Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fqllve]

Yeah, I thought you were calling it into question as a source, and since it's the only one presented so far, I just really didn't know what to say in response to that.

Like I said, I'm open to any research to the contrary, and for what it's worth those IPA match what's in my 2nd Ed OED, which I can screencap for anyone who would like to see it (I'll PM it though as I don't want to post copyrighted material), except that it does not list an unstressed form for their. They're is, of course, not listed. But until someone does some research I'm gonna have to say any differences would either have to be dialectical or personal and not really appropriate to correct someone over.

In a lot of ways though, yeah, I prefer wikis just because they tend to be less biased, which is why I thought it was a particularly good source.

[Machiavelli]

Now... if only we had a reference resource that could be user-edited to reflect updated and additional information about a subject that's obviously not currently completely and accurately covered at present...

I remember spending a couple weeks with my buddies in college as one of the Presidents of the United States, according to wiki-knowledge.

[fqllve]

Do you... actually read this thread? Because Starver said in his other post that wasn't what he meant.

And I said I would screencap the OED entries, which match Wiktionary. edit:edit: Actually, despite the fact that Wiktionary is a far better guide to pronunciation, just check dictionary.com or M-W.com, or probably any other online dictionary. The listed pronunciations are the same for all three.

edit: If you'd like to present a source that they're has a different pronunciation than the other two, please do. Because I can't find any. And remember, since you're correcting people on it, the difference should be in either SAE or British RP because those are the only dialects worth basing corrections on.

[Trapezohedron]

Resurrecting this topic for a sec...

On the subject of parallelism, I'm rather confused on which is parallel.

Original (non-parallel): She has wit, charm, and she has an extremely pleasant personality.

My answer: She has wit, charm, and personality.

Teacher's answer: She has wit, charm, and pleasant personality.

The teacher says that she's right because everyone has personality, but usually when you bring up the word 'personality' to define a person's trait, it's usually in the positive light when you don't add adjectives. My own two cents.

[Skyrunner]

Hmm... I think the teacher's answer is better. For some reason, omitting "pleasant" makes it sound off. Though I think there should be an "a" between "and" and "pleasant"...

"She has wit, charm, and an extremely pleasant personality" could also work.

[Il Palazzo]

Consider the change of meaning.

"She has personality" = she is not boring
"She has a pleasant personality" = she is nice

Also, as noted by Skyrunner, in the first use the noun is uncountable, in the latter, it's countable.

[Levi]

No, again, you never ever make anything plural in English by adding an apostrophe anywhere.

What about last names?  If I was refering to two brothers with the last name of Butters, would I say:

1) "The Butters's are good fellows"
2) "The Butters are good fellows"
3) "The Butterses are good fellows"
4) "The Butters' are good fellows"

Edit:  Whoops, I thought this was a one page thread, not a 7 page necro thread.   Uh, probably not relevant to whatever the current conversation is.

[Lectorog]

"She has wit, charm, and an extremely pleasant personality" could also work.

This is the best way to put it. Your teacher is as wrong as you are because they also changed the meaning of the sentence by leaving out meaningful words.
Your argument about the implication/connotation of personality is also correct. I'd count you both right or both wrong, were I the teacher.

No, again, you never ever make anything plural in English by adding an apostrophe anywhere.

What about last names?  If I was refering to two brothers with the last name of Butters, would I say:

1) "The Butters's are good fellows"
2) "The Butters are good fellows"
3) "The Butterses are good fellows"
4) "The Butters' are good fellows"

Any but the last because they all get the point across, as long as (for 2) their name being Butters vs. Butter is not important. The last one just looks bad, so it's confusing.

[Telgin]

Putting an apostrophe in there implies possessiveness, which is not what is intended.  And doesn't improve the way it reads either, in my opinion.  Of the choices, I'd always go with 2, or maybe 3.  3 sounds funky when read though.

1 and 4 imply something belongs to the Butters.

[Remuthra]

What is the correct form of verbal in this situation? What would I use to refer to letters instead of words?
f.e.
Greco(verbo?)something.

[Starver]

My answer: She has wit, charm, and personality.

Teacher's answer: She has wit, charm, and pleasant personality.

Either way, I'd personally go without the comma after the word "charm", although you (or perhaps your teacher) obviously sit in the Oxonian camp on this somewhat divided issue.

(Also, if your teacher has a problem with losing the "pleasant" qualifier, I'd be tempted to ask why the noted degree of "extremely" still has to be lost.  Except that parallelism would now be a matter of just removing "...she has..." from the middle.)

((And, if I had my way, the comma after "charm", as noted.  With the "original" obviously needing to have been "She has wit and charm,[clause-break-comma] and she has...<etc>".))

