Page 281 of 2684

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:04 pm UTC
by peewee_RotA
StratPlayer wrote:
HAL9000 wrote:
StratPlayer wrote:
Dracomax wrote:
Whizbang wrote:"It didn't happen on my watch."
"I'm about to get on/off watch"

The knights have ownership of the watch. So, in this case, watch is both a verb and a noun. Though the noun version has an implied "duty" tacked onto the end.

Thus why I said they don't own the watch, they perform it.


Well, yeah, you're right there, obviously...

But it's this:

partingLance wrote:
udscbt wrote:
partingLance wrote:
HAL9000 wrote:
<snip>

I particularly like "the Knights Watch" because Watch can also be intended as that outsider device to measure outsider time.


Quite. And too besides, and furthermore: "watch" can be understood as a verb there, as well as two distinct nouns.


So, if the Knights are using a watch to know when to start their watch, it's probably just one Knight's Watch that tells them when to begin the Knights' Watch, I would think. So the Knight with the watch would be the Knights' Watch watchman, right?

Your quotes are messed up. I didn't say that, and am in fact a proponent of 'watch' in terms of 'vigil.'


Ah, you are correct, and I apologize for my errant snipping. Good thing I wasn't performing a Bris...

And personally, I have no problems with the plurality of 'watch'. It was the lack of proper apostrophication that set me off. :wink:


The watch tower of quotes

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:04 pm UTC
by histrion
SBN wrote:Note that the apostrophe goes after the s for words that already end in s. But you don't add another s, so it isn't, "That is Peaches's toy."


I'm not sure that's universally agreed upon: I seem to recall Strunk & White either saying just the opposite, or saying that it was a matter of personal preference, i.e., "That is James' toy" and "That is James's toy" are both acceptable.

Interesting, though, how when you change it from James to Peaches, omitting the extra s feels more natural. I think it must be a repeated-sibilance thing.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:07 pm UTC
by peewee_RotA
udscbt wrote:
RobIrr wrote:
udscbt wrote:
peewee_RotA wrote:Can I be a bishop?

You clearly can't become a Cardinal, but I don't see why you shouldn't be a Bishop. In theory, I think we need another bishop to ordain you and the only bishop we currently have is Pope Helper. But since we have no Cannon Law regulating this yet, I will do it.
I, udscbt, Cardinal of the Timewaiters, Prefect of the Congregatio pro Doctrina Temporis, peanut butter and jelly sandwich, ordain you, peewee_RotA, Bishop of the Diocese of Cannon in nomine Temporis et Domini Randall et Unius Veri Tibulli.

Note: I don't know Latin, so that could easily mean anything


Hehe. Well, if the books are open, may I be a bishop too? :wink:

Ok, but you will be the last one for today.
I, udscbt, Cardinal of the Timewaiters, Prefect of the Congregatio pro Doctrina Temporis, peanut butter and jelly sandwich, ordain you, RobIrr, Bishop of the Diocese of Recursive Magic Kingdoi in nomine Temporis et Domini Randall et Unius Veri Tibulli.
Now it's time you two start working on the Cannon Law.

I was thinking, maybe we should create a new language instead of using Latin; who wants to create the Newpixian Language? I should add that I want it to be a Formal Language.


I propose a vote to confirm. I second that vote. I confirm the second of that vote to confirm.

All in favor say Aye.
Eye!
Did you say eye?
Aye, eye!
Who ayed that eye?
I, ayed.
Aye yiy yiy.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:09 pm UTC
by peewee_RotA
RobIrr wrote:
udscbt wrote:Ok, but you will be the last one for today.
I, udscbt, Cardinal of the Timewaiters, Prefect of the Congregatio pro Doctrina Temporis, peanut butter and jelly sandwich, ordain you, RobIrr, Bishop of the Diocese of Recursive Magic Kingdoi in nomine Temporis et Domini Randall et Unius Veri Tibulli.
Now it's time you two start working on the Cannon Law.



Thank you! :D

udscbt wrote:I was thinking, maybe we should create a new language instead of using Latin; who wants to create the Newpixian Language? I should add that I want it to be a Formal Language.


Esperanto ?


I would say Hawaiian Pidgin but that's too much like The Madness

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:09 pm UTC
by Dracomax
peewee_RotA wrote:
udscbt wrote:
RobIrr wrote:
udscbt wrote:
peewee_RotA wrote:Can I be a bishop?

