Hello from a non-skeptic

[Mirrorglass]

Originally Posted by Blue Bubble

Folks, it's

Charles's Book ...

not

Charles' Book

Oh, it's on, now.

[Elizabeth I]

Originally Posted by Blue Bubble

Folks, it's

Charles's Book ...

not

Charles' Book

Actually, either is correct.

[Blue Bubble]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

Actually, either is correct.

I would contend that it's not.

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

Actually, either is correct.

No.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Blue Bubble

I would contend that it's not.

Under what circumstances would you contend that?

In case it isn't clear, I am attempting to be slightly humorous and am taking no stance regarding the relative correctness or incorrectness of the two punctuations/spellings. In fact, since we have brought up relativity I think it fair to say that for me in my quantized state, the Uncertainty Principle comes strongly into play.

[Blue Bubble]

Originally Posted by Garrette

Under what circumstances would you contend that?

Under all circumstances.

Quote:

In case it isn't clear, I am attempting to be slightly humorous and am taking no stance regarding the relative correctness or incorrectness of the two punctuations/spellings. In fact, since we have brought up relativity I think it fair to say that for me in my quantized state, the Uncertainty Principle comes strongly into play.

[Wolrab]

Quote:

add 's to the singular form of the word (even if it ends in -s):

the owner's car
James's hat (James' hat is also acceptable. For plural, proper nouns that are possessive, use an apostrophe after the 's': "The Eggles' presentation was good." The Eggles are a husband and wife consultant team.)

add 's to the plural forms that do not end in -s:

the children's game
the geese's honking

add ' to the end of plural nouns that end in -s:

two cats' toys
three friends' letters

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/621/01/

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Wolrab

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/621/01/

I feel obliged to point out that your link is not to the original Webster's or even Oxford English, and there is strong evidence that the bit you reference was not actually written by Josephus but added hundreds of years later by a Gaelic scribe.

[Wolrab]

Hellooooo! See the OWL in the link? That means it is wise. Sheesh.

[Emet]

How about:

Boden's ______________*

*Choose from the below:

book

Synonyms: album, atlas, bestseller, bible, booklet, brochure, codex, compendium, copy, dictionary, dissertation, edition, encyclopedia, essay, fiction, folio, handbook, hardcover, leaflet, lexicon, magazine, manual, monograph, nonfiction, novel, octavo, offprint, omnibus, opus, opuscule, pamphlet, paperback, periodical, portfolio, preprint, primer, publication, quarto, reader, reprint, roll, scroll, softcover, speller, text, textbook, thesaurus, tome, tract, treatise, vade mecum, volume, work, writing

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Emet

How about:

Boden's ______________*

*Choose from the below:

book

Synonyms: album, atlas, bestseller, bible, booklet, brochure, codex, compendium, copy, dictionary, dissertation, edition, encyclopedia, essay, fiction, folio, handbook, hardcover, leaflet, lexicon, magazine, manual, monograph, nonfiction, novel, octavo, offprint, omnibus, opus, opuscule, pamphlet, paperback, periodical, portfolio, preprint, primer, publication, quarto, reader, reprint, roll, scroll, softcover, speller, text, textbook, thesaurus, tome, tract, treatise, vade mecum, volume, work, writing

Leave out the possessive altogether. Just call it "The Stewart Code."

[Nursefoxfire]

Originally Posted by Emet

How about:

Boden's ______________*

*Choose from the below:

book

Synonyms: album, atlas, bestseller, bible, booklet, brochure, codex, compendium, copy, dictionary, dissertation, edition, encyclopedia, essay, fiction, folio, handbook, hardcover, leaflet, lexicon, magazine, manual, monograph, nonfiction, novel, octavo, offprint, omnibus, opus, opuscule, pamphlet, paperback, periodical, portfolio, preprint, primer, publication, quarto, reader, reprint, roll, scroll, softcover, speller, text, textbook, thesaurus, tome, tract, treatise, vade mecum, volume, work, writing

Done!

[Wolrab]

Originally Posted by Emet

How about:

Boden's ______________*

*Choose from the below:

book

Synonyms: album, atlas, bestseller, bible, booklet, brochure, codex, compendium, copy, dictionary, dissertation, edition, encyclopedia, essay, fiction, folio, handbook, hardcover, leaflet, lexicon, magazine, manual, monograph, nonfiction, novel, octavo, offprint, omnibus, opus, opuscule, pamphlet, paperback, periodical, portfolio, preprint, primer, publication, quarto, reader, reprint, roll, scroll, softcover, speller, text, textbook, thesaurus, tome, tract, treatise, vade mecum, volume, work, writing

Got me...

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Wolrab

Hellooooo! See the OWL in the link? That means it is wise. Sheesh.

Does it not mean "oridnary wirzardry level" ?

A witch ! Hang him ! (or burn him if he is from EU).

[patchbunny]

Originally Posted by Wolrab

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/621/01/

I use Punctuation, Capitalization, and Spelling from the Schaum's Outline Series, and they state "If addition of an s after an apostrophe is undesirable bcecause of sound or appearance, add only an apostrohe." This is supported in other writing guides as well.

