Home  

Members  

Join  

Search  

Listings  

 
<<<<   513   >>>>

Topic: Singulars, Plurals, and Apostrophes?

Message 1 / 14
bobbyshaddoe3004Feb 21, 2007
 

 
This is an issue that tends to get up my nose. I mean I agree that
if something is in the singular then its done in the plural it can't
be counted as repetition, at least nowadays that seems to be the
case, but in the past that rule was rather loosely applied, depending
of course on whether Nicholas actually heard the plural being
applied.

but what I really wanna talk about is with regards to the application
of Apostrophes and 's' on words as to whether that's still repetition
even if someone says the singular form, then says the word again with
an apostrophe 's on it? I only wonder about this because of what
Nicholas has constantly said ad nauseam about they exist in the realm
of 'sound radio' (like there's another kind) and more often than not
has established that it's what you hear and not what is written and
yet fairly recently that application has been thrown completely out
the window in favor of this apostrophe 's' thing.

For example, if the subject is say 'Cat's Whiskers' and someone
says 'cat' more than once, that's repetition. But in that occasion,
Nicholas said that 'cat' was on the card even though it had an
apostrophe with the 's' on it.

the same thing applied to 'Pandora's Box', I think it was last year,
Ross challenged Tim Rice on that same ordeal, the fact that he
repeated Pandora, even though its Pandora's on the card, and Nicholas
again didn't let him have it because of the apostrophe. I mean I
find the issue completely nonsensical and illogical, especially in
light of the fact that Nicholas firmly establishes that it's what you
hear, not what's written.

There was also an occasion back in 78 or 79, when the Gang of Four
were together, I think the subject was 'Parbuckles' or something.
Clement was speaking saying I believe, 'In a ship's chandler shop',
Derek buzzes for repetition of ships, even though Clement hadn't said
even said ships before, and this incredible argument erupts when
Clement justifies by saying that he said 'ship apostrophe s chandler'
and Nicholas allowed it.

There was also another occasion I think during the 1999 TV season, I
forget who the panelists were, I think it was Barry Cryer, Wendy
Richard, Linda Smith, and Steve Frost I think. The subject I think
was 'Cardigans' and Wendy was talking about her character Pauline
Fowler from 'Eastenders' and she said Pauline, then Pauline's, and
this very weird and nonsensical explanation from Nicholas occurs
again regarding singular, plurals and words with an apostrophe 's' on
it, that it was still the singular form even with the apostrophe 's',
which made no sense whatsoever. I mean granted it was on television,
so obviously I could forgive something like that, but not when its
applied to the radio though.

after all, you can't hear an apostrophe, so I think that if something
like that occurs again, it shouldn't be applied, after all if this is
really 'sound radio' then if you hear two plurals of something, it
doesn't matter if its apostrophe 's' or not, unless of course you say
the word then 'apostrophe s' or whatever.

what do you guys think?

 
<<<<   515   >>>>

Topic: Re: Singulars, Plurals, and Apostrophes?

Message 2 / 14
Gregory AugerFeb 21, 2007
 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: bobbyshaddoe3004

To: just-a-minute@...

Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:20 PM

Subject: [just-a-minute] Singulars, Plurals, and Apostrophes?

This is an issue that tends to get up my nose. I mean I agree that
if something is in the singular then its done in the plural it can't
be counted as repetition, at least nowadays that seems to be the
case, but in the past that rule was rather loosely applied, depending
of course on whether Nicholas actually heard the plural being
applied.

but what I really wanna talk about is with regards to the application
of Apostrophes and 's' on words as to whether that's still repetition
even if someone says the singular form, then says the word again with
an apostrophe 's on it? I only wonder about this because of what
Nicholas has constantly said ad nauseam about they exist in the realm
of 'sound radio' (like there's another kind) and more often than not
has established that it's what you hear and not what is written and
yet fairly recently that application has been thrown completely out
the window in favor of this apostrophe 's' thing.

For example, if the subject is say 'Cat's Whiskers' and someone
says 'cat' more than once, that's repetition. But in that occasion,
Nicholas said that 'cat' was on the card even though it had an
apostrophe with the 's' on it.

the same thing applied to 'Pandora's Box', I think it was last year,
Ross challenged Tim Rice on that same ordeal, the fact that he
repeated Pandora, even though its Pandora's on the card, and Nicholas
again didn't let him have it because of the apostrophe. I mean I
find the issue completely nonsensical and illogical, especially in
light of the fact that Nicholas firmly establishes that it's what you
hear, not what's written.