You clearly can't become a Cardinal, but I don't see why you shouldn't be a Bishop. In theory, I think we need another bishop to ordain you and the only bishop we currently have is Pope Helper. But since we have no Cannon Law regulating this yet, I will do it.
I, udscbt, Cardinal of the Timewaiters, Prefect of the Congregatio pro Doctrina Temporis, peanut butter and jelly sandwich, ordain you, peewee_RotA, Bishop of the Diocese of Cannon in nomine Temporis et Domini Randall et Unius Veri Tibulli.

Note: I don't know Latin, so that could easily mean anything


Hehe. Well, if the books are open, may I be a bishop too? :wink:

Ok, but you will be the last one for today.
I, udscbt, Cardinal of the Timewaiters, Prefect of the Congregatio pro Doctrina Temporis, peanut butter and jelly sandwich, ordain you, RobIrr, Bishop of the Diocese of Recursive Magic Kingdoi in nomine Temporis et Domini Randall et Unius Veri Tibulli.
Now it's time you two start working on the Cannon Law.

I was thinking, maybe we should create a new language instead of using Latin; who wants to create the Newpixian Language? I should add that I want it to be a Formal Language.


I propose a vote to confirm. I second that vote. I confirm the second of that vote to confirm.

All in favor say Aye.
Eye!
Did you say eye?
Aye, eye!
Who ayed that eye?
I, ayed.
Aye yiy yiy.

So...you're a plurality all by yourself?


...I vote we take a way peewee_RotA's voting priviliges.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:10 pm UTC
by udscbt
SBN wrote:
udscbt wrote:About this, is there someone who can explain to me how it works? My teacher said that the 's is used for persons but not objects, but her explanation wasn't too clear.


My best guess as to what your teacher meant is that you don't use 's for pronouns.

That is my dog's toy.
That is Peaches' toy.
My dog is named Peaches. That is its toy.

(Though the pronoun I'd usually use would be hers, since I do actually know her gender.)
But, its (no apostrophe) is for possessive where it's (with an apostrophe) is a contraction of it is.

Note that the apostrophe goes after the s for words that already end in s. But you don't add another s, so it isn't, "That is Peaches's toy."

Does that help at all?

I was more worried about things like: can I say "I like that ball's color"? Why is it "door lock" and not "door's lock"?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:16 pm UTC
by SinusPi
Millah wrote:Still no real change...

Water level still rising by fractions of a newpixel.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:18 pm UTC
by SinusPi
udscbt wrote:I was more worried about things like: can I say "I like that ball's color"? Why is it "door lock" and not "door's lock"?

Ball's color is fine, as long as it's visible under all the hair.
Door lock is a general term - door locks are made of brass, that door's lock is made of caffeinesemencancerbabies, though.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:18 pm UTC
by Whizbang
Errant thought:

This thread has had its discussion about gender and names, various grammar discussions, nit-picks about frame preferences, all sorts of other common and uncommon thread side-discussions... and yet no rule 34 (though maybe that is what the coffeesemencancerbabies is about? Also, there was that one GIF someone made that showed the two of them humping then a missle hit) or Godwin's Law.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:21 pm UTC
by htom
partingLance wrote:
StratPlayer wrote:I hesitate to mention this, but if "watch" is a noun, should it not be "the Knight's Watch"?

(...and thus the Great Apostrophe War II was begun...)


I'm almost ashamed of myself for having been party to starting such a thing.

But not quite. Mwahaha.

EDIT:
Exodies wrote:Knights in white semencafeinbabycancer


Maybe BlitzGirl can confirm when she toils this far, but I believe that's the first Moody Blues reference in this thread. (I did a similar forced march before registering, but skimmed through quote cascades, and could have overlooked something).


I thought I had the first -- viewtopic.php?f=7&t=101043&p=3320872&hilit=moody+blues#p3320872

but it was NotThatHatGut at viewtopic.php?f=7&t=101043&p=3307028&hilit=moody+blues#p3307028

Lots of Moody references are possible.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:23 pm UTC
by Caswallon
iisjreg wrote:
Caswallon wrote:
htom wrote:
udscbt wrote:
htom wrote:Like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo,

can we have Watch watch Watch watch watch Watch watch?

