Timeline for Possessive form of coordinated noun phrases? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22, 2022 at 19:44 | history | closed |
Laurel♦ KillingTime Edwin Ashworth |
Duplicate of "Nikki's and Alice's cars" vs. "Nikki and Alice's cars" | |
| Mar 22, 2022 at 16:31 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 22, 2022 at 19:44 | |||||
| Mar 29, 2017 at 1:50 | history | edited | herisson | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited tags; edited title
|
| Mar 25, 2015 at 2:20 | comment | added | JMP | or J&A i suppose | |
| Mar 25, 2015 at 2:18 | comment | added | JMP | using my knowledge of BE, wouldn't "the wedding of A & J" be more GC? | |
| Mar 24, 2015 at 19:45 | comment | added | JMP | is she? in which case i guess it makes no difference | |
| Mar 24, 2015 at 7:29 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | @F.E. Only if we know they're married to each other. We could also say “Kim's marriage and Pat's marriage” in that context and it would still refer to the same marriage. But would you ever? Personally, I wouldn't. I'd only use the double clitic if I was talking about two separate possessees. | |
| Mar 24, 2015 at 4:56 | comment | added | Michael Lorton | @JanusBahsJacquet -- if you believe Strunk & White, "Jens'" is the proper possessive for "Jens" only if Jens is an ancient or mythological figure (e.g. "Jesus' cloak'). Otherwise it is "Jens's". | |
| Mar 24, 2015 at 0:50 | comment | added | F.E. | @JanusBahsJacquet In the 2002 reference grammar CGEL, within the section 3.4 "Coordination and genitives", on page 1331: "Note, then, that in a context where Kim is married to Pat we can appropriately use either Type 1, Kim and Pat's marriage, or Type II, Kim's and Pat's marriage." | |
| Mar 24, 2015 at 0:46 | history | edited | F.E. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Numbered the examples.
|
| Mar 23, 2015 at 23:08 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | @Jen I presume you are the Jen getting married here. Regarding your third option, which no one else has mentioned specifically: Alex and Jens’ wedding is perfectly correct and good English. Unfortunately for you, it means that your fiancé has left you to run off and marry a German man called Jens. If that isn't what's actually happened, go with Alex and Jen’s wedding or Jen and Alex’(s) wedding. | |
| Mar 23, 2015 at 23:05 | comment | added | Janus Bahs Jacquet | @F.E. How so? What that page says seems perfectly correct and reasonable to me. | |
| Mar 23, 2015 at 21:53 | comment | added | JMP | in BE the woman is referenced first | |
| Mar 23, 2015 at 21:15 | comment | added | F.E. | And again, Grammar Girl (aka Mignon Fogarty) is wrong. | |
| Mar 23, 2015 at 19:28 | answer | added | Michael Lorton | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 23, 2015 at 19:10 | comment | added | Hellion | Here's a Grammar Girl link that explains the rules / logic: quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/compound-possession | |
| Mar 23, 2015 at 19:07 | history | edited | Hellion | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
descriptive title, bulletize list, more tags
|
| Mar 23, 2015 at 19:02 | comment | added | Ian MacDonald | The first one. Or you could just go with "The Wedding of Alex and Jen" or "The <last name>'s Wedding" or "The Event of the Century". | |
| Mar 23, 2015 at 19:01 | review | First posts | |||
| Mar 23, 2015 at 21:54 | |||||
| Mar 23, 2015 at 18:58 | history | asked | Jen Prandle | CC BY-SA 3.0 |