Oxford" that has a site called "AskOxford." I have it set on the UK view since our languages are so different.
http://www.askoxford.com/betterwriti...=uk#apostrophe

Notice here that they say " Smiths' " is actually a plural possessive, so according to you, Glottis' is a family owned buisness. Also, remember

Socrates' philosophy
Ulysses' companions
Aristophanes' plays ?

Did you notice all these names end in es?
http://www.askoxford.com/betterwriti...ssives?view=uk

Well apparently you add the apostrophe only on the end of names ending in es. And as much as I would like to find more literary, published sources, I think Oxford will do for me.
Du Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-19-2007, 02:17 AM   #20
Stickywulf
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26
I didn't mean to criticise and was not aware I was doing so. Before coming to this forum I have always believed the grammar rules taught to me were English standard. I have since found otherwise. I merely pointed to your reference and stated that it mentions either spelling is accepted and specifically mentions proper nouns as exceptions to norm.

I can not find any fixed rules, only references to writing and style guides. These are mostly determined by major publishing companies. Depending on which publishing company or which country would have a different set of standards.

The best I can find for a British standard is The Oxford Guide to English Usage ch 1.40.2. It does support your case that the thread title should be Glottis's Garage. Glottis' Garage is also acceptable if the pronunciation requires - see Barnabas' and Nicholas'.

The best I can find for an American standard is the Associated Press Stylebook. I cannot find any online version but here is a link to Fox News reporting on the end result of the debate regarding the spelling of Arkansas' or Arkansas's. This made the news because the state passed a bill announcing the official name as Arkansas's even though this does not adhere to APS guidelines.

So all that I have achieved is to realise that I have been taught some American standards at school. I also found that I have been using double quotes (") in documents when the British method would use single quotes ('). It seems I am not as English as I thought.

The websites I visited which support omitting the final 's' are much older names, Jesus', Moses', Socrates', blah, blah, blah. So it is possible the prefered style adapted in the 19th Century leaving the discrepancy in writing styles.

As I have said at the bottom of each post, although never acknowledged, the choice is with the writer and how he wishes the word to be pronounced. If the writer is tk102, and he would like the title pronounced 'iz', then the title should be spelt to relay that. For the record, I am neither American nor British, and I will continue to leave off the ending 's' in possessive proper nouns whenever it seems appropriate.

The End

Last edited by Stickywulf; 07-19-2007 at 02:43 AM.
Stickywulf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-19-2007, 07:13 AM   #21
ThunderPeel2001
Lovebucket
 
ThunderPeel2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,768
You're both wrong:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243155/

ThunderPeel2001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-19-2007, 06:56 PM   #22
Du Man
Junior Member
 
Du Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 374
Just to clear up a few things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickywulf
The websites I visited which support omitting the final 's' are much older names, Jesus', Moses', Socrates', blah, blah, blah. So it is possible the prefered style adapted in the 19th Century leaving the discrepancy in writing styles.
I highly doubt this considering adding the 's goes back to at least the 1660s.

Quote:
I can not find any fixed rules, only references to writing and style guides. These are mostly determined by major publishing companies. Depending on which publishing company or which country would have a different set of standards.
Wrong, publishers and some companies may make guides to teach English, but they don't develop the standards, that's what literature associations and universities do. For instance, the Modern Language Association of America (MLA) publishes once in a while the "MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers," which is made by people who have centered their lives around writing.

As for locations, this is rarely true as most literature professors try to rely on such British published sources like the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

Quote:
As I have said at the bottom of each post, although never acknowledged, the choice is with the writer and how he wishes the word to be pronounced.
This is true, but in the academic world (whose writing most of the world tends to aspire to) some professors will insist that you follow a specific writing standard (sometimes their own if they're jackasses). Sometimes the standards can differ (especially accross academic disciplines), but they usually differ in just how you cite the source; the grammar rules tend to stay pretty constant.