There was also an occasion back in 78 or 79, when the Gang of Four
were together, I think the subject was 'Parbuckles' or something.
Clement was speaking saying I believe, 'In a ship's chandler shop',
Derek buzzes for repetition of ships, even though Clement hadn't said
even said ships before, and this incredible argument erupts when
Clement justifies by saying that he said 'ship apostrophe s chandler'
and Nicholas allowed it.

There was also another occasion I think during the 1999 TV season, I
forget who the panelists were, I think it was Barry Cryer, Wendy
Richard, Linda Smith, and Steve Frost I think. The subject I think
was 'Cardigans' and Wendy was talking about her character Pauline
Fowler from 'Eastenders' and she said Pauline, then Pauline's, and
this very weird and nonsensical explanation from Nicholas occurs
again regarding singular, plurals and words with an apostrophe 's' on
it, that it was still the singular form even with the apostrophe 's',
which made no sense whatsoever. I mean granted it was on television,
so obviously I could forgive something like that, but not when its
applied to the radio though.

after all, you can't hear an apostrophe, so I think that if something
like that occurs again, it shouldn't be applied, after all if this is
really 'sound radio' then if you hear two plurals of something, it
doesn't matter if its apostrophe 's' or not, unless of course you say
the word then 'apostrophe s' or whatever.

what do you guys think?

 
<<<<   516   >>>>

Topic: Re: Singulars, Plurals, and Apostrophes?

Message 3 / 14
Robert TorresFeb 21, 2007
 

 

The "cat's whiskers" example. When did it happen? That has actually been the subject twice on JAM. In 1988 Christopher Timothy takes the subject for a whole minute - no questions asked as he did the whole minute. Two years ago the subject appeared again - but again nothing mentioned.

 

I would agree if it sounds the same its repetition. If its not whats on the card then its repetition. In the subject (I'm making this up) "The Chairman's hair", repitition of chairman should not be permitted but not of chairmans (as in three chairmans) as it sounds the same.

 

Greg.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: bobbyshaddoe3004

To: just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com

Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:20 PM

Subject: [just-a-minute] Singulars, Plurals, and Apostrophes?

This is an issue that tends to get up my nose. I mean I agree that
if something is in the singular then its done in the plural it can't
be counted as repetition, at least nowadays that seems to be the
case, but in the past that rule was rather loosely applied, depending
of course on whether Nicholas actually heard the plural being
applied.

but what I really wanna talk about is with regards to the application
of Apostrophes and 's' on words as to whether that's still repetition
even if someone says the singular form, then says the word again with
an apostrophe 's on it? I only wonder about this because of what
Nicholas has constantly said ad nauseam about they exist in the realm
of 'sound radio' (like there's another kind) and more often than not
has established that it's what you hear and not what is written and
yet fairly recently that application has been thrown completely out
the window in favor of this apostrophe 's' thing.

For example, if the subject is say 'Cat's Whiskers' and someone
says 'cat' more than once, that's repetition. But in that occasion,
Nicholas said that 'cat' was on the card even though it had an
apostrophe with the 's' on it.

the same thing applied to 'Pandora's Box', I think it was last year,
Ross challenged Tim Rice on that same ordeal, the fact that he
repeated Pandora, even though its Pandora's on the card, and Nicholas
again didn't let him have it because of the apostrophe. I mean I
find the issue completely nonsensical and illogical, especially in
light of the fact that Nicholas firmly establishes that it's what you
hear, not what's written.

There was also an occasion back in 78 or 79, when the Gang of Four
were together, I think the subject was 'Parbuckles' or something.
Clement was speaking saying I believe, 'In a ship's chandler shop',
Derek buzzes for repetition of ships, even though Clement hadn't said
even said ships before, and this incredible argument erupts when
Clement justifies by saying that he said 'ship apostrophe s chandler'
and Nicholas allowed it.

