Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

8

No. It is "whose". "Who's" is the contracted form of "who is", which doesn't make sense in this context and is also ungrammatical.. "Whose" is the possessive form of "who". I'll take the chance and guess that was meant.


2

It is Johnsons'; because the house doesn't belong to Johnson, but Johnsons.


2

If you can't rephrase, then: ... the Internet Service Provider's (ISP) firewall. The abbreviation is included in the sentence, rather artificially, solely to inform the reader of it, so make that the sole job it does. By the same token, if you took the opposite approach to defining abbreviations on first use: ... the ISP's (Internet Service ...


2

Technically, you don't need the possessive apostrophe on the abbreviation at all. It's an abbreviation; only the first letters in each word are represented.


1

I don't know the name for the phenomenon, but you're right, a reader can get lost or confused since the antecedent of its may not be clear. You could move things around: When a function is about to call a subfunction, it puts at the top of the stack a "return address", that is, the memory address of the next instruction to be executed upon returning from ...


1

In your example, I would consider Jaws as a name, not as a plural noun jaws, which would indeed take just an apostrophe. When I was at school (in England over 50 years ago), we were taught that a name ending with s takes 's for the possessive, giving Jaws's laws. The rules or acceptable usage may have relaxed since then - one large example on the side of a ...


1

Your first one is questionable. Your second two are justifiable, but awkward. They're probably the closest thing to an answer to the question of "what is the correct way to use a parenthetical clause about a subject while using the subject in the genitive?" but they're still awkward. Your last does the best by rephrasing to make the issue go away. So too ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible