PDA

View Full Version : For the pedants out there!


Beta1
17-05-2005, 16:05:51
http://eatsshootsandleaves.com/ESLquiz.html

Lurker the Second
17-05-2005, 16:09:49
92% stickler. Disagree with the one they said I missed.

Tizzy
17-05-2005, 16:11:42
My inaccurate clicking let me down, perhaps I should be more of a stickler for good mouse control.

Funko
17-05-2005, 16:12:26
I'm an 83% stickler. I did get one wrong through bad mouse accuracy. :lol:

Beta1
17-05-2005, 16:14:47
which one did you argue with?

I was having problems with the children's - why is "children's" right and "childrens' " wrong when "babies' " is right?

"Also the four yards' worth" - I wouldn't have used a apostrophe at all - the yard is plural? Then again I would have just said "Four yards!"

Lurker the Second
17-05-2005, 16:17:34
"Stop or I'll shoot." I understand the argument for placing the comma, but I think that's a bit anal nowadays.

Beta1
17-05-2005, 16:19:14
actually I agree with you on that one. I think it depends on the way you intend it to be said. If you want a pause then bung a comma in. If not, leave it out.

Japher
17-05-2005, 16:19:45
I quite after missing the first 5 questions... that test is stupid!

Martini
17-05-2005, 16:19:50
Originally posted by Beta1
[B]which one did you argue with?

I was having problems with the children's - why is "children's" right and "childrens' " wrong when "babies' " is right?
]

Children's is possessive. The equivalent would be babies'.

Children is the plural of child, babies is the plural of baby.

Lurker the Second
17-05-2005, 16:21:01
Amen brother Beta.

Beta1
17-05-2005, 16:24:09
Originally posted by Martini
Children's is possessive. The equivalent would be babies'.

Children is the plural of child, babies is the plural of baby.

ah, I see. Its because the babies already has the s - hence babies'. Children doesn't so children's...

Funko
17-05-2005, 16:30:00
Originally posted by Beta1
which one did you argue with?

I was having problems with the children's - why is "children's" right and "childrens' " wrong when "babies' " is right?

Because the plural of child isn't childrens it's children.

Funko
17-05-2005, 16:30:22
I was way too slow.

Lurker the Second
17-05-2005, 16:31:11
Originally posted by Funko
I did get one wrong through bad mouse accuracy. :lol:

Better be careful, the wimmins don't always like that.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
17-05-2005, 16:42:13
92 %.

I just don't get what "four yard's worth" is supposed to mean.

King_Ghidra
17-05-2005, 16:57:26
as in four yard's worth of material

worth is a misleading word in that context

Nills Lagerbaak
17-05-2005, 16:58:33
It should be four yards' worth of material

Drekkus
17-05-2005, 17:03:09
pedants

King_Ghidra
17-05-2005, 17:04:10
no, you would say five pound's worth of sweets

not five pounds' worth of sweets

or four foot's length of wood

not four foots' length of wood

it effectively replaces a sensible plural approach ot the same phrase

e.g.

five pounds of sweets
four feet of wood

KrazyHorse@home
17-05-2005, 17:28:32
no, you would say five pound's worth of sweets

not five pounds' worth of sweets

You are wrong. There are 5 pounds, and you are modifying that with a possessive, thus the apostrophe goes after the s.

100%, by the way.

Nills Lagerbaak
17-05-2005, 17:28:34
Five pounds of sweets is different from five pounds' worth of sweets as the "worth" here belongs to the five pounds.

In the example at the end of the link above the correct answer is

four yards' worth

Nills Lagerbaak
17-05-2005, 17:29:11
Originally posted by KrazyHorse@home
You are wrong. There are 5 pounds, and you are modifying that with a possessive, thus the apostrophe goes after the s.

100%, by the way.

Exaclty. What and anal x-post

Beta1
17-05-2005, 17:35:18
what have I started?

Venom
17-05-2005, 17:56:06
67%! I'm stooopid!

Japher
17-05-2005, 18:02:40
I got the same score as Venom!@!!


the second time I took it

Greg W
18-05-2005, 00:49:52
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
no, you would say five pound's worth of sweets

not five pounds' worth of sweets

or four foot's length of wood

not four foots' length of wood

it effectively replaces a sensible plural approach ot the same phrase

e.g.

five pounds of sweets
four feet of wood Apostrophes are not used for pluralisation! The quizz got it wrong, it's not a contraction, nor is it posessive.

Immortal Wombat
18-05-2005, 00:52:12
It is possessive. It is the worth of the wood, or of the pounds.

The Norks
18-05-2005, 01:06:26
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
no, you would say five pound's worth of sweets

not five pounds' worth of sweets

or four foot's length of wood

not four foots' length of wood

it effectively replaces a sensible plural approach ot the same phrase

e.g.

five pounds of sweets
four feet of wood

its probably considered a bit arcane these days to put apostrophes at the end of words like this. Give it 20 years and no one will do it.

Sir Penguin
18-05-2005, 01:30:26
That's because people suck.

I got 100%.

SP

KrazyHorse@home
18-05-2005, 01:51:39
What do you mean arcane?

It's the only way that makes any sense at all, grammatically speaking.

Otherwise none of the pieces of the sentence relate to each other properly.

Greg W
18-05-2005, 03:07:00
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
It is possessive. It is the worth of the wood, or of the pounds. So four yards is the worth of something? Pfft. :bash:

Nills Lagerbaak
18-05-2005, 09:16:25
No the worth belongs to the four yards and as the yards are plural one must put the apotrophe after the "s".

I don't think it's old fashioned, I still regularly read it written like that and as KH said it wouldn't make any sense at all otherwise.

