No, that’s alright. Having a pm conversation with you would be kind of creepy :eek:. I’ve got the link. It went:
Helen’s laugh
Charles’ cooking
You jumped at the latter as a means of validating your “theory” :rolleyes:. I’ll concede that without context, “Charles’ cooking” could be:
“Where’s Charles?”
“Charles’ cooking.”
Although I doubt it would be used like that, but it’s an example. The other context is:
“Whose cooking is that?”
“Charles’ cooking.”
So possessive apostrophe comes after the word, for words that end in “s”. You were so excited that this reference validated your ideas.
But then, how do you explain “Helen’s laugh”? It comes from the same link, so you can’t choose to use the Charles example to support your argument and ignore the Helen example. So how do you explain the Helen example? What’s it short for?
Originally posted by Toby
[B]No, that’s alright. Having a pm conversation with you would be kind of creepy :eek:. I’ve got the link. It went:
Helen’s laugh
Charles’ cooking
You jumped at the latter as a means of validating your “theory” :rolleyes:. I’ll concede that without context, “Charles’ cooking” could be:
“Where’s Charles?”
“Charles’ cooking.”
Although I doubt it would be used like that, but it’s an example. The other context is:
“Whose cooking is that?”
“Charles’ cooking.”
So possessive apostrophe comes after the word, for words that end in “s”. You were so excited that this reference validated your ideas.
But then, how do you explain “Helen’s laugh”? It comes from the same link, so you can’t choose to use the Charles example to support your argument and ignore the Helen example. So how do you explain the Helen example? What’s it short for? [/B]
Serpent : blow me - as in down :rolleyes:
Toby : I don’t know, I was doing my best to open mindedly consider the grammatical logic behind that. There isn’t usually a rule without a satisfactory explaination. I know it is another possessive use and unless you’ve got another explanation I’m guessing somewhere in the realm of " Helen owns " cooking. My understanding is that the appostrophe is to replace the “I” in is as in “it is”, for example. If I’m wrong I am, but do you have another way to explain it than just because it is??
Originally posted by blooming lotus Toby : I don’t know, I was doing my best to open mindedly consider the grammatical logic behind that. There isn’t usually a rule without a satisfactory explaination. I know it is another possessive use and unless you’ve got another explanation I’m guessing somewhere in the realm of " Helen owns " cooking. My understanding is that the appostrophe is to replace the “I” in is as in “it is”, for example. If I’m wrong I am, but do you have another way to explain it than just because it is??
The quote was “Helen’s laugh”. And yes, I do have an explanation. It’s called possessive use of apostrophe. The rule (with a totally satisfactory explanation) is that the apostrophe indicates possession. Exceptions include when a word ends with an “s” and a few others (like Iron’s “its” example). I’ve provided explanations, examples, web references, book references, dictionary excerpts. Others have done the same. It’s actually pretty funny that you continue your stubborn stance of denial. Funny as in boring.
Logic? What logic? There exists a rule called possessive usage of apostrophes. The rule is documented and common knowledge everywhere in the English speaking world. My best link was when I posted an excerpt from The Concise Oxford English Dictionary. “Helen’s laugh” obeys that rule. There’s your logic.
What’s illogical is someone who refuses to acknowledge facts, despite that person being presented with the facts multiple times. Is that person stupid? Are they trying to piss everyone off? Are they the epitome of braindead? Can they not read? Don’t they have access to a dictionary? Does their computer not work? Can’t they pick up an English book and find multiple examples that fit the “possessive rule” but don’t fit the “contractive rule”? How do they explain those examples? It baffles me that they continue to deny the existence of the facts (and I don’t use the word “baffles” often - that’s how serious I am). Totally illogical …
Toby : I know the rule, but if you can’t explain why it works that way in very clear and precise english, that’s fine. Personally, I can’t use it until I understand it , so I’ll continue with the other option.
Well, I know this will be like talking to a wall, but what the hell:
I’ve explained it clearly AND logically to you TWICE in this thread alone. Check page 3 of this thread, 7th post down. Also page 6 of this thread, 9th post down.