As I've already said, I don't perfectly know the English language, so always doubt of my words, but: shouldn't it be something like "Watch's watches Watch's watches watch watch Watch's watches" or "Watch watches Watch watches watch watch Watch watches" (I'm still not too sure about how the 's works)?


Maybe. Buffalo is the plural of buffalo, watches the plural of watch (the noun.) I've always found the Buffalo ... buffalo thing confusing. I can eventually work it out, but then promptly forget it.


"Watch Watch watch Watch Watch watch" works for me.

"The Viewers of Timepieces are commanded to look at viewers of timepieces' timepieces.


FTFY

Okay, I think this is it:
"Watch Watch Watch Watch watch watch Watch Watch watch."

The Viewers of Timepieces whom other Viewers of Timepieces are guarding, are also commanded to look at viewers of timepieces' timepieces.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:28 pm UTC
by descor
Caswallon wrote:
iisjreg wrote:
Caswallon wrote:
htom wrote:
udscbt wrote:
htom wrote:Like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo,

can we have Watch watch Watch watch watch Watch watch?

As I've already said, I don't perfectly know the English language, so always doubt of my words, but: shouldn't it be something like "Watch's watches Watch's watches watch watch Watch's watches" or "Watch watches Watch watches watch watch Watch watches" (I'm still not too sure about how the 's works)?


Maybe. Buffalo is the plural of buffalo, watches the plural of watch (the noun.) I've always found the Buffalo ... buffalo thing confusing. I can eventually work it out, but then promptly forget it.


"Watch Watch watch Watch Watch watch" works for me.

"The Viewers of Timepieces are commanded to look at viewers of timepieces' timepieces.


FTFY

Okay, I think this is it:
"Watch Watch Watch Watch watch watch Watch Watch watch."

The Viewers of Timepieces whom other Viewers of Timepieces are guarding, are also commanded to look at viewers of timepieces' timepieces.


I think you've got a capital letter wrong there but I can't decide whether its the second or fifth watch.

EDIT: or do I mean the third watch ... I'm confused!

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:29 pm UTC
by udscbt
SinusPi wrote:
udscbt wrote:I was more worried about things like: can I say "I like that ball's color"? Why is it "door lock" and not "door's lock"?

Ball's color is fine, as long as it's visible under all the hair.
Door lock is a general term - door locks are made of brass, that door's lock is made of caffeinesemencancerbabies, though.

I think I got it, but maybe it's better I don't talk about this to my teacher :P

Whizbang wrote:Errant thought:

This thread has had its discussion about gender and names, various grammar discussions, nit-picks about frame preferences, all sorts of other common and uncommon thread side-discussions... and yet no rule 34 (though maybe that is what the coffeesemencancerbabies is about? Also, there was that one GIF someone made that showed the two of them humping then a missle hit) or Godwin's Law.

Rule 34: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=101043&p=3320623#p3320623
Godwin's Law: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=101043&p=3306747#p3306747

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:30 pm UTC
by htom
udscbt wrote:
SBN wrote:
udscbt wrote:About this, is there someone who can explain to me how it works? My teacher said that the 's is used for persons but not objects, but her explanation wasn't too clear.


My best guess as to what your teacher meant is that you don't use 's for pronouns.

That is my dog's toy.
That is Peaches' toy.
My dog is named Peaches. That is its toy.

(Though the pronoun I'd usually use would be hers, since I do actually know her gender.)
But, its (no apostrophe) is for possessive where it's (with an apostrophe) is a contraction of it is.

Note that the apostrophe goes after the s for words that already end in s. But you don't add another s, so it isn't, "That is Peaches's toy."

Does that help at all?

I was more worried about things like: can I say "I like that ball's color"? Why is it "door lock" and not "door's lock"?


"I like that ball's color." is correct (assuming you like the color.)

"Door lock" and "door's lock"; maybe that one depends on context. "The door lock is broken.", "That door's lock is broken." Aha! The device (perhaps on the table) is a "door lock", installed in the door, it's the lock of the door, hence "door's lock".

Someone agree with me, please. Or not.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:33 pm UTC
by partingLance
htom wrote:
partingLance wrote:
StratPlayer wrote:I hesitate to mention this, but if "watch" is a noun, should it not be "the Knight's Watch"?

(...and thus the Great Apostrophe War II was begun...)


I'm almost ashamed of myself for having been party to starting such a thing.

But not quite. Mwahaha.

