• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Index + possessive s

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
An index is not sentient. How can it possess something?
Click to expand...
We let objects possess things all of the time.
[*]The car's hood.
[*]The fire's heat.
[*]The air conditioner's hum.
[*]The locker's contents.
[*]The fart's odor.
etc.
 
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
An index is not sentient. How can it possess something?
Click to expand...
We let objects possess things all of the time.
[*]The car's hood.
[*]The fire's heat.
[*]The air conditioner's hum.
[*]The locker's contents.
[*]The fart's odor.
etc.
Click to expand...

And Ain't Ain't no word, but people still use it.

He asked for the grammatically correct version, he got it. 😛

- M4H
 
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
He asked for the grammatically correct version, he got it. 😛
Click to expand...
No, you gave an overly wordy answer. It is gramatically correct for an object to have possession. I understand that many writers disagree. However, technically it is proper and concise to let an object have possession.
 
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
He asked for the grammatically correct version, he got it. 😛
Click to expand...
No, you gave an overly wordy answer. It is gramatically correct for an object to have possession. I understand that many writers disagree. However, technically it is proper and concise to let an object have possession.
Click to expand...

My question was really about the juxtaposition of the x and the 's. I agree with you dullard that there's nothing wrong with objects posessing things (such as their characteristics).

And M4H, you are also correct that you can rephrase the 's into another form (the [property] of the object), but it is too wordy for my needs.

Man, grammar hag fights are the best.

-geoff
 
Originally posted by: ggavinmoss
Man, grammar hag fights are the best.
Click to expand...
Grammar fights are not winnable. These fights will go on forever in history. The problem is that the grammar rules are fluid and often contradictory.

One example of changing and contradictory grammar rules really bothers me. Imagine you are writing a formal report or a journal article about a choice you made while doing research.

[*]This sentence fragment was acceptable and printed in journals for many years:
"I chose option (B) since..."

[*]Along came a grammar change. Suddenly it became unacceptable to use personal pronouns in formal writing. You could no longer use the words 'I', 'me', or 'we' and get your paper published. Now this was acceptable and was printed:
"Option (B) was chosen since..."

[*]Oh wait! Papers suddenly became dull and awkward. Grammar nazis came to the rescue. The nazis deemed passive tense to be bad grammar. A writer now needed to write this or something similar:
"One chooses option (B) since..."

That fragment is certainly unclear and still is awkward. Maybe a writer would try this:
"The author chose option (B) since..."

Now you are talking like Bob Dole. It just reads wrong. Soon you resort to trying dozens of reworded and lengthy sentences just to avoid the passive tense. Often the sentence grows by 50% (or more). The sentence often becomes a run-on sentence to avoid passive tense. We all know that the wordy run-on sentences are disliked by the grammar police. What is the end result? Most journals are now accepting the use of the word 'I'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top