Quote:
The End
Sorry, but only an administrator can lock a thread, so any one here is still free to debate this. Speaking of which, unless you're joking ThunderPeel2001, The Story of the Apostrophe establishes that unfamiliar proper names, even if they end in es like James, should have an 's added to their end. Read above for the page number.
Du Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-20-2007, 05:35 AM   #23
Stickywulf
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26
There is no authority defining rules for English grammar. The MLA publishes a book titled Approaches to Teaching Cervantes' Don Quixote. The position of the apostrophe shows the MLA is not strict.
Stickywulf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-20-2007, 09:08 AM   #24
Du Man
Junior Member
 
Du Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickywulf
There is no authority defining rules for English grammar.
No, there is no king, no secret society, no organization that defines the rules of English grammar strictly, and arrests or corrects you when you're wrong, but to learn English and its grammar like I did, you must have had a teacher or an authority that told you how to write it and speak it. This authority is usually of the academic kind, and becomes more strict as you approach higher academic circles.

Quote:
The MLA publishes a book titled Approaches to Teaching Cervantes' Don Quixote. The position of the apostrophe shows the MLA is not strict.
I assume somewhere in that source (that you cited WITHOUT A PAGE NUMBER of the relivant passages) is a passage on the apostrophe. Well according to the "MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers," 5th edition, they state their position clearly that you always put an 's at the end of a singular possessive (in case you want to look that up, it's page 61, section 2.2.7.). When writing, the MLA declares that this guide is the standard by which you write, not some teacher's guide on a specific literary book.
Du Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-20-2007, 11:32 AM   #25
Stickywulf
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Du Man
I assume somewhere in that source (that you cited WITHOUT A PAGE NUMBER of the relevant passages) is a passage on the apostrophe.
LOL. Approaches to Teaching Cervantes' Don Quixote is the title of a book published by the MLA. There is no page number since it is the title of the book.

Further reading leads me to believe, to avoid awkwardness, passages should be rewritten to exclude the apostrophe, The Elements of Style section II.1. So the title of this forum would be The Garage of Glottis.
Stickywulf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-20-2007, 01:09 PM   #26
Du Man
Junior Member
 
Du Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickywulf
LOL. Approaches to Teaching Cervantes' Don Quixote is the title of a book published by the MLA. There is no page number since it is the title of the book.
Oh I'm sorry, I didn't know you were so shallow as to cite the title of a book to support your notion that there is no standard English grammar. First off, Cervantes' is both a familiar name (in the literary world) and ends in es, which is an exception that Oxford allows and probably the MLA.

You see, everybody allows for this es case because you can actually read the ess sound as opposed to making it up with just an '.

Quote:
Further reading leads me to believe, to avoid awkwardness, passages should be rewritten to exclude the apostrophe, The Elements of Style section II.1. So the title of this forum would be The Garage of Glottis.
Wow, do you even read the sources you cite, because you just offered me on a silver platter yet another source that supports my view (thank you, by the way).

Quote:
Charles's friend
Burns's poems

This is the usage of the United States Government Printing Office and of the Oxford University Press...

Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in -es and -is
Du Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-20-2007, 02:36 PM   #27
Stickywulf
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Du Man
You see, everybody allows for this es case because you can actually read the ess sound as opposed to making it up with just an '.
Ha, Ha, Ha. How quickly you change your mind.
Let me quote you. 'Again, we're not pronouncing, we are writing, and in my understanding good writing puts clarity before pronouncation.'
Now you agree that the pronunciation can make a difference to the spelling of the word. ROFLMAO.


This has also been shown in the links previously given. I will not give page numbers, I expect you are capable of using the search function of your computer.
Quote:
Trask: Second, a name ending in s takes only an apostrophe if the possessive form is not pronounced with an extra s. Hence:

Socrates' philosophy
Saint Saens' music
Ulysses' companions
Aristophanes' plays
Same reason: we don't say *Ulysses's companions, and so we don't write the extra s.
Quote:
Ask Oxford: Also add an apostrophe to a name ending in -es that is pronounced like the word is: 'Moses' mother'.
Quote:
The Oxford Guide To English Usage: Polysyllables not accented on the last or second last syllable can
take the apostrophe alone, but the form with -'s is equally
acceptable, e.g.