EDIT:
Exodies wrote:Knights in white semencafeinbabycancer


Maybe BlitzGirl can confirm when she toils this far, but I believe that's the first Moody Blues reference in this thread. (I did a similar forced march before registering, but skimmed through quote cascades, and could have overlooked something).


I thought I had the first -- viewtopic.php?f=7&t=101043&p=3320872&hilit=moody+blues#p3320872

but it was NotThatHatGut at viewtopic.php?f=7&t=101043&p=3307028&hilit=moody+blues#p3307028

Lots of Moody references are possible.


I stand corrected. Sloppy of me not to have done a search. Usually I'm quite pendantic about such things. Maybe the Waiting is getting to me.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:35 pm UTC
by udscbt
htom wrote:
udscbt wrote:
SBN wrote:
udscbt wrote:About this, is there someone who can explain to me how it works? My teacher said that the 's is used for persons but not objects, but her explanation wasn't too clear.


My best guess as to what your teacher meant is that you don't use 's for pronouns.

That is my dog's toy.
That is Peaches' toy.
My dog is named Peaches. That is its toy.

(Though the pronoun I'd usually use would be hers, since I do actually know her gender.)
But, its (no apostrophe) is for possessive where it's (with an apostrophe) is a contraction of it is.

Note that the apostrophe goes after the s for words that already end in s. But you don't add another s, so it isn't, "That is Peaches's toy."

Does that help at all?

I was more worried about things like: can I say "I like that ball's color"? Why is it "door lock" and not "door's lock"?


"I like that ball's color." is correct (assuming you like the color.)

"Door lock" and "door's lock"; maybe that one depends on context. "The door lock is broken.", "That door's lock is broken." Aha! The device (perhaps on the table) is a "door lock", installed in the door, it's the lock of the door, hence "door's lock".

Someone agree with me, please. Or not.

I agree! It's not worth much since I am the one who asked the question, but SinusPi's answer seems to agree too.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:36 pm UTC
by Caswallon
descor wrote:
Caswallon wrote:
iisjreg wrote:
Caswallon wrote:
htom wrote:
udscbt wrote:
htom wrote:Like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo,

can we have Watch watch Watch watch watch Watch watch?

As I've already said, I don't perfectly know the English language, so always doubt of my words, but: shouldn't it be something like "Watch's watches Watch's watches watch watch Watch's watches" or "Watch watches Watch watches watch watch Watch watches" (I'm still not too sure about how the 's works)?


Maybe. Buffalo is the plural of buffalo, watches the plural of watch (the noun.) I've always found the Buffalo ... buffalo thing confusing. I can eventually work it out, but then promptly forget it.


"Watch Watch watch Watch Watch watch" works for me.

"The Viewers of Timepieces are commanded to look at viewers of timepieces' timepieces.


FTFY

Okay, I think this is it:
"Watch Watch Watch Watch watch watch Watch Watch watch."

The Viewers of Timepieces whom other Viewers of Timepieces are guarding, are also commanded to look at viewers of timepieces' timepieces.


I think you've got a capital letter wrong there but I can't decide whether its the second or fifth watch.


I don't believe so, breaking it down:
"Watch Watch" = The Guard/viewers of Timepieces, hence capitalized.
That would be the First and Second, Third and Fourth, and the Seventh and Eighth.

The Fifth refers to the act of the primary actor on the secondary actor, so non capitalized.
The Sixth refers to the act of the first part, on the second part.
The Ninth refers to the object they are watching, not a proper noun.

So the first four should all be capitalized, the fifth and sixth not capitalized, the seventh and eight capitalized, and the last not capitalized:
((Watch Watch) (Watch Watch) (watch)) watch ((Watch Watch) watch)

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:38 pm UTC
by RobIrr
udscbt wrote:I agree! It's not worth much since I am the one who asked the question, but SinusPi's answer seems to agree too.


I agree too. Also ... the Door's door lock's locked.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:38 pm UTC
by descor
Caswallon wrote:
descor wrote:
Caswallon wrote:
iisjreg wrote:
Caswallon wrote:
htom wrote:
udscbt wrote:
htom wrote:Like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo,

can we have Watch watch Watch watch watch Watch watch?

As I've already said, I don't perfectly know the English language, so always doubt of my words, but: shouldn't it be something like "Watch's watches Watch's watches watch watch Watch's watches" or "Watch watches Watch watches watch watch Watch watches" (I'm still not too sure about how the 's works)?