Since I've been doing it that way for decades, I'll continue. If I ever change, you'll know the pods finally got me.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by patchbunny

I use Punctuation, Capitalization, and Spelling from the Schaum's Outline Series, and they state "If addition of an s after an apostrophe is undesirable bcecause of sound or appearance, add only an apostrohe." This is supported in other writing guides as well.

Since I've been doing it that way for decades, I'll continue. If I ever change, you'll know the pods finally got me.

Thou wouldst claim a language inabsolute? Convention not static? Where leads the madness that would a mark make subjective in its use? Down no road I tread for it is in the trust of a thousand authors that one scribe finds confusion. A moss's rock rolls less far from truth than Charles' tome.

[Blue Bubble]

Originally Posted by Garrette

A moss's rock rolls less far from truth than Charles' tome.

Shouldn't that be "A moss' rock rolls ..." ?

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Blue Bubble

Shouldn't that be "A moss' rock rolls ..." ?

If thou wouldst but trouble to check both posessesivessesss in that sentence, thouse wouldst noticest's that I give equal time to both claim's.

[FSM]

OH, page 32 of this thread, I love you even more than page 7 of this thread... I didn't think it was possible, but it is true.

Isn't Garrette, I don't know, King or something? If so, doesn't he get to decide what to do with an apostrophes's use?

And I will henceforth call it THE BODEN CODEX, because that sounds even more mysterious and important and also requires no difficult apostrophe decision.

[FSM]

Originally Posted by Wolrab

Skimming through the link, it seems the author must have, in a previous life, been molested by strawmen. In this life, he takes great pleasure in knocking them down.

(BTW: Page 7, thank you for this, but you needed much more to defeat page 32.)

[Lucian]

Originally Posted by Blue Bubble

Originally Posted by Garrette

A moss's rock rolls less far from truth than Charles' tome.

Shouldn't that be "A moss' rock rolls ..." ?

To be serious for a moment, I recall that, when deciding whether it is preferable to add an apostrophe plus "s" to a one syllable word ending in "s," you should consider whether the final "s" is voiced (Charles or James) or voiceless (moss or Keats). In other words, you generally add 's to a voiceless "s." Moss' definitely doesn't sound right. On the other hand, people do say Keats'.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Lucian

To be serious for a moment, I recall that, when deciding whether it is preferable to add an apostrophe plus "s" to a one syllable word ending in "s," you should consider whether the final "s" is voiced (Charles or James) or voiceless (moss or Keats). In other words, you generally add 's to a voiceless "s." Moss' definitely doesn't sound right. On the other hand, people do say Keats'.

To remain serious, I used to think I was very good at grammar and syntax. Then I took German and learned I didn't know much. I got better at it and considered myself good again. Then I took Russian and learned I didn't know much. I got better and considered myself good again.

Then I came here and find I need to take English again because apparently being a native speaker isn't sufficient.


Sigh.... If only I were a native Mandarin speaker.

[Halfcentaur]

After spending a few weeks in China, I found Mandarin speakers to all sound like they're using Kermit the Frog's voice, especially with emphasis on the "r" with a lot of "z"s woven in. The accent became much easier for me after that.

[Blackwell]

Well, since Big Les is the purchaser, from here on I will call it Big Leses's Book.

[FSM]

Actually, many of us helped purchase it, so it should maybe be the Forums'es Book

(the extra 'e' gives it Extra flava...)

[Audible Click]

I shall call it:

BODEN'S FOLLY

[Apology]

Originally Posted by Audible Click

I shall call it:

BODEN'S FOLLY

That would be a good alternate name for the book, maybe the title for the European Second Edition. Now, all we have to do is convince Charles to change the name of his book and get someone from Europe to order one so there will be a European Second Edition.

[Elizabeth I]

Originally Posted by Garrette

If thou wouldst but trouble to check both posessesivessesss in that sentence, thouse wouldst noticest's that I give equal time to both claim's.

Ah, the greengrocerererereres's' apostrophe...

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

Ah, the greengrocerererereres's' apostrophe...

Almost as bad as "unnecessary" quotation marks, such as:

"Boden's" Folly

[Big Les]

Oh, you guys..

[Wolrab]

COOL! A European second edition will double the royalties my future me will rake in!

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Wolrab

COOL! A European second edition will double the royalties my future me will rake in!

You'll have pocketses full of cash.

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by Elizabeth I

Ah, the greengrocerererereres's' apostrophe...

You've convinced me.

Will there be a Cantonese translation of the European Second Edition of Les of the Many Boden's of Folly "Books."?

[Alice Shortcake]

Oh, to hell with this grammar Nazism! (Although I'd just like to say that in the UK the use of the apostrophe in Charles' book is perfectly acceptable.)

Ladies, gentlemen, persons of (genuine) royal descent, I do believe it's time for a spot of schadenfreude.