There was also another occasion I think during the 1999 TV season, I
forget who the panelists were, I think it was Barry Cryer, Wendy
Richard, Linda Smith, and Steve Frost I think. The subject I think
was 'Cardigans' and Wendy was talking about her character Pauline
Fowler from 'Eastenders' and she said Pauline, then Pauline's, and
this very weird and nonsensical explanation from Nicholas occurs
again regarding singular, plurals and words with an apostrophe 's' on
it, that it was still the singular form even with the apostrophe 's',
which made no sense whatsoever. I mean granted it was on television,
so obviously I could forgive something like that, but not when its
applied to the radio though.

after all, you can't hear an apostrophe, so I think that if something
like that occurs again, it shouldn't be applied, after all if this is
really 'sound radio' then if you hear two plurals of something, it
doesn't matter if its apostrophe 's' or not, unless of course you say
the word then 'apostrophe s' or whatever.

what do you guys think?

---

Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people who know.

 
<<<<   519   >>>>

Topic: Re: Singulars, Plurals, and Apostrophes?

Message 4 / 14
thomaswake16Feb 21, 2007
 

 
--- In just-a-minute@..., "bobbyshaddoe3004"
<bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:

>
> There was also an occasion back in 78 or 79, when the Gang of Four
> were together, I think the subject was 'Parbuckles' or something.
> Clement was speaking saying I believe, 'In a ship's chandler shop',
> Derek buzzes for repetition of ships, even though Clement hadn't said
> even said ships before, and this incredible argument erupts when
> Clement justifies by saying that he said 'ship apostrophe s chandler'
> and Nicholas allowed it.
>

To be fair, on this occasion the ruling only went in favour of Clement
because Ian Messiter said this was the way it should be done.

 
<<<<   520   >>>>

Topic: Re: Singulars, Plurals, and Apostrophes?

Message 5 / 14
Robert TorresFeb 21, 2007
 

 
but that still doesn't excuse the fact that several times in the past before that episode Nick himself said that 'it is what you hear, not what is written'. 

thomaswake16 <thomaswake16@...> wrote:

--- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, "bobbyshaddoe3004"
<bobbyshaddoe3004@ ...> wrote:
>
> There was also an occasion back in 78 or 79, when the Gang of Four
> were together, I think the subject was 'Parbuckles' or something.
> Clement was speaking saying I believe, 'In a ship's chandler shop',
> Derek buzzes for repetition of ships, even though Clement hadn't said
> even said ships before, and this incredible argument erupts when
> Clement justifies by saying that he said 'ship apostrophe s chandler'
> and Nicholas allowed it.
>

To be fair, on this occasion the ruling only went in favour of Clement
because Ian Messiter said this was the way it should be done.

---

Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

 
<<<<   523   >>>>

Topic: Re: Singulars, Plurals, and Apostrophes?

Message 6 / 14
Nathan LeonardFeb 22, 2007
 

 
I'm not quite sure what your point is regarding "it's what you hear, not what's written".  By that logic, I agree that "ships" and "ship's" would be repetition, but all the examples you gave concerned the singular and the possessive, which don't even sound the same.

From what I've heard, it seems fairly consistently established that plurals and singulars count as separate words for the purposes of repetition, but possessives count as singulars.  The "cat's" and "pandora's" examples both fit that pattern, and the "ship's" example was irrelevent to this discussion because (according to you) there was clearly no repetition of any forms in that case.  That seems to make total sense to me, and it is clear from the context in almost every case whether somebody has said the plural or the possessive.  Sometimes people might argue that they'd been planning to say something else, but again, in most cases it is fairly clear whether or not they're lying.  Ultimately, the chairman has to make the decision, that's what he's there for.

As regards to the words-within-words issue, I agree that it is completely nonsensical to argue that you can repeat a word just because that sequence of letters appears in a word on the card.  Robert, can you remember how the decisions went in the examples you gave?  If they went against the challenger, then all is well.

By the way, Gregory, I know your example was a made-up one, but you could have chosen a better one - "chairmans" is not the plural of "chairman", it's "chairmen".  I also disagree with your point - it's clear from the context that it's the possessive that's on the card, as "The Chairmans Hair" would make no sense grammatically, even if "chairmans" was the plural of "chairman".