Maybe. Buffalo is the plural of buffalo, watches the plural of watch (the noun.) I've always found the Buffalo ... buffalo thing confusing. I can eventually work it out, but then promptly forget it.


"Watch Watch watch Watch Watch watch" works for me.

"The Viewers of Timepieces are commanded to look at viewers of timepieces' timepieces.


FTFY

Okay, I think this is it:
"Watch Watch Watch Watch watch watch Watch Watch watch."

The Viewers of Timepieces whom other Viewers of Timepieces are guarding, are also commanded to look at viewers of timepieces' timepieces.


I think you've got a capital letter wrong there but I can't decide whether its the second or fifth watch.


I don't believe so, breaking it down:
"Watch Watch" = The Guard/viewers of Timepieces, hence capitalized.
That would be the First and Second, Third and Fourth, and the Seventh and Eighth.

The Fifth refers to the act of the primary actor on the secondary actor, so non capitalized.
The Sixth refers to the act of the first part, on the second part.
The Ninth refers to the object they are watching, not a proper noun.

So the first four should all be capitalized, the fifth and sixth not capitalized, the seventh and eight capitalized, and the last not capitalized:
((Watch Watch) (Watch Watch) (watch)) watch ((Watch Watch) watch)


I stand duly corrected.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:43 pm UTC
by mscha
SinusPi wrote:
Millah wrote:Still no real change...

Water level still rising by fractions of a newpixel.

I hate to be pedantic┬╣, but newpix(el) is a unit of time, not distance. So: water level still rising by fractions of a pixel, per newpix.

┬╣: OK, that's a lie.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:46 pm UTC
by Exodies
How 's works is very simple. Just go in any forum and carefully type these words:
The dog was having it's supper.
If it's an intellectual's forum you might need to be more subtle:
I think you'll find its ultra violet radiation which stimulate's the formation of vitamin D

And that's it. The apostrophe war will commence.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:47 pm UTC
by Valarya
SBN wrote:
udscbt wrote:About this, is there someone who can explain to me how it works? My teacher said that the 's is used for persons but not objects, but her explanation wasn't too clear.


My best guess as to what your teacher meant is that you don't use 's for pronouns.

That is my dog's toy.
That is Peaches' toy.
My dog is named Peaches. That is its toy.

(Though the pronoun I'd usually use would be hers, since I do actually know her gender.)
But, its (no apostrophe) is for possessive where it's (with an apostrophe) is a contraction of it is.

Note that the apostrophe goes after the s for words that already end in s. But you don't add another s, so it isn't, "That is Peaches's toy."

Does that help at all?


Technically it's correct with both an apostrophe or an apostrophe -s for NAMES which end in S. So Peaches' and Peaches's would both be correct... (since it's a name.) Mostly it becomes a consistency thing. If you choose not to add the -s for a possessive name, do so throughout the entirety of your text.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:51 pm UTC
by SBN
Valarya wrote:Technically it's is correct with both an apostrophe or an apostraphe -s for NAMES which end in S. So Peaches' and Peaches's would both be correct... since it's a name. Mostly it becomes a consistency thing. If you choose not to add the -s for a possessive name, do so throughout the entirety of your text.


Also, if you are writing for someone (boss, professor, etc.) do it the way they want it, even if you disagree.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:55 pm UTC
by udscbt
SBN wrote:
Valarya wrote:Technically it's is correct with both an apostrophe or an apostraphe -s for NAMES which end in S. So Peaches' and Peaches's would both be correct... since it's a name. Mostly it becomes a consistency thing. If you choose not to add the -s for a possessive name, do so throughout the entirety of your text.


Also, if you are writing for someone (boss, professor, etc.) do it the way they want it, even if you disagree.

Thanks everyone, but this is clearly the best advice :D

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:57 pm UTC
by veryslightlygeeky
Well, with all this watching and waiting, maybe night is setting in. So I guess the the Knights will have settle in too.

To pass time, would our knights of grammar care to punctuate:

Bill where John had had had had had had had had had the teachers approval

(Though I am not sure that the teacher was right.)

