1
   

"Someone's" is incorrect. "Apostrophe s" is a contraction for "is," not "has."

 
 
JTT
 
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 03:57 pm
This silly prescription, found in the title, advanced by JoefromChicago, started in another thread that was largely about another silly prescription.

http://able2know.org/topic/192912-1

Started in Post: # 5,027,967 which has been copied below.

Though I won't move all the posts relating to this prescription here now, it does merit its own thread just as a reminder of how nonsensical prescriptions are.

If anyone is interested, the posts can be read at the above link.

Suffice it to say, Joe, after a great deal of double talk, never gave any reason for his offering. In case you are unaware, that is par for the course for prescriptive rules.

Quote:

Roberta wrote:
The opening sentence should read (assuming that the someone is a male):

Someone's asked me to proofread his work, but he has a habit of always leading into quotes with commas. For example...


JoefromChicago wrote:
Quote:
"Someone's" is incorrect. "Apostrophe s" is a contraction for "is," not "has."


=====================

JoefromChicago:
Quote:
"Someone's" is incorrect. "Apostrophe s" is a contraction for "is," not "has."


JTT replied:
Quote:
Either I misunderstand you, Joe, or it's one of those situations where someone says something about language that is so outlandish that it shocks everyone into silence.

Apostrophe s" is a contraction for both "is," and "has."

Googled - "someone's been told"
Search About 897,000 results

Googled - "someone's asked"
About 23,700 results


 
Sturgis
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 03:59 pm
@JTT,
JTT, do the world a favor and screw off.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 04:04 pm
@Sturgis,
Sturgis, do the world a huge, monumental favor and try honesty. That would mean that far fewer American kids would be taught a whole passel of lies about language.

You did say that you were involved in education, did you not?

By the by, what do you think of Joe's prescription?
Sturgis
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 04:07 pm
@JTT,
I taught science.

It has less to do with what I think of the original thread than my feelings towards you for starting a new thread with no other purpose than to chop others up while attempting to make yourself seem intelligent.

(I sincerely hope that was honest enough for you)
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 04:24 pm
@Sturgis,
Quote:
It has less to do with what I think of the original thread than my feelings towards you for starting a new thread with no other purpose than to chop others up while attempting to make yourself seem intelligent.


As a teacher you ought to be less charitable to those who deceive students and more charitable to students who suffer from these lies.

Quote:
(I sincerely hope that was honest enough for you)


No, but it was at least typical, Sturgis. People have to be held accountable for their errors. One really can't do enough in exposing these folks who perpetuate lies about any area of study.

I asked what you thought of the prescription, if you agreed with it. Were you taught this in school? Did you have occasion to advance this prescription?
contrex
 
  4  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 05:19 pm
That "prescription" is nothing of the kind, just a silly error by a subliterate Joe Sixpack. Everybody in the English speaking world already knows that apostrophe-s can stand for 'has' and well as 'is' and this has been the case for around 300 years. I must admit I'm stumped by this thread. Stumped because I had a kind of superstitious (almost) dread of saying something that JTT might not like in case he got all nasty and spiteful. In so doing I was making him out to be more (much more) than what this thread clearly reveals him to be. (An idiot).




JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 05:35 pm
@contrex,
Quote:
That "prescription" is nothing of the kind, just a silly error by a subliterate Joe Sixpack.


Nothing of what kind, C?

Is it your contention that JoefromChicago is Joe Sixpack, a subliterate?

Quote:
I must admit I'm stumped by this thread. Stumped because I had a kind of superstitious (almost) dread of saying something that JTT might not like in case he got all nasty and spiteful.


Come on, C, be honest. When you bring honesty to the table, you are treated with great respect.

'nasty and spiteful' are not traits that are not lost on you. You get both barrels only when you reveal your nasty side or you parrot another silly prescription about the English language.

Considering that we are both in the same business and that you regularly are wrong in your analysis of language, it's rather presumptuous of you to call me an idiot.

When you get schooled by Ticomaya on issues of language, you know that you have a considerable way to go before you call yourself a teacher.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 05:39 pm
@JTT,
I have a feeling that Sturgis won't be back. I hope I'm wrong, but ... .
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 06:32 pm
@JTT,
Why do you persist in calling these kinds of things "lies" and "falsehoods", JTT?

Can they not be "errors" or "disagreements" instead?

What do you get out of classifying them as lies?
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Jul, 2012 07:18 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Why do you persist in calling these kinds of things "lies" and "falsehoods", JTT?

Can they not be "errors" or "disagreements" instead?

What do you get out of classifying them as lies?


I can't believe you are asking this at this point, Frank. Do you believe this prescription advanced by JoeFromChicago? Or are you just afraid to acknowledge that prescriptions can be utter nonsense?

I hope it's the former, Frank. If it's the latter, well, ... .

Why can't/don't you ever address any of the source material offered? There's no doubt that I would address anything you offered.

It should also cause your brain to say, "hey, how come there is no reasoning or proof for these prescriptions I learned from [pamphlet name/style manual]"?

What don't you understand about the fact that these were made up rules by men who saw language as a fashion statement?

What don't you understand about the fact that these rules that do not describe how language works?

Why don't you ever consider that this and maybe one or two other lame excuses are all you can offer in defense of these rules?
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2012 02:39 am
@JTT,
Quote:
I can't believe you are asking this at this point, Frank. Do you believe this prescription advanced by JoeFromChicago? Or are you just afraid to acknowledge that prescriptions can be utter nonsense?


I am not interested in what you can or cannot "believe", JTT. I am asking why you are characterizing this as a lie.

A response can be wrong or incorrect...and not be a lie. Well...to someone who is anal, I guess it can be "a lie." But I was just wondering why it is a "lie" to you. Are you going to address that?

