Hi everyone!
>>>> I hope it's not terribly rude of me to point out that they properly
>>>> should be called "Carl Barks's Greatest DuckTales Stories," and not
>>> "Carl Barks' Greatest DuckTales Stories?" Since the word "Barks" isn't a
>>>> plural, you can't use the rule for plural possessives on it.
First, I don't see a problem asking the question.
You may, indeed, apply this rule to names ending in -s -- "Keats' poems" is
as correct as "Keats's poems".
As pointed in other messages, I'm surprised by the title: "DuckTales" in one
words is the name of the series; is it a typo in the e-mails (including
yours, Gary)? If not, why mix up Barks' stories with the animated series
(even though the latter were often based on the former)?
I haven't followed this thread much, so these question may have been
addressed already (my apologies): what is the idea behind this collection?
Is it a cheap (no pejorative meaning), mini Carl Barks Library?
Will the issues include reprints of CBL essays or possibly new ones?
Is it intended as a Barks only collection, or do you already have in mind
more titles, for other authors/artists (depending on the success of these
books)?
Would Taliaferro books be possible?
Have a nice week-end!
Olivier
Author
Topic: 200603
(133 messages)
Olivier
Ducktales
Message 16 -
2006-03-10 at 21:43:41
Francesco Spreafico
Ducktales
Message 17 -
2006-03-10 at 22:03:56
Yossi Horowitz wrote:
> I hope it's not terribly rude of me to point out that they properly
> should be called "Carl Barks's Greatest DuckTales Stories," and not
> "Carl Barks' Greatest DuckTales Stories?" Since the word "Barks"
> isn't a plural, you can't use the rule for plural possessives on it.
Well, actually yes, you can.
Francesco
> I hope it's not terribly rude of me to point out that they properly
> should be called "Carl Barks's Greatest DuckTales Stories," and not
> "Carl Barks' Greatest DuckTales Stories?" Since the word "Barks"
> isn't a plural, you can't use the rule for plural possessives on it.
Well, actually yes, you can.
Francesco
Travis Seitler
Ducktales
Message 18 -
2006-03-10 at 22:11:36
> As pointed in other messages, I'm surprised by the title: "DuckTales" in
> one words is the name of the series; is it a typo in the e-mails (including
> yours, Gary)? If not, why mix up Barks' stories with the animated series
> (even though the latter were often based on the former)?
The naming is intentional. Essentially, the DuckTales books collect Barks'
stories which provided inspiration for (or were essentially translated into)
specific episodes of the DuckTales cartoon series. Right, Gary?
(And as you can see, I also ascribe to s-apostrophe possessives. It's more a
matter of preference than a universal rule at this point in time.)
--Travis Seitler
> one words is the name of the series; is it a typo in the e-mails (including
> yours, Gary)? If not, why mix up Barks' stories with the animated series
> (even though the latter were often based on the former)?
The naming is intentional. Essentially, the DuckTales books collect Barks'
stories which provided inspiration for (or were essentially translated into)
specific episodes of the DuckTales cartoon series. Right, Gary?
(And as you can see, I also ascribe to s-apostrophe possessives. It's more a
matter of preference than a universal rule at this point in time.)
--Travis Seitler
Donald D. Markstein
Correct English Possessives
Message 19 -
2006-03-11 at 17:00:37
>You may, indeed, apply this rule to names ending in -s -- "Keats'
poems" is
> as correct as "Keats's poems".
No it isn't. It's not remarked on very often, because it's such a common error that it would be tedious to do so (which is the only objection I have to the original post), but it's still an error. In English, the apostrophe followed by S is ALWAYS used to indicate possessive case, except with a PLURAL noun that ends in S. The fact that the error is often seen even in professional publications is no more an indicator of correctness than is the fact that even professionals often use the plural noun "media" as if it were singular, an indicator that the singular usage is correct.
In both cases, common usage may eventually render it "correct" -- that's how it is with living languages. But in neither case is it there yet, and I doubt it will be in my lifetime.