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:58 pm UTC
by lmjb1964
Hi, all. Long-time lurker, first-time poster. (Well, ok, I posted in Externalities, but first time in THIS thread.) I don't wish to sound too demanding, but according to the wiki, I believe this makes me eligible for cardinalship: "Any long time forum lurker who registered in solely to post in the One True Comic are eligible for Cardinal-ship." I will await delivery of the funny hat and staff. Or do cardinals have a staff? maybe that's just bishops.

Oh wait, maybe I did post earlier in this thread. Ok, I should get the cardinalship for THAT post.

Anyhooo... I heartily approve of all the earnest discussion about apostrophes. However, we could avoid the whole discussion by saying "the Watch of the Knight." No apostrophe needed. And then you have a great acronym, WOTK--ok, not so great an acronym, never mind.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:59 pm UTC
by Smithers
nickulo wrote:Been checking in here periodically for almost 500 newpics. Had to chime in with:

1. You people are insane.
2. May I suggest "The Knights Who Say..........." (and then if someone asks "Say what?" You just say "Wait for it.")

"We are the knights who say ...... wait for it ...... dery." Hang on, I got that wrong somewhere.
htom wrote:
udscbt wrote:
SBN wrote:
udscbt wrote:About this, is there someone who can explain to me how it works? My teacher said that the 's is used for persons but not objects, but her explanation wasn't too clear.


My best guess as to what your teacher meant is that you don't use 's for pronouns.

That is my dog's toy.
That is Peaches' toy.
My dog is named Peaches. That is its toy.

(Though the pronoun I'd usually use would be hers, since I do actually know her gender.)
But, its (no apostrophe) is for possessive where it's (with an apostrophe) is a contraction of it is.

Note that the apostrophe goes after the s for words that already end in s. But you don't add another s, so it isn't, "That is Peaches's toy."

Does that help at all?

I was more worried about things like: can I say "I like that ball's color"? Why is it "door lock" and not "door's lock"?


"I like that ball's color." is correct (assuming you like the color.)

"Door lock" and "door's lock"; maybe that one depends on context. "The door lock is broken.", "That door's lock is broken." Aha! The device (perhaps on the table) is a "door lock", installed in the door, it's the lock of the door, hence "door's lock".

Someone agree with me, please. Or not.

Adding either apostrophe or apostrophe-s is correct if the s is from a proper noun but not if it comes from pluralisation. Suppose your dogs, Peaches and James, own a ball each. Then you may speak of "Peaches' ball's colour", "Peaches's ball's colour" or "the dogs' balls' colours", but not "the dogs's balls's colours".

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:59 pm UTC
by spamjam
I wish you guy's would stop posting about "apostrophe's".

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:01 pm UTC
by Smithers
Image
Change!

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:03 pm UTC
by histrion
veryslightlygeeky wrote:Bill where John had had had had had had had had had the teachers approval


Bill, where John had had "had," had had "had had." "Had had" had had the teacher's approval.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:03 pm UTC
by Exodies
spamjam wrote:I wish you guy's would stop posting about "apostrophe's".

What should we post about? Some dumbass cartoon?

Perhaps there's a cyber cafe off to the left and they keep popping in for a go on the forum. Has anyone analysed who is never on-line when both Megan and Cueball are in view?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:04 pm UTC
by KarMann
Dracomax wrote:exspecta illum

You don't say?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:08 pm UTC
by udscbt
lmjb1964 wrote:Hi, all. Long-time lurker, first-time poster. (Well, ok, I posted in Externalities, but first time in THIS thread.) I don't wish to sound too demanding, but according to the wiki, I believe this makes me eligible for cardinalship: "Any long time forum lurker who registered in solely to post in the One True Comic are eligible for Cardinal-ship." I will await delivery of the funny hat and staff. Or do cardinals have a staff? maybe that's just bishops.

Oh wait, maybe I did post earlier in this thread. Ok, I should get the cardinalship for THAT post.

Anyhooo... I heartily approve of all the earnest discussion about apostrophes. However, we could avoid the whole discussion by saying "the Watch of the Knight." No apostrophe needed. And then you have a great acronym, WOTK--ok, not so great an acronym, never mind.

I'm afraid that, since your first post was in the Externalities thread, you're not eligible for Cardinalship. You could, however, become a bishop, but as I said earlier I won't nominate new bishops today. I'm sorry, but I hope you will continue waiting with us Timewaiters.

histrion wrote:
veryslightlygeeky wrote:Bill where John had had had had had had had had had the teachers approval


Bill, where John had had "had," had had "had had." "Had had" had had the teacher's approval.

veryslightlygeeky used 9 "had" while histrion used 11 "had"... something's wrong.