Earlier today I had a quick look at the history of the "Lady of Lawers" Wikipedia article and noticed something very interesting: when it first appeared on 28th March 2006 it began with the words:

Quote:

Around 1650, John Campbell of Lawers took for his wife a Stewart from the Appin district of Argyll. No one knows her Christian name as she was always referred to as Baintighearn Labhuir or the Lady of Lawers.

This is essentially the version of the tale that can still be found elsewhere on the net. Not until 24th December 2009 was it altered to read:

Quote:

Around 1630, John Stewart, second son of Laird Duncan Stewart 6th of of Appin, took for his wife a daughter of Sir James Campbell, Sherriff of Perthshire. Her Christian name was Mary Campbell, but she was always referred to as Baintighearn Labhuir or the Lady of Lawers.

I must admit that when I first read the link so kindly provided by Charles I felt a bit...suspicious. Where did this information come from? As we already know, the only person who believes that John Stewart married and had children is Charles Boden.

The edit was made by someone with the IP number 189.25.133.246 who has made no other edits to Wikipedia articles. Look what I discovered through www.ipaddresser.com:

Quote:

Reverse IP Lookup - 189.25.133.246
City/Region/Company: Rio de Janeiro
Country:Brazil

Charles, is this merely a coincidence? Is Rio de Janeiro crawling with expats obsessed with the Stewarts of Appin? Or have you been caught out in the act of manufacturing evidence?

Enquiring sceptical minds want to know!

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by Alice Shortcake

Oh, to hell with this grammar Nazism! (Although I'd just like to say that in the UK the use of the apostrophe in Charles' book is perfectly acceptable.

Ladies, gentlemen, persons of (genuine) royal descent, I do believe it's time for a spot of schadenfreude.

<snip>

Charles, is this merely a coincidence? Is Rio de Janeiro crawling with expats obsessed with the Stewarts of Appin? Or have you been caught out in the act of manufacturing evidence?

Enquiring sceptical minds want to know!

Wow, Alice! Just wow.

[Apology]

Originally Posted by Alice Shortcake

I must admit that when I first read the link so kindly provided by Charles I felt a bit...suspicious. Where did this information come from? As we already know, the only person who believes that John Stewart married and had children is Charles Boden.

The edit was made by someone with the IP number 189.25.133.246 who has made no other edits to Wikipedia articles. Look what I discovered through www.ipaddresser.com:



Charles, is this merely a coincidence? Is Rio de Janeiro crawling with expats obsessed with the Stewarts of Appin? Or have you been caught out in the act of manufacturing evidence?

Enquiring sceptical minds want to know!

I bow down to your superlative investigative skills.

[Akhenaten]

Busted!

[Christian Klippel]

Originally Posted by Alice Shortcake

I must admit that when I first read the link so kindly provided by Charles I felt a bit...suspicious. Where did this information come from? As we already know, the only person who believes that John Stewart married and had children is Charles Boden.

The edit was made by someone with the IP number 189.25.133.246 who has made no other edits to Wikipedia articles. Look what I discovered through www.ipaddresser.com:



Charles, is this merely a coincidence? Is Rio de Janeiro crawling with expats obsessed with the Stewarts of Appin? Or have you been caught out in the act of manufacturing evidence?

Enquiring sceptical minds want to know!

Let me test my predictive powers: Go ahead and slam a good amount of "citation needed" tags in there, and i predict that soon enough his book will be added as a citation source. By someone with an IP-Number in Brazil, that is.

In any case, great find, and far too strange to be just a coincidence.

Quite funny how things in this puzzle fall together. He copypasted quotes from his book, and a forumite found that book then. Then he gives some strange ancestry story and references WP and soon enough a forumite will find that strange coincidence in the articles edit history.

Somehow i'm sure that if someone would go to that strange "spiritualist center" over there, that person would surely find out that Charles was talking about his supposed royal ancestry all the time, and thus made it easy for the medium to get and use that piece of information.

I'll bet a six-pack of tasty german beer on all that.

Greetings,

Chris

[tsig]

Originally Posted by Alice Shortcake

Oh, to hell with this grammar Nazism! (Although I'd just like to say that in the UK the use of the apostrophe in Charles' book is perfectly acceptable.

Ladies, gentlemen, persons of (genuine) royal descent, I do believe it's time for a spot of schadenfreude.

Earlier today I had a quick look at the history of the "Lady of Lawers" Wikipedia article and noticed something very interesting: when it first appeared on 28th March 2006 it began with the words:



This is essentially the version of the tale that can still be found elsewhere on the net. Not until 24th December 2009 was it altered to read:



I must admit that when I first read the link so kindly provided by Charles I felt a bit...suspicious. Where did this information come from? As we already know, the only person who believes that John Stewart married and had children is Charles Boden.

The edit was made by someone with the IP number 189.25.133.246 who has made no other edits to Wikipedia articles. Look what I discovered through www.ipaddresser.com:



Charles, is this merely a coincidence? Is Rio de Janeiro crawling with expats obsessed with the Stewarts of Appin? Or have you been caught out in the act of manufacturing evidence?

Enquiring sceptical minds want to know!

[Audible Click]

Kudos, Alice Shortcake!