Sorry for being tedious, but you should hear me on the subject of misusing the noun "suspect" in TV news broadcasts, e.g., "The suspect then shot the clerk and escaped". No, that's what the CRIMINAL did -- the suspect is the person ACCUSED of having done it. Suspects always have names. Either TV news people are a bunch of semi-literates, or they're out to put across the idea that whoever gets caught is necessarily the one who committed the crime. (My family is really tired of hearing this.)
Quack, Don
poems" is
> as correct as "Keats's poems".
No it isn't. It's not remarked on very often, because it's such a common error that it would be tedious to do so (which is the only objection I have to the original post), but it's still an error. In English, the apostrophe followed by S is ALWAYS used to indicate possessive case, except with a PLURAL noun that ends in S. The fact that the error is often seen even in professional publications is no more an indicator of correctness than is the fact that even professionals often use the plural noun "media" as if it were singular, an indicator that the singular usage is correct.
In both cases, common usage may eventually render it "correct" -- that's how it is with living languages. But in neither case is it there yet, and I doubt it will be in my lifetime.
Sorry for being tedious, but you should hear me on the subject of misusing the noun "suspect" in TV news broadcasts, e.g., "The suspect then shot the clerk and escaped". No, that's what the CRIMINAL did -- the suspect is the person ACCUSED of having done it. Suspects always have names. Either TV news people are a bunch of semi-literates, or they're out to put across the idea that whoever gets caught is necessarily the one who committed the crime. (My family is really tired of hearing this.)
Quack, Don
Francesco Spreafico
Correct English Possessives
Message 20 -
2006-03-11 at 17:44:06
Donald D. Markstein wrote:
> In both cases, common usage may eventually render it "correct" --
> that's how it is with living languages. But in neither case is it
> there yet, and I doubt it will be in my lifetime.
Well it actually was already correct when they printed my English
grammar some... 15 years ago! So I guess it's already there... maybe
grammars still differ on it.
Francesco
> In both cases, common usage may eventually render it "correct" --
> that's how it is with living languages. But in neither case is it
> there yet, and I doubt it will be in my lifetime.
Well it actually was already correct when they printed my English
grammar some... 15 years ago! So I guess it's already there... maybe
grammars still differ on it.
Francesco
Olivier
Correct English Possessives
Message 21 -
2006-03-11 at 21:07:42
- Donald D. Markstein -
>>> >You may, indeed, apply this rule to names ending in -s -- "Keats'
>>>> poems" is
>>>> as correct as "Keats's poems".
>> No it isn't. [...]
>> In English, the apostrophe followed by S is ALWAYS
>> used to indicate possessive case, except with a PLURAL noun
>> that ends in S.
Would "tolerated" be more correct, then?
(I did check my linguistics book before replying the first time, just in
case.)
Olivier
>>> >You may, indeed, apply this rule to names ending in -s -- "Keats'
>>>> poems" is
>>>> as correct as "Keats's poems".
>> No it isn't. [...]
>> In English, the apostrophe followed by S is ALWAYS
>> used to indicate possessive case, except with a PLURAL noun
>> that ends in S.
Would "tolerated" be more correct, then?
(I did check my linguistics book before replying the first time, just in
case.)
Olivier
Anthony Vuono
Gemstone Rosa Plans?
Message 22 -
2006-03-12 at 03:56:45
To Gemstone:
Now, that Don Rosa's "Prisoner of White Agony Creek" will appear in the
next month or two throughout Europe, do you have any word when it will end
up in "Uncle Scrooge?" On this issue also, when will the trade paperback for
the "Life of Scrooge" B-chapters appear? I think that it been mentioned that
it could out as early as summer of 2006, but there has been no word on that
for months now. Also, does Gemstone still have plans for a special hardback
edition of "Life of Scrooge" in 2007? I realize it might be way too early to
talk about that one yet was wondering if anything concrete had been decided
recently. Finally, I LOVE "Uncle Scrooge" 350! It's a great reprint and
presentation. Continue the good work and success!