Barnabas' or Barnabas's
Nicholas' or Nicholas's
Quote:
The Elements of Style: 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. But such forms as Achilles' heel, Moses' laws, Isis' temple are commonly replaced...
Quote:
The Story of the Apostrophe: In multi-syllabic words ending in a sibilant, particularly in the case of
familiar names, one usually adds only an apostrophe, though there are
exceptions occasioned by stylistic or euphonious needs
Quote:
wikipedia: If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added s sound, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by University of Delaware, The Guardian, Emory University's writing center, and The American Heritage Book of English Usage. Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates' later suggestion; James's house, or James' house, depending on which pronunciation is intended.
I will conclude this post the same as I have done most others. The choice is with the writer and how he intends for the word to be pronounced. Now that you finally accept the pronunciation makes a difference to the spelling then you will have a chance to see my point of view. Personally, I would pronounce the title Glottiz Garage, regardless of the spelling. If it were my choice I would name the forum Glottis' Garage to depict my pronunciation. I can not speak on behalf of the forum owner, depending on his pronunciation, he could spell it differently.
Stickywulf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-20-2007, 08:10 PM   #28
Du Man
Junior Member
 
Du Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickywulf
Ha, Ha, Ha. How quickly you change your mind.
Let me quote you. 'Again, we're not pronouncing, we are writing, and in my understanding good writing puts clarity before pronouncation.'
Now you agree that the pronunciation can make a difference to the spelling of the word. ROFLMAO.
I never said such a thing. I was trying to help you understand why AskOxford only lets you add just an ' in cases where the name ends in es, since you kept obsessing over the ess sound. I still insist writing takes precidents over pronunciation since how you pronounce a word is so fluid and momentary compared to how permanent something you write can be. You want your grammatical standards to be consistent if you what to avoid long drawn out debates like this one.

Now let's tally up your sources. Oh, and by the way, when you cite sources, you usually have to explain why you are citing them or how they support your argument.

Quote:
Trask: Second, a name ending in s takes only an apostrophe if the possessive form is not pronounced with an extra s. Hence:

Socrates' philosophy
Saint Saens' music
Ulysses' companions
Aristophanes' plays
Same reason: we don't say *Ulysses's companions, and so we don't write the extra s.
Explain to me why Trask still accepts "James's fiancée" then. You keep passing this case without criticizing it. And did you also read Trask's sentence very carefully? "...if the possessive form is not pronounced with an extra s." The words above have already been declared to be exceptions to this rule, because they are ancient, familiar, and all end with es (except Saint Saens, I guess that n is getting in the way).

As far as I'm concerned, Glottis is an unfamiliar, recent proper name that ends in "is" (though how recent is arguable, I'm still waiting on Thrik to tell me what word it's based off of, but if it was based off of a word, it has just recently been used as a proper name in English). And do you still keep ignoring this line "This ['s] rule applies in most cases even with a name ending in s." Not all, not some, but in MOST cases!

-1

Quote:
Ask Oxford: Also add an apostrophe to a name ending in -es that is pronounced like the word is: 'Moses' mother'.
Does Glottis end in es?

-1

Quote:
The Oxford Guide To English Usage: Polysyllables not accented on the last or second last syllable can
take the apostrophe alone, but the form with -'s is equally
acceptable, e.g.

Barnabas' or Barnabas's
Nicholas' or Nicholas's
Almost, but your bias has come back to haunt you in that same source.

Quote:
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
Now I won't claim to be great at pronouncing, spelling, or identifying syllables, but I believe Barnabas and Nicholas have three syllables, while Charles, Christmas, and Thomas have two, correct? Doesn't Glottis have two as well? What makes Glottis a special exception from Charles or Thomas?

-1

Quote:
The Elements of Style: 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. But such forms as Achilles' heel, Moses' laws, Isis' temple are commonly replaced...
I think they meant "end" instead of in, which is a pretty sad mistake for someone explaining grammatical rules. Though you almost had me there with the -is ending, but is Glottis an ancient name? Well since I never heard of it until I played this game, and until someone proves otherwise, no.

-1

Oh, and I don't think a technology university would be considered a reliable source for grammatical rules.

Quote:
The Story of the Apostrophe: In multi-syllabic words ending in a sibilant, particularly in the case of
familiar names, one usually adds only an apostrophe, though there are
exceptions occasioned by stylistic or euphonious needs
Again, never heard of the name Glottis until I played this game, so again I'll have to say its an unfamiliar name.

-1

As for multi-syllabic words, is "Thomas" one? How about James?

Quote:
wikipedia: If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added s sound, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by University of Delaware, The Guardian, Emory University's writing center, and The American Heritage Book of English Usage. Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates' later suggestion; James's house, or James' house, depending on which pronunciation is intended.
How about you read from the horse's mouth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guardian Unlimited
The possessive in words and names ending in s normally takes an apostrophe followed by a second s (Jones's, James's),
Thus there is nothing freakish or new age about Glottis's, but hold on...and don't wet you pants in excitment...