Overall, I think that the rules on this have been fairly well-established, and have generally been followed consistently.  Nicholas does sometimes get confused about it, but then he gets confused about quite a lot of things, of which this is by no means the most annoying.

On 2/22/07, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:

but that still doesn't excuse the fact that several times in the past before that episode Nick himself said that 'it is what you hear, not what is written'. 

thomaswake16 <thomaswake16@ hotmail.com> wrote:

--- In just-a-minute@..., "bobbyshaddoe3004"
<bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:
>
> There was also an occasion back in 78 or 79, when the Gang of Four
> were together, I think the subject was 'Parbuckles' or something.
> Clement was speaking saying I believe, 'In a ship's chandler shop',
> Derek buzzes for repetition of ships, even though Clement hadn't said
> even said ships before, and this incredible argument erupts when
> Clement justifies by saying that he said 'ship apostrophe s chandler'
> and Nicholas allowed it.
>

To be fair, on this occasion the ruling only went in favour of Clement
because Ian Messiter said this was the way it should be done.

---

Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

 
<<<<   525   >>>>

Topic: Re: Singulars, Plurals, and Apostrophes?

Message 7 / 14
Robert TorresFeb 22, 2007
 

 

I'm not quite sure what your point is regarding "it's what you hear, not what's written".  By that logic, I agree that "ships" and "ship's" would be repetition, but all the examples you gave concerned the singular and the possessive, which don't even sound the same.

From what I've heard, it seems fairly consistently established that plurals and singulars count as separate words for the purposes of repetition, but possessives count as singulars.  The "cat's" and "pandora's" examples both fit that pattern, and the "ship's" example was irrelevent to this discussion because (according to you) there was clearly no repetition of any forms in that case.  That seems to make total sense to me, and it is clear from the context in almost every case whether somebody has said the plural or the possessive.  Sometimes people might argue that they'd been planning to say something else, but again, in most cases it is fairly clear whether or not they're lying.  Ultimately, the chairman has to make the decision, that's what he's there for.

As regards to the words-within- words issue, I agree that it is completely nonsensical to argue that you can repeat a word just because that sequence of letters appears in a word on the card.  Robert, can you remember how the decisions went in the examples you gave?  If they went against the challenger, then all is well.

By the way, Gregory, I know your example was a made-up one, but you could have chosen a better one - "chairmans" is not the plural of "chairman", it's "chairmen".  I also disagree with your point - it's clear from the context that it's the possessive that's on the card, as "The Chairmans Hair" would make no sense grammatically, even if "chairmans" was the plural of "chairman".

Overall, I think that the rules on this have been fairly well-established, and have generally been followed consistently.  Nicholas does sometimes get confused about it, but then he gets confused about quite a lot of things, of which this is by no means the most annoying.

 

He frequently gets confused about damn near everthing, especially nowadays.

On 2/22/07, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@ yahoo.com> wrote:

but that still doesn't excuse the fact that several times in the past before that episode Nick himself said that 'it is what you hear, not what is written'. 

thomaswake16 <thomaswake16@ hotmail.com> wrote:

--- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, "bobbyshaddoe3004"
<bobbyshaddoe3004@ ...> wrote:
>
> There was also an occasion back in 78 or 79, when the Gang of Four
> were together, I think the subject was 'Parbuckles' or something.
> Clement was speaking saying I believe, 'In a ship's chandler shop',
> Derek buzzes for repetition of ships, even though Clement hadn't said
> even said ships before, and this incredible argument erupts when
> Clement justifies by saying that he said 'ship apostrophe s chandler'
> and Nicholas allowed it.
>

To be fair, on this occasion the ruling only went in favour of Clement
because Ian Messiter said this was the way it should be done.

---

Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

---

Never Miss an Email
Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started!

 
<<<<   526   >>>>

Topic: Re: Singulars, Plurals, and Apostrophes?

Message 8 / 14
Nathan LeonardFeb 22, 2007
 

 
Aha.  I understand your point now, and I have to say I disagree on both counts.  Firstly, I think that it's been made clear over the years that the possessive form counts as the singular for the purposes of repetition ( i.e. saying "Pandora" twice when the subject is "Pandora's Box" does not count as repetition), and to change the rule now would just provoke confusion.  Secondly, I don't think that "anyone could make the claim that the words they said if it was in the plural twice that the first or second one is one that possesses the possessive 's' attached", because as I say it is perfectly clear in almost all circumstances what the form used was.  If somebody were to say "I opened Pandoras Box" or "A Cats Whiskers are used to judge width" it would make no sense whatsoever grammatically, and although many people have tried to argue against such a challenge of repetition, it almost always goes against them.