Sincerely,
Anthony
Now, that Don Rosa's "Prisoner of White Agony Creek" will appear in the
next month or two throughout Europe, do you have any word when it will end
up in "Uncle Scrooge?" On this issue also, when will the trade paperback for
the "Life of Scrooge" B-chapters appear? I think that it been mentioned that
it could out as early as summer of 2006, but there has been no word on that
for months now. Also, does Gemstone still have plans for a special hardback
edition of "Life of Scrooge" in 2007? I realize it might be way too early to
talk about that one yet was wondering if anything concrete had been decided
recently. Finally, I LOVE "Uncle Scrooge" 350! It's a great reprint and
presentation. Continue the good work and success!
Sincerely,
Anthony
Leo Schulte
DCML Digest, Vol 37, Issue 9
Message 23 -
2006-03-12 at 14:42:38
I also ascribe to the "s-apostrophe" rather than the "s-apostrophe-s"
rule, which seems illogical, and is, because Americans at least will ad
an extra "s" as in Barkses stories when they pronounce the possessive of
Barks. Still, I have never liked the way it looks! And so, even though
the sound is there, I will not write an extra gentive "s" for a word
ending in -s.
Illogical, but that's English!
And anything that keeps Barks and Uncle Scrooge going is fine with me! I
just wish we had a series of the Don Rosa Library going right now in the
U.S.!
--
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
rule, which seems illogical, and is, because Americans at least will ad
an extra "s" as in Barkses stories when they pronounce the possessive of
Barks. Still, I have never liked the way it looks! And so, even though
the sound is there, I will not write an extra gentive "s" for a word
ending in -s.
Illogical, but that's English!
And anything that keeps Barks and Uncle Scrooge going is fine with me! I
just wish we had a series of the Don Rosa Library going right now in the
U.S.!
--
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/
Donald D. Markstein
DCML Digest, Vol 37, Issue 10
Message 24 -
2006-03-12 at 16:06:36
> Well it actually was already correct when they printed my English
grammar some... 15 years
> ago! So I guess it's already there... maybe grammars still differ on it.
You learned that in a government school, within the past generation?
I rest my case.
Quack, Don
grammar some... 15 years
> ago! So I guess it's already there... maybe grammars still differ on it.
You learned that in a government school, within the past generation?
I rest my case.
Quack, Don
Bangfish
DuckTales collections
Message 25 -
2006-03-12 at 21:35:41
Travis wrote:
>>>The naming is intentional. Essentially, the DuckTales books collect Barks' stories which provided inspiration for (or were essentially translated into) specific episodes of the DuckTales cartoon series. Right, Gary?<<<
Exactly right. And each volume has an introduction that goes into the connections between the stories and the cartoon episodes.
Each volume, by the way, is 144 interior pages.
Gary
>>>The naming is intentional. Essentially, the DuckTales books collect Barks' stories which provided inspiration for (or were essentially translated into) specific episodes of the DuckTales cartoon series. Right, Gary?<<<
Exactly right. And each volume has an introduction that goes into the connections between the stories and the cartoon episodes.
Each volume, by the way, is 144 interior pages.
Gary
Stefan Persson
[Correct English Possessives]
Message 26 -
2006-03-13 at 00:26:27
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Correct English Possessives
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 23:26:11 +0100
From: Stefan Persson <spe at inducks.org>
To: ddmarkstein at cox.net
References: <200603111100.k2BB097A019789 at numerus.lingfil.uu.se>
<4412E615.8000406 at cox.net>
Donald D. Markstein wrote:
> In English, the
> apostrophe followed by S is ALWAYS used to indicate possessive case,
> except with a PLURAL noun that ends in S.
In English, some proper names, such as "Paris", are typically written in
singular, while other proper names, such as "Athens", are typically in
plural. Does this mean that the correct genitive cases for those place
names are "Paris's" and "Athens'" respectively? How do you know if a
proper name is singular or plural?
Stefan
Hash: SHA1
- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Correct English Possessives
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 23:26:11 +0100
From: Stefan Persson <spe at inducks.org>
To: ddmarkstein at cox.net
References: <200603111100.k2BB097A019789 at numerus.lingfil.uu.se>
<4412E615.8000406 at cox.net>
Donald D. Markstein wrote:
> In English, the
> apostrophe followed by S is ALWAYS used to indicate possessive case,
> except with a PLURAL noun that ends in S.
