The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

English grammar and vocabulary: quick questions thread

Scroll to see replies

Reply 640
Avatar for chilaz
chilaz
how can i improve on spoken english?
Original post by Kallisto
Hello!

after a long time I am here again, just would love to know something about the possessive 's'. If the name of a person ends with an 's', is the writing Denis' or Denis's in English? Recently I saw that the latter one is often used. That is why I ask you. So what is correct?


Some of the advice you have been given is wrong and I am surprised no one has corrected it.

How you mark possession depends upon the type of noun. Denis is singular so he can only possess something (i.e. Denis's car). The fact his name ends in s is irrelevant. However, you do have special names which end in s which you do not add a 's' to (e.g. Jesus' car). This is purely conventional and there is no grammatical basis for it. Saying Denis' car is wrong. The only time you do not mark possession like this is if the noun refers to more than one thing (e.g. the teachers' cars). Here there is more than one teacher. Saying teacher's cars is wrong.

I hope this clarifies things.
Original post by evantej
Saying teacher's cars is wrong.


Not quite. I know a teacher who owns two cars; the teacher's cars are both red.
Original post by evantej
Some of the advice you have been given is wrong and I am surprised no one has corrected it.

How you mark possession depends upon the type of noun. Denis is singular so he can only possess something (i.e. Denis's car). The fact his name ends in s is irrelevant. However, you do have special names which end in s which you do not add a 's' to (e.g. Jesus' car). This is purely conventional and there is no grammatical basis for it. Saying Denis' car is wrong. The only time you do not mark possession like this is if the noun refers to more than one thing (e.g. the teachers' cars). Here there is more than one teacher. Saying teacher's cars is wrong.

I hope this clarifies things.


In short: If there are two or more Denis, its Denis', but its just one, its Denis's. That is looking strange and puzzling me.
Original post by Good bloke
Not quite. I know a teacher who owns two cars; the teacher's cars are both red.

The teacher in your example is singular.
Original post by evantej
The teacher in your example is singular.


He is certainly a remarkable chap.
Original post by Kallisto
In short: If there are two or more Denis, its Denis', but its just one, its Denis's. That is looking strange and puzzling me.

In theory yes but in reality you would find better ways to express yourself (e.g. There were two men called Denis and they both had red cars). The rule only looks natural when the noun is by nature 'plural'. You are unlikely to ever need to express two Denis' possessing something at the same time.
Original post by evantej
In theory yes but in reality you would find better ways to express yourself (e.g. There were two men called Denis and they both had red cars). The rule only looks natural when the noun is by nature 'plural'. You are unlikely to ever need to express two Denis' possessing something at the same time.


But I still have not got it. Is it okay to use Denis', even if its singular? Its so confuse...
Original post by Kallisto
But I still have not got it. Is it okay to use Denis', even if its singular? Its so confuse...


Read my post number post 647 again, and act on it.
Original post by Good bloke
Read my post number post 647 again, and act on it.


So there are really no differences? Can I use the form which I want to? that would be nice.
Original post by Kallisto
But I still have not got it. Is it okay to use Denis', even if its singular? Its so confuse...

You should always use Denis's because it is singular. You drop the s when you are dealing with a noun that is 'plural'.

Original post by Good bloke
Read my post number post 647 again, and act on it.

Your sound explanation does not work as (a) punctuation has got nothing to do with pronunciation in this case and (b) different nouns have different allomorphs. All your examples end with /z/ but consider these two examples: cats ends with a /s/ sound and dogs ends with a /z/ sound whether they are singular or plural (i.e. cat's, cats', dog's, dogs').
Original post by evantej
x


Hey, can you tell me why in some cases the English speakers use the word (combination) 'was (been)', but in other ones 'have been' (when someone is travelling for instance). I have never got it up to now...
Original post by Kallisto
Hey, can you tell me why in some cases the English speakers use the word (combination) 'was (been)', but in other ones 'have been' (when someone is travelling for instance). I have never got it up to now...