Quote:
but be guided by pronunciation and use the plural apostrophe where it helps: Mephistopheles' rather than Mephistopheles's
Pronounciation over writing? First this is a journal, not a literature association or an academic institution, so they're teaching people how to write, not making standards. Though rather than defining for people that you only use the ' and no s for ancient, familiar, polysyllabic names ending in es, they're making people rely on their tongues, which is as I said before not a good way to establish a standard. We measure stuff with measuring sticks, not with our arms or feet.

-1

One down, two more to go. And don't bother changing your pants...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emory
Exceptions: With nouns or proper names where pronunciation would be awkward (especially words ending with an ees sound like Sophocles), you may add only the apostrophe. Either use is acceptable: the bass's fins, Pardes' students, Pardes's students.
Does Glottis end with and ess sound? Does the end of Glottis sound like Sophocles? No. And again, this was published (on a website) by a writing center, not a literature association or academic institution, so again, they are teaching people how to write (with their tongues), they are not setting standards.

-1

Quote:
Originally Posted by The American Heritage Book of English Usage
Note that although some people use just the apostrophe after singular nouns ending in s (the witness’ testimony, Burns’ poetry), the -’s is generally preferred because it more accurately reflects the modern pronunciation of these forms.
-1

Quote:
I will conclude from this post the same as I have done most others. The choice is with the writer and how he intends for the word to be pronounced.
You were able to conclude that from 10 sources, the majority of which don't agree with you?

I gave you my opinion already, I don't need to hear yours again.

Quote:
Now that you finally accept the pronunciation makes a difference to the spelling then you will have a chance to see my point of view.
I may make fun of you, but I will never assume that you accepted an opinion of mine. This is possibly the most insulting thing you can say to me. You have crossed yet another line.

Quote:
Personally, I would pronounce the title Glottiz Garage, regardless of the spelling. If it were my choice I would name the forum Glottis' Garage to depict my pronunciation. I can not speak on behalf of the forum owner, depending on his pronunciation, he could spell it differently.
That's your opinion, and if you stay around this forum long enough (which most people don't) maybe you will one day be an administrator and change the title for your own liking.
Du Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-25-2007, 03:57 AM   #29
Stickywulf
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26
You have added the word "from" into one of my sentences changing the meaning of the sentence. In case you are not aware, the word "conclude" has more than one meaning. When a word has more than one meaning it is referred to as a homonym. That's minus fifty billion for you on the score tally.

Conclude
Definition 1: to bring to an end.
Definition 2: to determine by reasoning; deduce; infer

The fact that you have forced your opinion into my sentence undermines your moral. Regardless of what I say, you have already determined in your mind, what you want to believe. You are so insinstant that your thoughts are correct that you will never conclude, under any circumstances, that you are wrong.

To show you there is another recognised method of indicating possession for Proper Nouns ending in 's', I give you a passage from a teacher's guide:

[Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course, Second Edition, 1999, International Thompson Publishing Inc. p. 302]

The first [way of signalling possession] is in writing by inflecting regular singular nouns and irregular plural nouns not ending in s with 's :
the baby's crib. the women's room.
or by adding an apostrophe after the s ending of regular plural nouns and singular forms that already end in the sound s .
the boys' trip. Kansas' farmlands.
The apostrophe added to regular plural nouns and singular nouns ending in s does nothing to alter the pronounciation of the word; however,
the edition of the 's to singular and irregular plural nouns gets
realized in speech as /s/ when it occurs after voiceless consonants, /z/
when it follows voiced consonants and vowels, and /ýz/ after sibilants
(i.e., /s/ , /z/, /s/ ),
[/quote]

The polite thing for you to do would be to acknowledge that there are different punctuation methods, which vary according to country. You can try spout some crap about the King's English and all, except that in your last post you spelt center [centre] which show's you follow an American standard anyway. The other alternative is to close your eyes, stick your head in the sand and scream, "I am right, I am always right, I will rant all day long until everyone does things the same way as me". God help you.