As an aside, it might help you get your point across if you were to cut your paragraphs down into two or more sentences, because these run-on sentences with many commas make it very difficult to ascertain exactly what you're trying to say.  I don't intend that to be insulting or patronising in any way, although it probably seems that way because this is text and so I can't put across my tone of voice.  Please don't take offence; I am only trying to help.

On 2/23/07, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:

exactly, my point is that if something on the card is written out like 'Cat's Whiskers' or 'Pandora's Box' and someone says the singular form of that word twice, it's repetition because you don't hear an apostrophe, even though it's on the card, because people only have Nicholas' word that it's on the card and it may be written out in that fashion, but if a person says Pandora more than once, it's repetition, the fact that he didn't make that decision or that judgement and instead opts for this erroneous stance that the word is on the card, but it just has that apostrophe 's' on it. 

 

the point is, it doesn't make sense that something like a word with a possessive 's' on it should be exempt from being repetition, because it opens up a whole new can of worms where anyone could make the claim that the words they said if it was in the plural twice that the first or second one is one that possesses the possessive 's' attached. 

 

the point about the whole 'it's what you hear, not what is written,' follows through that if you hear something that sounds like a plural form of something that's on the blasted card, and if someone says it without the possessive 's', and does it more than once, then it should be counted as repetition. 

 

anyway, in the examples I gave, in those instances, the challenge was given against the one who challnged, which was usually Kenneth Willliams, but it was never for repetition, it was for deviation though. 

Nathan Leonard <dreadedwoekitten@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not quite sure what your point is regarding "it's what you hear, not what's written".  By that logic, I agree that "ships" and "ship's" would be repetition, but all the examples you gave concerned the singular and the possessive, which don't even sound the same.

From what I've heard, it seems fairly consistently established that plurals and singulars count as separate words for the purposes of repetition, but possessives count as singulars.  The "cat's" and "pandora's" examples both fit that pattern, and the "ship's" example was irrelevent to this discussion because (according to you) there was clearly no repetition of any forms in that case.  That seems to make total sense to me, and it is clear from the context in almost every case whether somebody has said the plural or the possessive.  Sometimes people might argue that they'd been planning to say something else, but again, in most cases it is fairly clear whether or not they're lying.  Ultimately, the chairman has to make the decision, that's what he's there for.

As regards to the words-within-words issue, I agree that it is completely nonsensical to argue that you can repeat a word just because that sequence of letters appears in a word on the card.  Robert, can you remember how the decisions went in the examples you gave?  If they went against the challenger, then all is well.

By the way, Gregory, I know your example was a made-up one, but you could have chosen a better one - "chairmans" is not the plural of "chairman", it's "chairmen".  I also disagree with your point - it's clear from the context that it's the possessive that's on the card, as "The Chairmans Hair" would make no sense grammatically, even if "chairmans" was the plural of "chairman".

Overall, I think that the rules on this have been fairly well-established, and have generally been followed consistently.  Nicholas does sometimes get confused about it, but then he gets confused about quite a lot of things, of which this is by no means the most annoying.

 

He frequently gets confused about damn near everthing, especially nowadays.

On 2/22/07, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:

but that still doesn't excuse the fact that several times in the past before that episode Nick himself said that 'it is what you hear, not what is written'. 

thomaswake16 <thomaswake16@ hotmail.com> wrote:

--- In just-a-minute@..., "bobbyshaddoe3004"
<bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:
>
> There was also an occasion back in 78 or 79, when the Gang of Four
> were together, I think the subject was 'Parbuckles' or something.
> Clement was speaking saying I believe, 'In a ship's chandler shop',
> Derek buzzes for repetition of ships, even though Clement hadn't said
> even said ships before, and this incredible argument erupts when
> Clement justifies by saying that he said 'ship apostrophe s chandler'
> and Nicholas allowed it.
>

To be fair, on this occasion the ruling only went in favour of Clement
because Ian Messiter said this was the way it should be done.