King_Ghidra
18-05-2005, 09:20:35
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
Five pounds of sweets is different from five pounds' worth of sweets as the "worth" here belongs to the five pounds.



i know that, i was just trying to show for the sake of comparison at the end of my post

Dyl Ulenspiegel
18-05-2005, 09:23:31
Ok, four yards' worth = the worth of four yards? Didn't make much sense to me in isolation...

Sir Penguin
18-05-2005, 09:29:59
That's exactly right.

SP

Funko
18-05-2005, 09:40:40
What does "the worth of four yards" actually mean? :confused:

Dyl Ulenspiegel
18-05-2005, 09:42:46
I think the "worth" is just an unncessary word, there to amuse the pedants.

Funko
18-05-2005, 09:47:13
the of four yards doesn't make any sense either.

Nills Lagerbaak
18-05-2005, 09:49:44
It comes from the olden pre-money bartering days.

"For that Goat......I'll give you 4 yards' worth of material"

Funko
18-05-2005, 09:52:09
That's nonsense.

I want 4 yards of material ie. material of length four yards.

Material has worth, a yard doesn't.

MoSe
18-05-2005, 09:54:09
Does wood have a worth?
I suppose so.
Then, 4 yards of wood would have a certain worth too.

An amount of wood which worth corresponds to the worth of 4 yards of wood is 4 yards' worth of wood.

Unless you can inted it as an amount of wood which worth corresponds to the worth of 4 yards of gold, or whatever.

A Fort's worth of Texans

Dyl Ulenspiegel
18-05-2005, 09:57:04
Ok, different try:

Is there a difference between:

"four yards' worth of rope"

and

"four yards of rope" ?

I assume the "worth" is just an archaism.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
18-05-2005, 09:58:23
Originally posted by Funko
That's nonsense.

I want 4 yards of material ie. material of length four yards.

Material has worth, a yard doesn't.

Supports the idea that it's an archaism, as in german you can say that four yards is a "Wert", just meaning a measured number.

Funko
18-05-2005, 09:59:53
Originally posted by MoSe
A Fort's worth of Texans

Ah! That's a much better example. (even though it's a joke)

I think I understand it in the context of something which comes in smaller blocks than the whole thing.

"This jug contains four pints' worth of lager"?

four yards' worth of material could be the number of small little material patches required to make a 4 yard length I guess...

I guess I agree with The Norks that it's a bit arcane and we'll probably lose it.

MoSe
18-05-2005, 10:01:25
I'm not Worthy

http://www.lakerhoops.net/images/retired6.jpg

as in:
a basket's worth of Worthy

Nills Lagerbaak
18-05-2005, 10:02:56
Originally posted by Funko
That's nonsense.

I want 4 yards of material ie. material of length four yards.

Material has worth, a yard doesn't.

Of course it does! How do you have a barter system without stadards i.e Weight, length and volume.

Material has an unspecified worth, as does grain. How do you exchange grain for material unless it standradised and therefore you have to specify how many units' worth of substance X you want.

You can say 4 yards of wool, in which case there is no apostrophe. But if youy are going to use worth, then it has to have an apostrophe after the s

Funko
18-05-2005, 10:05:41
A yard doesn't have a value.
A yard of material does.

In the barter example a yard is just a standard measure of length so people know what they are talking about when they are bartering. They could as easily say "I'll trade you a length of material from here to the door for as much grain I can fit in this wheelbarrow" but fixed weights and measures make things easier.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
18-05-2005, 10:08:13
:p

Originally posted by Dyl Ulenspiegel
Supports the idea that it's an archaism, as in german you can say that four yards is a "Wert", just meaning a measured number.

Nills Lagerbaak
18-05-2005, 10:09:19
Which is what I said. of course a yard doesn't have a value beacuse you don't know what it is a yard of.

Interesting Jug example (and this is being really pedantic)

Most people when asked how much their 4 pint pitcher holds would say "4 pints' worth" when in fact it does hold 4 pints, but most probably less than 4 pints' worth

Funko
18-05-2005, 10:12:47
So you are saying that the 'worth' of a yard is that it makes bartering easier? :confused: So worth in the respect of being useful not having some intrinsic value? I'm not sure that's exactly relevant to this example. In the example of 4 yards of material it is the material that has the worth to the buyer.

"Most people when asked how much their 4 pint pitcher holds would say "4 pints' worth" when in fact it does hold 4 pints, but most probably less than 4 pints' worth."

I have no idea what you are talking about. I can't see how 4 pints of lager is not the same as 4 pints worth no matter what it's contained in.

Nills Lagerbaak
18-05-2005, 10:22:08
No the yard is a way of standardising different (e.g. materials)

Material doesn't have a "worth" you have to specify some kind of ammount even if it is a molecule of material

Maybe if I explain the jug example it'll make it easier to understand.

The jug contains 4 pints. But the jug is sold for less than 4*1 pints, therefore the worth of the jug is not 4 pints' worth.

Funko
18-05-2005, 10:28:35
Yeah, but you can specify any amount. It doesn't have to be a standard unit. They just make life easier.

In the case of the pints the 'worth' in the sentence is not monetary worth as far as I understand the sentence but the value to the consumer of being able to fill 4 pint glasses.

Basically people should stop using 'worth' as it's silly and confusing. :beer:

Nills Lagerbaak
18-05-2005, 10:39:28
Yes, it certainly does come from the past days....

There are instances when you would want the financial worth and would say "this item holds x somethings' worth of something" when it doesn't actually hold that many somethings, but I can't think of any right now.....

Lurker the Second
18-05-2005, 13:58:10
Most aptly named thread title of the century.