In English, some proper names, such as "Paris", are typically written in
singular, while other proper names, such as "Athens", are typically in
plural. Does this mean that the correct genitive cases for those place
names are "Paris's" and "Athens'" respectively? How do you know if a
proper name is singular or plural?
Stefan
Kriton Kyrimis
Correct English Possessives
Message 27 -
2006-03-13 at 10:20:34
DON:
> No it isn't. It's not remarked on very often, because it's such a common
> error that it would be tedious to do so (which is the only objection I
> have to the original post), but it's still an error. In English, the
> apostrophe followed by S is ALWAYS used to indicate possessive case,
> except with a PLURAL noun that ends in S. The fact that the error is
> often seen even in professional publications is no more an indicator of
> correctness than is the fact that even professionals often use the
> plural noun "media" as if it were singular, an indicator that the
> singular usage is correct.
This is what I was taught, too, until someone pointed me to Strunk and White's
"The Elements of Style", which I understand is a standard reference. The book
begins with a discussion on this very topic:
> Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's.
>
> Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,
>
> Charles's friend
> Burns's poems
> the witch's malice
>
> 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, 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 by
>
> the heel of Achilles
> the laws of Moses
> the temple of Isis
>
> The pronominal possessives hers, its, theirs, yours, and oneself have no
> apostrophe.
Note, that, according to
http://www.askoxford.com/betterwriting/osa/punctuation/?view=uk#apostrophe ,
Oxford University Press do not seem to be endorsing the above, despite Strunk
and White's saying that they do.
For those interested in reading "The Elements of Style", it is still published
and updated (a third author has now been added to the list of authors), but
the original edition is now out of copyright and can be found on the internet.
Kriton.
-----
"Just because something is not possible does not mean it can't be
done--especially by someone who doesn't know any better."
-----
> No it isn't. It's not remarked on very often, because it's such a common
> error that it would be tedious to do so (which is the only objection I
> have to the original post), but it's still an error. In English, the
> apostrophe followed by S is ALWAYS used to indicate possessive case,
> except with a PLURAL noun that ends in S. The fact that the error is
> often seen even in professional publications is no more an indicator of
> correctness than is the fact that even professionals often use the
> plural noun "media" as if it were singular, an indicator that the
> singular usage is correct.
This is what I was taught, too, until someone pointed me to Strunk and White's
"The Elements of Style", which I understand is a standard reference. The book
begins with a discussion on this very topic:
> Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's.
>
> Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,
>
> Charles's friend
> Burns's poems
> the witch's malice
>
> 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, 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 by
>
> the heel of Achilles
> the laws of Moses
> the temple of Isis
>
> The pronominal possessives hers, its, theirs, yours, and oneself have no
> apostrophe.
Note, that, according to
http://www.askoxford.com/betterwriting/osa/punctuation/?view=uk#apostrophe ,
Oxford University Press do not seem to be endorsing the above, despite Strunk
and White's saying that they do.
For those interested in reading "The Elements of Style", it is still published
and updated (a third author has now been added to the list of authors), but
the original edition is now out of copyright and can be found on the internet.
Kriton.
-----
"Just because something is not possible does not mean it can't be
done--especially by someone who doesn't know any better."
-----
Donald D. Markstein
DCML Digest, Vol 37, Issue 11
Message 28 -
2006-03-13 at 13:24:40
> I also ascribe to the "s-apostrophe" rather than the "s-apostrophe-s"
> rule, which seems illogical, and is, because Americans at least will
> ad an extra "s" as in /Barkses stories/ when they pronounce the
> possessive of Barks. Still, I have never liked the way it looks! And
> so, even though the sound is there, I will not write an extra gentive
> "s" for a word ending in -s.
>
> Illogical, but that's English!
>
No it isn't. Not correct English, anyway. Tell me, do you also "ascribe"
(look it up) to the practice of using an apostrophe to form plurals?
That, too, is a popular but grossly incorrect way of dealing with
English nouns.