---

Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

---

Never Miss an Email
Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started!

 
<<<<   527   >>>>

Topic: Re: Singulars, Plurals, and Apostrophes?

Message 9 / 14
Gregory AugerFeb 22, 2007
 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Nathan Leonard

To: just-a-minute@...

Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:04 AM

Subject: Re: [just-a-minute] Re: Singulars, Plurals, and Apostrophes?

By the way, Gregory, I know your example was a made-up one, but you could have chosen a better one - "chairmans" is not the plural of "chairman", it's "chairmen".  I also disagree with your point - it's clear from the context that it's the possessive that's on the card, as "The Chairmans Hair" would make no sense grammatically, even if "chairmans" was the plural of "chairman".

 
<<<<   528   >>>>

Topic: Re: Singulars, Plurals, and Apostrophes?

Message 10 / 14
Nathan LeonardFeb 23, 2007
 

 
Don't thank me, I was born obsessive-compulsive.  I would have hated myself forever if I hadn't pointed it out...

 
<<<<   529   >>>>

Topic: Re: Singulars, Plurals, and Apostrophes?

Message 11 / 14
Robert TorresFeb 23, 2007
 

 

Aha.  I understand your point now, and I have to say I disagree on both counts.  Firstly, I think that it's been made clear over the years that the possessive form counts as the singular for the purposes of repetition ( i.e. saying "Pandora" twice when the subject is "Pandora's Box" does not count as repetition), and to change the rule now would just provoke confusion.  Secondly, I don't think that "anyone could make the claim that the words they said if it was in the plural twice that the first or second one is one that possesses the possessive 's' attached", because as I say it is perfectly clear in almost all circumstances what the form used was.  If somebody were to say "I opened Pandoras Box" or "A Cats Whiskers are used to judge width" it would make no sense whatsoever grammatically, and although many people have tried to argue against such a challenge of repetition, it almost always goes against them.

As an aside, it might help you get your point across if you were to cut your paragraphs down into two or more sentences, because these run-on sentences with many commas make it very difficult to ascertain exactly what you're trying to say.  I don't intend that to be insulting or patronising in any way, although it probably seems that way because this is text and so I can't put across my tone of voice.  Please don't take offence; I am only trying to help.

On 2/23/07, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@ yahoo.com> wrote:

exactly, my point is that if something on the card is written out like 'Cat's Whiskers' or 'Pandora's Box' and someone says the singular form of that word twice, it's repetition because you don't hear an apostrophe, even though it's on the card, because people only have Nicholas' word that it's on the card and it may be written out in that fashion, but if a person says Pandora more than once, it's repetition, the fact that he didn't make that decision or that judgement and instead opts for this erroneous stance that the word is on the card, but it just has that apostrophe 's' on it. 

 

the point is, it doesn't make sense that something like a word with a possessive 's' on it should be exempt from being repetition, because it opens up a whole new can of worms where anyone could make the claim that the words they said if it was in the plural twice that the first or second one is one that possesses the possessive 's' attached. 

 

the point about the whole 'it's what you hear, not what is written,' follows through that if you hear something that sounds like a plural form of something that's on the blasted card, and if someone says it without the possessive 's', and does it more than once, then it should be counted as repetition. 

 

anyway, in the examples I gave, in those instances, the challenge was given against the one who challnged, which was usually Kenneth Willliams, but it was never for repetition, it was for deviation though. 

Nathan Leonard <dreadedwoekitten@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not quite sure what your point is regarding "it's what you hear, not what's written".  By that logic, I agree that "ships" and "ship's" would be repetition, but all the examples you gave concerned the singular and the possessive, which don't even sound the same.

From what I've heard, it seems fairly consistently established that plurals and singulars count as separate words for the purposes of repetition, but possessives count as singulars.  The "cat's" and "pandora's" examples both fit that pattern, and the "ship's" example was irrelevent to this discussion because (according to you) there was clearly no repetition of any forms in that case.  That seems to make total sense to me, and it is clear from the context in almost every case whether somebody has said the plural or the possessive.  Sometimes people might argue that they'd been planning to say something else, but again, in most cases it is fairly clear whether or not they're lying.  Ultimately, the chairman has to make the decision, that's what he's there for.