I will again conclude this post the same as I have done most others. The choice is with the writer and how he intends for the word to be pronounced. The writer has the privilege of choosing his own writing style.
Stickywulf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 07-25-2007, 05:50 PM   #30
Du Man
Junior Member
 
Du Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickywulf
You have added the word "from" into one of my sentences changing the meaning of the sentence. In case you are not aware, the word "conclude" has more than one meaning.
Oh I'm sorry, I thought you made your conclusion (that is, your end opinion) FROM the sources you cited, rather than just saying you're ending your post.
Quote:
When a word has more than one meaning it is referred to as a homonym. That's minus fifty billion for you on the score tally.
.....what?

Quote:
Conclude
Definition 1: to bring to an end.
Definition 2: to determine by reasoning; deduce; infer
yeah, I thought you meant the 2nd definition, which you can only use if you justified your opinion FROM the sources you mentioned. Are you really trying to justify anything you say?

Quote:
The fact that you have forced your opinion into my sentence undermines your moral.
Now you're just BSing. I thought you justified your conclusion FROM the sources you listed. If you were ending your post, why didn't you just say "I'm ending my post" or "In conclusion, ...." See how much clear writing matters? If you wrote it in one of the above ways, then I would have assumed you justified nothing, rather than justifying your opinion from your sources. Wait, why the hell am I arguing with you!

Quote:
Regardless of what I say, you have already determined in your mind, what you want to believe.
Like I determined "pronunciation can make a difference to the spelling of the word"? Because I believe you made that one for me.

Quote:
You are so insinstant that your thoughts are correct that you will never conclude, under any circumstances, that you are wrong.
No, I'll conclude I'm wrong if you prove Glottis is a familiar, ancient name like Socrates. Thrik mentioned Glottis is based off of a real word, why don't you ask him what that word is?

Or, prove why James's verses James' should be optional. According to every source we read together, it should be James's.

And if it was optional, why did you push for Glottis' in the first place? I suggested Glottis's because I thought Glottis' violated established standards for grammar. You pushed Glottis' because it's your opinion that it should be spelled that way. I'm pushing a standard, you're pushing an opinion. As I said before, I do not push my opinions on others if I know they are opinions.

Quote:
To show you there is another recognised method of indicating possession for Proper Nouns ending in 's', I give you a passage from a teacher's guide:

[Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher's Course, Second Edition, 1999, International Thompson Publishing Inc. p. 302]
Why thank you for quoting a published source with a page number! But as you criticized my sources for being american, I'd like you to note that your's is an ESL teacher's guide rather than handbook for writing or a guide to writing published by a literary association, for English. You can read my criticisms above for why you could discredit teacher's guides.

Quote:
The first [way of signalling possession] is in writing by adding an apostrophe after the s ending of regular plural nouns and singular forms that already end in the sound s .

Kansas' farmlands.
May I intercede and say Kansas is a familiar name as opposed to Glottis.

Quote:
The apostrophe added to singular nouns ending in s does nothing to alter the pronounciation of the word;


however,
the edition of the 's to singular and irregular plural nouns gets
realized in speech as /s/ when it occurs after voiceless consonants, /z/
when it follows voiced consonants and vowels, and /ýz/ after sibilants
(i.e., /s/ , /z/, /s/ ),
I'm thoroughly worn out now after going through 6 sources that I found agree with you (on the net though), but two sources which I've appended at the end do agree with me.

http://www.emporia.edu/writinglab/punctuation.html

http://writingguide.geneseo.edu/faculty/drakeguide.html

http://grammar.qdnow.com/2007/01/01/...mar-rules.aspx

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/apostrophes1.html

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000131.htm

http://orvillejenkins.com/words/apostrophe.html

And the ones that agree with me.

http://www.ithaca.edu/flanagan/GUS/apostrophe.html

http://www.liquidsilverbooks.com/for...hp/t-1776.html

So, -10 + 6 - 2 = -6.

Quote:
The polite thing for you to do would be to acknowledge that there are different punctuation methods, which vary according to country.
Or vary within a country like England? By the way St. James' was recently used by the football stadium, and I've read in the sources above that the 's has been falling out of favor in order for faster, efficient (and cheaper) writing, where as 's has always been in use, so it is you, friend, who is "new age."

Quote:
You can try spout some crap about the King's English and all, except that in your last post you spelt center [centre] which show's you follow an American standard anyway.
Oxford supports the 's case as they do in America (except for a few sources I provided for you). Our spelling my differ, but not our grammatical rules. Again, standards are established by universities and literary associations, not countries.