>In English, some proper names, such as "Paris", are typically written in
>singular, while other proper names, such as "Athens", are typically in
>plural. Does this mean that the correct genitive cases for those place
>names are "Paris's" and "Athens'" respectively? How do you know if a
>proper name is singular or plural?
>
>
"Athens" is plural? I never heard that one before. So, what does it mean
to speak of one Athen?
Quack, Don
> rule, which seems illogical, and is, because Americans at least will
> ad an extra "s" as in /Barkses stories/ when they pronounce the
> possessive of Barks. Still, I have never liked the way it looks! And
> so, even though the sound is there, I will not write an extra gentive
> "s" for a word ending in -s.
>
> Illogical, but that's English!
>
No it isn't. Not correct English, anyway. Tell me, do you also "ascribe"
(look it up) to the practice of using an apostrophe to form plurals?
That, too, is a popular but grossly incorrect way of dealing with
English nouns.
>In English, some proper names, such as "Paris", are typically written in
>singular, while other proper names, such as "Athens", are typically in
>plural. Does this mean that the correct genitive cases for those place
>names are "Paris's" and "Athens'" respectively? How do you know if a
>proper name is singular or plural?
>
>
"Athens" is plural? I never heard that one before. So, what does it mean
to speak of one Athen?
Quack, Don
Kriton Kyrimis
One Athen, two Athens
Message 29 -
2006-03-13 at 14:49:40
DON:
> "Athens" is plural? I never heard that one before.
Ah, a question for me!
Athens is, indeed, plural. The Greek name of the city is Athenai or Athinai,
depending on how you transcribe the Greek letter eta in the name. The word has
a plural suffix and is conjugated in the plural, so there is no doubt about this.
This practice is not uncommon in Greece, with several Greek cities having
names in the plural, such as Thivai (Thebes), Patrai (Patras), and Serrai. In
modern Greek, the names of all but the last have evolved into the singular, so
Athinai is now called Athina, Thivai is called Thiva, and Patrai is now called
Patra. Woe betide anyone who attempts to call Serrai "Serra" in front of
someone from that city, though!
As to why this is so, one theory is that these cities were formed by the
joining of a number of towns and villages, and the plural records this event.
This joining was not in the sense of towns getting bigger and bigger until
their boundaries merged, but in the sense of distinct settlements uniting into
one political entity. Ancient Athens, e.g., encompassed most of the Attican
peninsula, and was not limited to the town at the foot of the Acropolis.
Presumably, the English name "Athens", the French "Ath?nes", etc., are direct
translations, retaining the Greek plural.
> So, what does it mean to speak of one Athen?
That you're German?
Kriton.
-----
"Just because something is not possible does not mean it can't be
done--especially by someone who doesn't know any better."
-----
> "Athens" is plural? I never heard that one before.
Ah, a question for me!
Athens is, indeed, plural. The Greek name of the city is Athenai or Athinai,
depending on how you transcribe the Greek letter eta in the name. The word has
a plural suffix and is conjugated in the plural, so there is no doubt about this.
This practice is not uncommon in Greece, with several Greek cities having
names in the plural, such as Thivai (Thebes), Patrai (Patras), and Serrai. In
modern Greek, the names of all but the last have evolved into the singular, so
Athinai is now called Athina, Thivai is called Thiva, and Patrai is now called
Patra. Woe betide anyone who attempts to call Serrai "Serra" in front of
someone from that city, though!
As to why this is so, one theory is that these cities were formed by the
joining of a number of towns and villages, and the plural records this event.
This joining was not in the sense of towns getting bigger and bigger until
their boundaries merged, but in the sense of distinct settlements uniting into
one political entity. Ancient Athens, e.g., encompassed most of the Attican
peninsula, and was not limited to the town at the foot of the Acropolis.
Presumably, the English name "Athens", the French "Ath?nes", etc., are direct
translations, retaining the Greek plural.
> So, what does it mean to speak of one Athen?
That you're German?
Kriton.
-----
"Just because something is not possible does not mean it can't be
done--especially by someone who doesn't know any better."
