[effgee]

Alright - hereby, I officially declare defeat.

It seems that I have outlived the maximum amount of time my secondary long term memory (I call it that because it's the one responsible for non-essential info) is able to store information. 'New stuff gets added all the time and the old stuff seems to fall by the wayside. Well damnit, I want that one piece of old information back!

Usually, I'm somewhat capable to sneak past English grammar with the tried and true "does this look right?" trickery. But in this particular regard (I'll get to it - just a sec) both options are beginning to look questionable in just about every other sentence I write/type. So, instead of ignoring it, I decided to attack the problem head-on (and we're not talking about a cure for an early onset of Alzheimer's, here) and was hoping that some of the grammar artists around here could lend a hand.

• When and why do I use -'s- and when and why do I use -s'-? As in: "My wife's / wifes' car".

I dimly remember something involving terms such as "possessive", etc. but alas, I no longer seem to be able to recall when, what and why to apply which form of the two.

Help!




(P.S. My only defense is the fact that I currently live in a non-English speaking country and that aside from chatting with my wife and family/friends over in the US, I don't get to write/speak much English any more. Zee Germans are ruining my English! That and the thing with English not being my native language)

(P.S.S. The first Kraut to quote an English grammar rule to me will have his head caved in by a 400lb. female Bavarian prison guard wearing a Dirndl)

[Buck_W]

The apostrophe comes BEFORE the "s" on singular words and AFTER the "s" (or at the very end of a word) on plural words. For instance:

The minister's meeting (singular - a meeting for a minister)

The ministers' meeting (plural - a meeting for a group of ministers)

[storer]

Ok. Well then.

My Wife's car - by putting in the apostrophe, you are pointing out that the car belongs to your wife (this is the possesion one you were talking about)

The apostrophe after an s only occurs if the person whose possesion you are talking about's name ends with an s. eg. Angus' car, instead of Angus's car.

[Ghoser777]

Or if you had multiple wives and you said the car belonged to all of them:

My wife's car - belongs to your only wife
My wives' car - belongs to all your wives
Jesus' car - belong to Jesus (s's never happens)

[spiky_dog]

its and it's are the exceptions, with its being possessive and it's denoting "it is"

[sugar_coated]

Singularity is usually simpler than plurality.

[effgee]

Well, the fog is beginning to lift a little. Emphasis on "a little" - I'm going to have to go get the old school books from the basement because I refuse to die stupid!

Thanks guys!

[lavar78]

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
its and it's are the exceptions, with its being possessive and it's denoting "it is"

They aren't exceptions. Possessive pronouns don't use apostrophes (yours, his, hers, its).

Originally posted by Ghoser777:
Jesus' car - belong to Jesus (s's never happens)

That's not entirely true. In general, both ways are accepted in varying degrees (I seem to recall "James's" was preferred over "James'" when I was in school. "Jesus" happens to be the most high-profile exception, because it's never written with the second S. I think the rule of thumb is/was to use "s's" unless it sounds awkward (like "Jesus's").

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by lavar78:
They aren't exceptions. Possessive pronouns don't use apostrophes (yours, his, hers, its).

hmm, cool. i never thought of it that way.

[KeriVit]

There's more to tit when it comes to names... let me know what you find out cuz it bugs me too.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Ghoser777:
Jesus' car - belong to Jesus (s's never happens)

Would that be a lowrider?

[Sealobo]

methinks effgee is a typical american living in the middle of the country.

[effgee]

Originally posted by Sealobo:
methinks effgee is a typical american living in the middle of the country.

ROFL, we're having a hoedown at the barn next weekend - you should stop by, it's gonna be loads of fun!!

[Big Mac]

Originally posted by lavar78:
That's not entirely true. In general, both ways are accepted in varying degrees (I seem to recall "James's" was preferred over "James'" when I was in school. "Jesus" happens to be the most high-profile exception, because it's never written with the second S. I think the rule of thumb is/was to use "s's" unless it sounds awkward (like "Jesus's"). [/B]

Interesting - I was taught the converse - not to double the s. I have seen others use your preferred form, so obviously both ways are acceptable, but the double s seems awkward and redundant to me. My mom prefers the same style as I, so perhaps it's a regional thing.

[badidea]

Originally posted by effgee:

P.S.S. The first Kraut to quote an English grammar rule to me will have his head caved in by a 400lb. female Bavarian prison guard wearing a Dirndl

...ja lecko mio, des macht mi ganz sch� gamsig!!