Levi: My snap judgement would be to say #s 2 or 3.  Neither #1 nor #2, as I'd be expecting a possessive, such as "The Butters'[s] children are good fellows", or similar.


(Today I saw a sign advertising "Kid's go free to <attraction>", or similar, in the window of a shop I was walking past.  There was a member of staff in the doorway so I asked him why, and he sighed and agreed.  It was too professional a sign (maybe even sent from head office of this chain) to be an Arkwright-style trick of a sign to attract people inside, starting off as a correcting busybody and ending up as a customer...   And neither was the "Britains' [sic] favourite store" sign (actually, a set of large wall-attached letters/punctuations, which should have been easy to reposition correctly with a step-ladder tools and maybe some plaster-filler into the old screw-holes!) once displayed inside a certain chain-store outlet of my acquaintance (above the entry/exit doors, but on the  inside) for at least two years.)

((Non-grammatically, I've also told several supermarket staff, at various different times, about a product where there's at least three different sub-varieties on the shelf, all of which are boxes of five items of identical weight.  There's a price per 100g indicator on the shelf's price-label, which I normally don't take too much notice of when not specifically looking for the best value between brands.  But one day I noticed that two of them are calculated correctly (using something like five bars at 23g, or 115g in all, as a basis for the calculation against the total price of a box) but one of them assumes 5x115g as the net box weight, and thus a price per mass that is off by a factor of five (and 'better').  It is so displayed in at least three different branches of the supermarket, so Head Office or the central warehouse probably need to edit their master product database.  It's been months since I first told my first aisle-based store-worker, and nothing's been done about it (I was tempted to swipe the label to see if it ever got reprinted and replaced correctly, but haven't yet).  But I fear I digress, on this point.))

[fqllve]

And neither was the "Britains' [sic] favourite store" sign

What are you talking about, that sign clearly refers to the fact that each and every Britain in each and every reality favors that store above all others.

This is why I support abolishing the apostrophe in all cases except the plural possessive (and as a concession the will contractions).

As for Butters, I believe 3 is technically correct, but I would use 2 in every situation because the verb makes the plurality clear even if the noun isn't marked for it, and because I find it to both sound and look better than the alternatives.

[Starver]

And neither was the "Britains' [sic] favourite store" sign

What are you talking about, that sign clearly refers to the fact that each and every Britain in each and every reality favors that store above all others.

Þe gods!  And I thought our own reality was a mere aberration if it considered the chain (which I shall leave nameless) a "favourite" at all.  If they all (or, on balance, in a majority decision or accumulatively scored from amongst all Britain-possessing realities as the best compromise candidate) consider it a favourite, then the entire multiverse is worse off than I have ever imagined.

(I had once mentioned to a staff member, neglecting to mention my general incredulity about the intended core of the statement, the possible correction to "Britons' favourite..."  But that would have needed a character replacement, and possibly some re-spacing, instead of a simple switch.  And by all rights some historical analysis (or at least contemporaneous genetic qualification of the cohort concerned) to best identify the Brythonic tribespeople to whom the relevant survey has been put.)

[Trapezohedron]

My answer: She has wit, charm, and personality.

Teacher's answer: She has wit, charm, and pleasant personality.

Either way, I'd personally go without the comma after the word "charm", although you (or perhaps your teacher) obviously sit in the Oxonian camp on this somewhat divided issue.

Not me. My teacher sits on Camp Oxonian, and I got wrongs because I lacked certain commas. Thus, I put those commas there because that was how she wrote it. But we are digressing from the topic, aren't we?

(Also, if your teacher has a problem with losing the "pleasant" qualifier, I'd be tempted to ask why the noted degree of "extremely" still has to be lost.  Except that parallelism would now be a matter of just removing "...she has..." from the middle.)

I have no idea. I have my own problems with "pleasant", but I don't get why she approved with the removal of extremely. Something about adverbs, but seriously, I don't think that adding "pleasant" to "personality" makes the thing parallel in one point of view.

((And, if I had my way, the comma after "charm", as noted.  With the "original" obviously needing to have been "She has wit and charm,[clause-break-comma] and she has...<etc>".))

Yeah, I should've done that, as that would make it absolutely parallel in both sides. Why didn't I think of doing that?

[Skyrunner]

I don't know why people stand so strongly on the Oxford comma issue. XD I just use whichever one I take a fancy to at the moment >_> I think I do tend to have the final comma, though. Apples, pears, and triages. What's wrong with the final comma? O_o

There was another case people use commas or not. I think it was having looong clauses separated by commas... Hrrn. Can't think of an example.