Quote:
The other alternative is to close your eyes, stick your head in the sand and scream, "I am right, I am always right, I will rant all day long until everyone does things the same way as me". God help you.
Considering how many times you have passed specific paragraphs that are counter to your opinion in the sources you have cited, I find this rather funny.

The alternative is proving you're right with respectable sources and justifying why I'm wrong, not discrediting me on the basis of nationality.

Quote:
I will again conclude
Now let me get this right, you mean "end" not "I will conclude from what I have justified" as you never justify anything, right?

Quote:
this post the same as I have done most others. The choice is with the writer and how he intends for the word to be pronounced. The writer has the privilege of choosing his own writing style.
From the sources I just posted, I'm willing to accept your opinion, except for how he intends to pronounce it, for the above sources say this is more of a style thing. The unanimous aggreement I thought I had has dissappeared with the finding of these new sources.

However, from every book on literary standards I have read, from every research paper I have written, I will continue to defend that the 's is a clear way to show both possession and singularity, especially for words or names that are not well known.

But now, I'll leave it up to the moderator to decide as I do not have unanimous aggreement in the sources we have cited.

Last edited by Du Man; 07-25-2007 at 08:45 PM.
Du Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-02-2007, 12:10 PM   #31
Stickywulf
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26
I just started playing through the game again and in the game options I have enabled "text and speech".

At the part in the petrified forest when Glottis tears out his heart and throws it away, Manny says, "Those spiders have Glottis' heart in their web".
Manny's pronunciation is Glottis's heart but the spelling is Glottis' heart.

The game designers chose not to have the s after the apostrophe, which seems strange considering how Manny pronounces it.
Stickywulf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-02-2007, 02:21 PM   #32
Thrik
Symbolically Compelling
 
Thrik's Avatar
 
Status: Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 4,202
Hot Topic Starter Forum Veteran LFN Staff Member 
Man, you guys sure know how to have an in-depth language discussion.

In areas of ambiguity like this I find it best to just go with your preferred style. One of the more memorable things taught to me was that as long as you're consistent and don't break your own 'rules', the communication will be clear.

I was also taught that breaking rules for the sake of impact is fine as long as you're actually aware of them and do it in a way that doesn't compromise readability.

So at the end of the day, intricate rules about in exactly what circumstances what is used are largely superfluous. Although as far as I'm aware the way the title is currently spelt is more likely to appeal to most people's perception of what's correct, I still personally would use Glottis' in normal conversation because it just seems more natural to me. I pronounce it verbally as Glottis's, however.

Incidentally, the BBC and Sky frequently use it in the Glottis' way on television in programme summaries and the like, and subtitles. I was also taught in (an English) school to use it in the Glottis' sense.

The beautiful thing about language is that the speakers and writers dictate the future of it, not a committee. Words like 'alternative' and 'alright' are a testament to this reality (the former should never technically be used to refer to more than the one alternative option, and the latter is technically slang but has been elevated to the 'rank' of a non-standard word due to such widespread use).


Thrik is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 08-02-2007, 03:44 PM   #33
Stickywulf
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26
Yeah, you're right. Only after this lengthy discussion and then I saw how the word was spelt in the game I thought it was worthy of mentioning.
Stickywulf is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-03-2007, 12:38 PM   #34
stewlil
Rookie
 
stewlil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Guildford, UK
Posts: 161
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!
This guy got alot more than he bargained for!


"There's nothing better than spitting in the face of someone that hands you an ultimatum." Deron Miller of cKy
stewlil is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-18-2007, 07:52 PM   #35
elemily
Rookie
 
elemily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 12
Glottis' Garage looks less like a typo
elemily is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Old 09-20-2007, 06:29 PM   #36
Du Man
Junior Member
 
Du Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 374
nice flamebait. Subtle, quick, and non-committal.
Du Man is offline   you may: quote & reply,
Post a new thread. Add a reply to this thread. Indicate all threads in this forum as read. Subscribe to this forum. RSS feed: this forum RSS feed: all forums
Go Back   LucasForums > Network > Grim Fandango Discussion > General Forums > Glottis' Garage > Opening the lock at the bone dam (aka: Apostrophe debate)

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:32 AM.

LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.