I am not sure exactly what you are asking without seeing an example of the 'was (been)' you mention. But an auxiliary verb is inserted into sentences to take over tense marking, negation marking, and question marking when sentences do not make sense. For example the sentence - John broken his watch - is not grammatical because broken has the wrong tense (John broke his watch would be fine). The sentence - John has broken his watch - is grammatical because the auxiliary verb has takes over tense marking duties of the verb broken.

The trickiest sentences in English have three verbs and they all perform different functions to mark a particular aspect, mood and tense (e.g. Mary has been travelling recently).
Original post by evantej
x


I wonder why sometimes it is used 'was' instead of 'have been' and - now and then - some English speakers used the expression 'was been' (have never learnt this tense in any English lesson at all). Could it be that in the last case ('was been') the English speakers were foreigners who confused the grammar? I don't now. Sorry, that I cannot give you examples before.

So the tense 'have been' can also be used in another situations (have used this tense for travelling so far)? Examples:

I have been on the beach (instead of 'was'?).
I have been in the theatre (instead of 'was'?)
I have been in the cinema ...
I have been in a theme park....

etc.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Kallisto
I wonder why sometimes it is used 'was' instead of 'have been' and - now and then - some English speakers used the expression 'was been' (have never learnt this tense in any English lesson at all). Could it be that in the last case ('was been') the English speakers were foreigners who confused the grammar? I don't now. Sorry, that I cannot give you examples before.

So the tense 'have been' can also be used in another situations (have used this tense for travelling so far)? Examples:

I have been on the beach (instead of 'was'?).
I have been in the theatre (instead of 'was'?)
I have been in the cinema ...
I have been in a theme park....

etc.


I get you now. Basically this is a difference between the past simple tense and a compound tense which marks something called aspect. (Simple tense does not mark aspect). Aspect is the perspective you take on a verb and whether the event is completed. In this case the aspect is perfective which requires the use of the past participle. Typically in 'past tense' cases like this you take an external aspect on a completed event (e.g. the plates were broken).

The problem with your example is that have does not actually express tense in this case. Have is what is called a bare infinitive which I will not bother explaining.

There is a stylistic difference between the past simple and the past participle. In this case you are probably expressing more 'involvement' in the action being described. You could say I was at the beach and that could mean you were not involved in the action (i.e. someone drove you there and you sat in the car). Whereas I have been at the beach involves more action such as playing in the sand etc., etc.. I think the plates being broken example above might explain this better. Saying the plates broke does not explain how they broke whilst were broken suggests there was an active agent or action involved in them being broken despite the tense still being 'past'.

Hope this explains it.
Original post by evantej
(...)
Hope this explains it.


Hope so too. If I do that right, 'have been' can be substituted with 'was' even for travelling, if it was a short trip and nothing special. Examples:

If I went on holidays and have so much fun (played on the beach, went out for eating, went to events...), I can say that I have been in Rio de Janeiro.

If I was just on a business trip for some hours or a day, I can say that I was in Rio de Janeiro.

So it is just a matter of activities and time span, right?
This may seem really simple but I just wanted to clarify: is 'throb' a verb or a noun in this sentence:
'There was the throb and stamp of a single organism'
Any help would be much appreciated, as I need to know this by tomorrow morning :smile:
Reply 657
Avatar for nikkka
nikkka
Hi,
I'm writing an English Lit essay, and I'm not sure if I can use the word "Hugonian" as an adjective from the surname Hugo (i.e. Victor Hugo)
Is there another word that is correct or should I just stick to "Hugo's"?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by nikkka
Hi,
I'm writing an English Lit essay, and I'm not sure if I can use the word "Hugonian" as an adjective from the surname Hugo (i.e. Victor Hugo)
Is there another word that is correct or should I just stick to "Hugo's"?


Posted from TSR Mobile


I'd stick to "of Hugo" or "Hugo's" but I did once see Hugorian used, and I do know that "Hugonian" is used to describe the inhabitants of towns called Hugo.
Reply 659
Avatar for nikkka
nikkka
Original post by Good bloke
I'd stick to "of Hugo" or "Hugo's" but I did once see Hugorian used, and I do know that "Hugonian" is used to describe the inhabitants of towns called Hugo.


Thanks :smile:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you