Quote:
Why can't/don't you ever address any of the source material offered? There's no doubt that I would address anything you offered.


Okay, give me the "source material" that designates mistakes as lies...and I will address it. (Although you are now getting so far out, the first thing I thought of was Norton "addressing" the ball for Jackie!)

Quote:
It should also cause your brain to say, "hey, how come there is no reasoning or proof for these prescriptions I learned from [pamphlet name/style manual]"?


Aha...so you suppose that anything for which there is no reason has to be a lie. Wow, what pamphlet did you get that from?

Quote:
What don't you understand about the fact that these were made up rules by men who saw language as a fashion statement?


Ahem...Earth calling JTT. THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM LIES!

Quote:
What don't you understand about the fact that these rules that do not describe how language works?


What does that have to do with you compulsion to call those kinds of things lies?

Quote:
Why don't you ever consider that this and maybe one or two other lame excuses are all you can offer in defense of these rules?


We are not discussing rules at this moment, JTT. We are discussing this obsession with calling things lies.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jul, 2012 11:47 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
A response can be wrong or incorrect...and not be a lie.


That's true but you are twisting words

In this case, Frank, YOU advanced a lie. You knew full well it was a lie because it had been explained to you before when you tried to pull this nonsense on H2oman. You remembered that incident because you went from Mr Know it all to a partially chastened [probably] Frank.

Therefore, it's clear. You lied to Joe England.

In Roberta's case she advanced a falsehood about language but it isn't clear that she lied. If she was to advance that same falsehood then she would be guilty of lying about language.

Quote:
We are not discussing rules at this moment, JTT.


I am and so should you be, Frank, but your quiver is totally empty so you go to this inane piece of nonsense that you've seized on and completely twisted.

The issue is whether apostrophe 's' means 'is' or 'has' or both depending on the context.

Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Jul, 2012 03:28 am
@JTT,
Quote:
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5037416)
Quote:
A response can be wrong or incorrect...and not be a lie.



That's true but you are twisting words


Is that so? And which one is being "twisted?"


Quote:
In this case, Frank, YOU advanced a lie. You knew full well it was a lie because it had been explained to you before when you tried to pull this nonsense on H2oman. You remembered that incident because you went from Mr Know it all to a partially chastened [probably] Frank.


Actually, JTT, I probably am the member of A2K most likely NOT to be a "know it all." I acknowledge I do not know things all the time...something I seldom see you doing. To be called a "know it all" by you is like being called over-weight by Chris Christie.

Quote:
Therefore, it's clear. You lied to Joe England.


Nope. No lie. But I continue to understand your almost manic need to call people liars. I do hope you finally get past that.

Quote:
In Roberta's case she advanced a falsehood about language but it isn't clear that she lied. If she was to advance that same falsehood then she would be guilty of lying about language.


That sentence is so poorly conceived and constructed, it seems amazing that the person who wrote it is actually giving lessons in grammar. C'mon, JTT, call down and stop making mistakes of this sort.

Quote:
Quote:
We are not discussing rules at this moment, JTT.


I am and so should you be, Frank, but your quiver is totally empty so you go to this inane piece of nonsense that you've seized on and completely twisted.

The issue is whether apostrophe 's' means 'is' or 'has' or both depending on the context.


Actually, JTT, the issue is your need to call people liars. As I said, I hope you outgrow or otherwise conquer that need.
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2012 08:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
JTT:
In Roberta's case she advanced a falsehood about language but it isn't clear that she lied. If she was to advance that same falsehood then she would be guilty of lying about language.



Quote:
That sentence is so poorly conceived and constructed, it seems amazing that the person who wrote it is actually giving lessons in grammar. C'mon, JTT, call down and stop making mistakes of this sort.


This is you twisting words, Frank, twisting the discussion because you have been confronted with a truth that you simply can't face.

Point out the mistake or mistakes, Frank, and explain why you deem them to be mistakes.

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2012 08:48 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Actually, JTT, I probably am the member of A2K most likely NOT to be a "know it all." I acknowledge I do not know things all the time..


Then how come, when you knew you were dead wrong on the issues you used to attack H20man, you didn't acknowledge that.

Why haven't you apologized to Joe England for, feebly, telling him he was using incorrect English?

Why, in the face of overwhelming evidence, do you not acknowledge that you were out to lunch on a number of language issues?

Why, if you are so damn honest, do you refuse to honestly address the actual language issues? You just talk around them, never actually focusing on any issue - just as you have done in your quote above.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2012 09:53 pm
I agree with John McIntyre that it is a bit scary to think that this man spent a career "standing before the impressionable young" and packing their heads with arrant nonsense that editors like John ultimately have to try and rectify by returning the victims to a state in which they can write their own native language sensibly.

It's another illustration of why I am worried that prescriptivism harms the economy: think of the senselessly wasted thousands of hours each year as dim-witted journalism professors with old-fashioned ideas teach falsehoods about English out of hundred-year-old books of toxic waste (you know which sort of book I mean) so that editorial staff members of newspapers can later spend their expensive time struggling to shake the poor graduates out of their didactogenic misconceptions and get their writing back into a state where it's fit to publish.


Read the whole story at,

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2682
0 Replies
 
hayhay7700
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 04:55 pm
@Sturgis,
cant someone me a contraction page for is/has and would/had
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Am definitely confused - Question by Dontknwme
Questions ... To you the people - Question by Johnjohnjohn
What is love? - Question by halfcourt86
whos my dad - Question by deathliekchaos
English to latin... - Question by yoopergirlUP
what is tos - Question by cammeto
the dys is back - Discussion by dyslexia
 
  1. Forums
  2. » "Someone's" is incorrect. "Apostrophe s" is a contraction for "is," not "has."
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/14/2019 at 11:56:13