Of course she won’t do it. She’d rather wallow in ignorance than take the hand that’s offered to her. We’ll see.
What you’ve done is give a few examples of whhere it has been used and links to say other people and instuitutes agree . Because it does just doesn’t cut it. Forget, you’ll just continue to bag on regardless right. whatever. discussion over. appartently
Yup! A wall. She didn’t even look. I neither gave just “examples” nor links in those posts. I gave the concrete rules. She ignored them as she always does, and will continue to do.
She has slammed her mind shut and triple- locked it… now if only we can get her to shut her mouth as tightly. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by blooming lotus Toby : I know the rule, but if you can’t explain why it works that way in very clear and precise english, that’s fine. Personally, I can’t use it until I understand it , so I’ll continue with the other option.
She’s clearly trolling us, but I’ll bite. 2 questions Eyebrows:
(a) Can you explain the rule of contraction? Why are you allowed to abbreviate letters to an apostrophe?
(b) What is wrong with the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10th Ed.? I.e. if it says that the possessive form exists, why is that not good enough for you? Do you dispute the Oxford Dictionary?
The answer to (a) is it’s just a rule. I don’t know who invented the rule. Presumably scholars in the middle ages. Probably the same scholars who decided on the possessive form - also just a rule.
It’s pretty funny. It’s like she’s in a dark room and all she has to do is flip the light switch upward, but she keeps trying to flip the switch to the side. We say “No, bl, upward, flip the switch upward.” She says “Well until you explain the laws of electrical engineering to me there’s no way for me to understand that, so I’m going to keep doing it my own way.” as she stumbles around in the dark and we all shake our heads.
“Forget, you’ll just continue to bag on regardless right. whatever. discussion over. appartently”
It’s not a discussion you ignorant boob. It’s a monologue with your doppleganger Looming Blotus, which perfectly descibes your conversational style, appartently. Why the hell would you want the rules of English language usage explained to you when you have no facility of said usage?
The lot of you do not know the difference between syntext and logic. Toby is fixated on the use of aprostrophies and commas in the english language. Not using the english aprostrographics does not mean that logic is not being used. For example in maths, we can solve a problem analytically or numerically, define it in a algebric or geometric framwork but still come to a logical conclusion. Furthermore it can be argued logically that logic cannot be proven to be always internally consistent so it is not always applicable to apply logic to things that are metaphysical.
I have read evey post on this forum and I have to admit that BL has been consistrent with what she said. She should be your moderator.
unkokusai: I’ve got a message for you. Is this a Japanese name of someone who’s got wasabi up his @$$.
you’re sweet ego and now probably obligated to play neigh-sayer.
sorry boys… can’t use it unless ( not if people agree but have logical sequencial thought.no-one’s given me that so sticking with what I understand. so; I’m either impetuous, tempetous or demanding of logic..either way .. wo budong…just don’t get it!!!)
Originally posted by Toby B Can you explain the rule of contraction? Why are you allowed to abbreviate letters to an apostrophe?
(b) What is wrong with the Concise Oxford Dictionary, 10th Ed.? I.e. if it says that the possessive form exists, why is that not good enough for you? Do you dispute the Oxford Dictionary?[/B]
No answers?
Wow, you must be right if Ego/Kelvin Chan/Goktimus Prime is sticking up for you.
I don’t know who goktimus is. Some people on this forum think that I am him, but coming back to my analogy on dieties etc… they are just trying to pin a name on ANY face because what I speak is the truth but they refuse to understand.
Putting it anotherway, even Seven Star says that I have more intellegent comments on martial arts then some of the supposed hard core southern kung fu practitioners.
I guess on this forum, you too have the blessings of the moderator Gene Ching.
I’d like to comment on our friendship, but being he hasn’t shown here, it’s probably a lil crass. Support is support ( and comes in all sorts of packages) . This forum has been as great one for more than just myself.
cheers and happy dharma
Ps: if you look for validation in other peoples’ comments, you may be left short. Validate yourself with beliefs ( whatever they are ) that you live by my friend and take the rest as a bonus.