-----
Dan Shane
DCML Digest, Vol 37, Issue 11
Message 30 -
2006-03-13 at 16:00:47
STEFAN QUOTES DON,
> Donald D. Markstein wrote:
> > In English, the
> > apostrophe followed by S is ALWAYS used to indicate
> possessive case,
> > except with a PLURAL noun that ends in S.
AND THEN RESPONDS:
> In English, some proper names, such as "Paris", are typically
> written in singular, while other proper names, such as
> "Athens", are typically in plural. Does this mean that the
> correct genitive cases for those place names are "Paris's"
> and "Athens'" respectively? How do you know if a proper name
> is singular or plural?
AND I INTERJECT:
Place names are not considered plural just because they end with "S". Any
such name is considered singular (at least in English). However, in English
grammar there are *always* exceptions, and Don seems to have overlooked one.
Some proper nouns that end in "S" have traditionally been made possessive by
adding only the apostrophe because adding another "S" would make the name
sound clumsy. Two notable exceptions are "Moses' and 'Jesus'. I have begun
to see the possessive form of Jesus spelled "Jesus's" in United Kingdom
countries, but in the U.S.A. it is still quite rare to see that spelling.
The debate goes on. There seems to be no consensus on the proper possessive
of a proper noun that ends in "S", but the important thing is to be
consistent. While the Internet should seldom be considered a universal tool
for accuracy, I don't believe many would that citing a university's Web page
on the use of the apostrophe is inappropriate.
Here are a few:
http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~olson/pms/apostrophe.html
http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/punct/apostrophe.html
... And even one from a UK university that concedes the solitary apostrophe
(James') is just as correct as the normal form (James's).
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/el/teachingzone/cae/coursework/reports/ap
ostrophe.html
(Disclosure: Dan Shane's mostly worthless opinion is that both methods are
fine, but he begins to spit fire when he sees "their" spelled "they're" or
"there", non-possessive "its" spelled "it's", or "would have" rendered as
"would of". I would gladly suffer "Jesus'" or "Jesus's" equally if people
would just accept kind counsel on simple grammar rules that are universally
understood.)
> Donald D. Markstein wrote:
> > In English, the
> > apostrophe followed by S is ALWAYS used to indicate
> possessive case,
> > except with a PLURAL noun that ends in S.
AND THEN RESPONDS:
> In English, some proper names, such as "Paris", are typically
> written in singular, while other proper names, such as
> "Athens", are typically in plural. Does this mean that the
> correct genitive cases for those place names are "Paris's"
> and "Athens'" respectively? How do you know if a proper name
> is singular or plural?
AND I INTERJECT:
Place names are not considered plural just because they end with "S". Any
such name is considered singular (at least in English). However, in English
grammar there are *always* exceptions, and Don seems to have overlooked one.
Some proper nouns that end in "S" have traditionally been made possessive by
adding only the apostrophe because adding another "S" would make the name
sound clumsy. Two notable exceptions are "Moses' and 'Jesus'. I have begun
to see the possessive form of Jesus spelled "Jesus's" in United Kingdom
countries, but in the U.S.A. it is still quite rare to see that spelling.
The debate goes on. There seems to be no consensus on the proper possessive
of a proper noun that ends in "S", but the important thing is to be
consistent. While the Internet should seldom be considered a universal tool
for accuracy, I don't believe many would that citing a university's Web page
on the use of the apostrophe is inappropriate.
Here are a few:
http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~olson/pms/apostrophe.html
http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/punct/apostrophe.html
... And even one from a UK university that concedes the solitary apostrophe
(James') is just as correct as the normal form (James's).
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/el/teachingzone/cae/coursework/reports/ap
ostrophe.html
(Disclosure: Dan Shane's mostly worthless opinion is that both methods are
fine, but he begins to spit fire when he sees "their" spelled "they're" or
"there", non-possessive "its" spelled "it's", or "would have" rendered as
"would of". I would gladly suffer "Jesus'" or "Jesus's" equally if people
would just accept kind counsel on simple grammar rules that are universally
understood.)