Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 13:28:14 -0600 From: Jay <jayed@jayed.com> To: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@attbi.com> Cc: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Apostrophe Usage Message-ID: <20021217192814.GE12569@www.jayed.com> In-Reply-To: <swfzswh3eu.zsw@localhost.localdomain> References: <20021215213600.GA6049@submonkey.net> <20021215214245.GC6049@submonkey.net> <i9k7i9hhjr.7i9@localhost.localdomain> <20021216145713.5821cc6d.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> <swfzswh3eu.zsw@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 11:05:29AM -0800, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: > Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > > On 16 Dec 2002 11:47:52 -0800 > > swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen) wrote: > > > > > I worry that you asked the question wrongly. Does the "'s" belong? > > > > > > I think so, but these should be OK too: > > > > > > Include an abstract of the book contents here. > > > Include an abstract of the book content here. > > > Include an abstract of the book's content here. > ... > > If I'm not mistaken, doesn't an apostrophe (Tom's system) apply to > > ownership. Therefor, the (book's content) would be correct. > > Yes, that's why I said "I think so, but these should be OK *too*". > > It should also be correct to refer to "book contents", where "book" is > used as a simple adjective. The possessive form may sound more natural > to us in this case, but it's just custom. In a similar case, we might > rather use the opposite form, for example, preferring "peach pit" to > "peach's pit". But both forms are allowed by our grammar. While both forms are allowed by our grammar, the "'s" form is much more common -- and they are not semantically equivalent, though they can be interpreted the same. In phrases like the "peach's pit", the non-apostrophed word is the focus of the sentence. As in "I broke my tooth on the peach's pit". In that case the pit is the important part -- and not the peach. If you say "the book contents" then you are implying that the *book* is the focus of the sentence and not the contents. As in "the car tires went flat". You could say the "car's tires..." but "the car tires" is actually more correct. The "car's tires" is actually a slightly sloppy English construction. But that's the way the English is going. If you want to talk about the contents of a book, yet still indicate that the book is primary -- without using an apostrophe -- you would say "the contents of the book" and not "the book contents". If the contents are the primary focus, the you would say "the book's contents". Anway, in this particular case, you would say either "Include an abstract of the book's contents" or "Include an abstract of the comments of the book". (And the later has too many prepositional phrases). Saying "Include an abstract of the book contents" implies that the book is the important part of the sentence...while what is important in this context is the contents of the book. Clear as mud? Jay To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021217192814.GE12569>