As regards to the words-within- words issue, I agree that it is completely nonsensical to argue that you can repeat a word just because that sequence of letters appears in a word on the card.  Robert, can you remember how the decisions went in the examples you gave?  If they went against the challenger, then all is well.

By the way, Gregory, I know your example was a made-up one, but you could have chosen a better one - "chairmans" is not the plural of "chairman", it's "chairmen".  I also disagree with your point - it's clear from the context that it's the possessive that's on the card, as "The Chairmans Hair" would make no sense grammatically, even if "chairmans" was the plural of "chairman".

Overall, I think that the rules on this have been fairly well-established, and have generally been followed consistently.  Nicholas does sometimes get confused about it, but then he gets confused about quite a lot of things, of which this is by no means the most annoying.

 

He frequently gets confused about damn near everthing, especially nowadays.

On 2/22/07, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@ yahoo.com> wrote:

but that still doesn't excuse the fact that several times in the past before that episode Nick himself said that 'it is what you hear, not what is written'. 

thomaswake16 <thomaswake16@ hotmail.com> wrote:

--- In just-a-minute@ yahoogroups. com, "bobbyshaddoe3004"
<bobbyshaddoe3004@ ...> wrote:
>
> There was also an occasion back in 78 or 79, when the Gang of Four
> were together, I think the subject was 'Parbuckles' or something.
> Clement was speaking saying I believe, 'In a ship's chandler shop',
> Derek buzzes for repetition of ships, even though Clement hadn't said
> even said ships before, and this incredible argument erupts when
> Clement justifies by saying that he said 'ship apostrophe s chandler'
> and Nicholas allowed it.
>

To be fair, on this occasion the ruling only went in favour of Clement
because Ian Messiter said this was the way it should be done.

---

Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

---

Never Miss an Email
Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started!

---

Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.

 
<<<<   537   >>>>

Topic: Re: Singulars, Plurals, and Apostrophes?

Message 12 / 14
Nathan LeonardFeb 23, 2007
 

 
[i]I'm not talking about grammatically, I'm talking about what a person HEARS, and you have just pretty much made my point, you can't tell if its in the possessive form or not.[/i]

If you think I've made your point, then you've mistunderstood me.  My point is that even though you can't hear the difference, it's abundantly clear from context which was used, because the alternative would make no sense.

 
<<<<   543   >>>>

Topic: Re: Singulars, Plurals, and Apostrophes?

Message 13 / 14
Robert TorresFeb 24, 2007
 

 

[i]I'm not talking about grammatically, I'm talking about what a person HEARS, and you have just pretty much made my point, you can't tell if its in the possessive form or not.[/i]

If you think I've made your point, then you've mistunderstood me.  My point is that even though you can't hear the difference, it's abundantly clear from context which was used, because the alternative would make no sense.

---

No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.

 
<<<<   548   >>>>

Topic: Re: Singulars, Plurals, and Apostrophes?

Message 14 / 14
Nathan LeonardFeb 24, 2007
 

 
I just think it gets a bit dodgy if you follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion - if someone were to say "I read a book with a red cover", that would be classed as repetition, as would "Their car was over there", for example.  It gets more confusing when you think that there are some words which sound the same in some accents but different in others.  I can't think of an example of that right now, but I'm sure there are words like that.

On 2/24/07, Robert Torres <bobbyshaddoe3004@...> wrote:

That's true.  the context in which its spoken does make a lot of difference, but I would think that something like that wouldn't apply if what you are hearing sounds like a word that has an 's' on the end of it, that context or how its written shouldn't matter. 

 

it would be a similar sort of situation if say you were to say six hundred sixty six, if you write it down in numerals, it would be repetitious in the fact that you have three sixes, but not if you actually say six hundred sixty-six.  at least i assume it would be similar.  *shrugs*

Nathan Leonard <dreadedwoekitten@gmail.com> wrote:

[i]I'm not talking about grammatically, I'm talking about what a person HEARS, and you have just pretty much made my point, you can't tell if its in the possessive form or not.[/i]

If you think I've made your point, then you've mistunderstood me.  My point is that even though you can't hear the difference, it's abundantly clear from context which was used, because the alternative would make no sense.

---

No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.