PS: 's 's 's 's 's 's

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:13 pm UTC
by AionArap
udscbt wrote:
histrion wrote:
veryslightlygeeky wrote:Bill where John had had had had had had had had had the teachers approval


Bill, where John had had "had," had had "had had." "Had had" had had the teacher's approval.

veryslightlygeeky used 9 "had" while histrion used 11 "had"... something's wrong.

PS: 's 's 's 's 's 's


Must be the former, because the latter is clearly correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:16 pm UTC
by RobIrr
Exodies wrote:
spamjam wrote:I wish you guy's would stop posting about "apostrophe's".

What should we post about? Some dumbass cartoon?

Perhaps there's a cyber cafe off to the left and they keep popping in for a go on the forum. Has anyone analysed who is never on-line when both Megan and Cueball are in view?


Time for some charts and graphs!


Who's going to make them?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:17 pm UTC
by lmjb1964
She's baaack...

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:18 pm UTC
by descor
udscbt wrote:
lmjb1964 wrote:Hi, all. Long-time lurker, first-time poster. (Well, ok, I posted in Externalities, but first time in THIS thread.) I don't wish to sound too demanding, but according to the wiki, I believe this makes me eligible for cardinalship: "Any long time forum lurker who registered in solely to post in the One True Comic are eligible for Cardinal-ship." I will await delivery of the funny hat and staff. Or do cardinals have a staff? maybe that's just bishops.

Oh wait, maybe I did post earlier in this thread. Ok, I should get the cardinalship for THAT post.

Anyhooo... I heartily approve of all the earnest discussion about apostrophes. However, we could avoid the whole discussion by saying "the Watch of the Knight." No apostrophe needed. And then you have a great acronym, WOTK--ok, not so great an acronym, never mind.

I'm afraid that, since your first post was in the Externalities thread, you're not eligible for Cardinalship. You could, however, become a bishop, but as I said earlier I won't nominate new bishops today. I'm sorry, but I hope you will continue waiting with us Timewaiters.
PS: 's 's 's 's 's 's


So ... my first post after being a lurker for ages was in the Time thread back on page 251. Does that make me eligible?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:18 pm UTC
by Elmach
AionArap wrote:
udscbt wrote:
histrion wrote:
veryslightlygeeky wrote:Bill where John had had had had had had had had had the teachers approval


Bill, where John had had "had," had had "had had." "Had had" had had the teacher's approval.

veryslightlygeeky used 9 "had" while histrion used 11 "had"... something's wrong.

PS: 's 's 's 's 's 's


Must be the former, because the latter is clearly correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher

"Bill, where John had "had", had "had had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval." is grammatically correct and uses, where histron had eleven "had"'s, the nine "had"'s veryslightlygeeky had. Thus, "Bill, where John had "had", had "had had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval" is the correct solution to veryslightlygeeky's puzzle, where histron's is not.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:23 pm UTC
by lmjb1964
I'm afraid that, since your first post was in the Externalities thread, you're not eligible for Cardinalship. You could, however, become a bishop, but as I said earlier I won't nominate new bishops today.


D'oh!

I'm sorry, but I hope you will continue waiting with us Timewaiters.


What other choice do I have? What choice do any of us have but to wait?

Re: 1190: "Time"

Posted: Tue Apr 09, 2013 9:24 pm UTC
by descor
Elmach wrote:
AionArap wrote:
udscbt wrote:
histrion wrote:
veryslightlygeeky wrote:Bill where John had had had had had had had had had the teachers approval


Bill, where John had had "had," had had "had had." "Had had" had had the teacher's approval.

veryslightlygeeky used 9 "had" while histrion used 11 "had"... something's wrong.

PS: 's 's 's 's 's 's


Must be the former, because the latter is clearly correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher

"Bill, where John had "had", had "had had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval" is grammatically correct and uses, where histron had eleven "had"'s, the nine "had"'s veryslightlygeeky had. Thus, "Bill, where John had "had", had "had had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval" is the correct solution to veryslightlygeeky's puzzle, where histron's is not.


What about:
Bill, where John had had "had", had "had had". "Had had" had the teacher's approval