[Synotic]

Originally posted by lavar78:
That's not entirely true. In general, both ways are accepted in varying degrees (I seem to recall "James's" was preferred over "James'" when I was in school. "Jesus" happens to be the most high-profile exception, because it's never written with the second S. I think the rule of thumb is/was to use "s's" unless it sounds awkward (like "Jesus's").

What Strunk and White has to say...

I. Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's.
Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,

• Charles's friend
  Burns's poems
  the witch's malice

This is the usage of the United States Government Printing Office and of the Oxford University Press.

Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in -es and -is, the possessive Jesus', and such forms as for conscience' sake, for righteousness' sake. But such forms as Achilles' heel, Moses' laws, Isis' temple are commonly replaced by

• the heel of Achilles
  the laws of Moses
  the temple of Isis

The pronominal possessives hers, its, theirs, yours, and oneself have no apostrophe.

[Oisín]

How on earth does oneself become a pronominal possessive? And what, if any, is the difference between a pronominal possessive and a possessive pronoun?

I must admit the for conscience' sake caught be by surprise. I thought the 's would be sure to be there if the word ends in a vowel, even if it is a silent one. You learn something new every day, I guess...

[lavar78]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
Interesting - I was taught the converse - not to double the s. I have seen others use your preferred form, so obviously both ways are acceptable, but the double s seems awkward and redundant to me. My mom prefers the same style as I, so perhaps it's a regional thing.

How are you pronouncing it? In the phrases "for Jesus' sake" and "my Achilles' heel," the middle word should sound just like the regular name ("Jesus" and "Achilles"). When you say "James' friend," does the first word sound like "James" or "James's"?

Synotic, thanks for the info. I blame the print people for trying to throw away the S on the end. They're the same villains who are trying to abolish the beloved serial comma.

Originally posted by Ois�n:
How on earth does oneself become a pronominal possessive? And what, if any, is the difference between a pronominal possessive and a possessive pronoun?

Well, it probably has something to do with "oneself" being "one's self." Pronominal possessives and possessive pronouns are the same thing. The former is probably preferred. Although these words are like pronouns, they're acting as another part of speech (usually adjectives).

I'm also a little surprised about "for conscience' sake." However, I doubt I'd have ever used that phrase anyway.

[RAILhead]

The "s's" are becoming the standard EXCEPT when dealing with "ancient" names like Jesus, Moses, etc.

I recommend everyone stop what you're doing and buy Eats, Shoots & Leaves. This book is HIGHLY entertaining and gives you the basic of English (and American English) grammar in a "fun to read" sort of way.

Maury

[Oisín]

Originally posted by lavar78:
Well, it probably has something to do with "oneself" being "one's self." Pronominal possessives and possessive pronouns are the same thing. The former is probably preferred. Although these words are like pronouns, they're acting as another part of speech (usually adjectives).

Well, the fact that oneself is really one's self doesn't make it any more of a possessive pronoun (sorry, I prefer that to the other variant, since 'possessives' is not a word class, 'pronouns' is). "One's" would then be the possessive (pronoun), and self would still be just a pronoun.

Although it just occurred to me that perhaps they're not really saying that oneself is a possessive pronoun at all, they're just saying that the "one's" part of it (which is) is not used in its full form with the 's. Oh yeah, that makes sense.

Do you learn in grammar class/school/wherever you learn grammar, that possessive pronouns "are like pronouns, [but act] as another part of speech (usually adjectives)"? That's interesting... I've always learned it in the way that they always act like pronouns, not like adjectives. In the most basic pattern, "my house" vs. "big house" are not similar grammatically, because the use of a pronoun defines the noun it qualifies (ie. the house that it mine), while an adjective doesn't (ie. a house that is big).

[Oisín]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I recommend everyone stop what you're doing and buy Eats, Shoots & Leaves. This book is HIGHLY entertaining and gives you the basic of English (and American English) grammar in a "fun to read" sort of way.

One of my classmates has this book... thank you for reminding me that I need to borrow it from her!

In the same line, I would highly recommend V�rldens d�ligaste spr�k, although you have to be able to read Swedish to read this one.

[lavar78]

Originally posted by Ois�n:
Although it just occurred to me that perhaps they're not really saying that oneself is a possessive pronoun at all, they're just saying that the "one's" part of it (which is) is not used in its full form with the 's. Oh yeah, that makes sense.

Yep.

Do you learn in grammar class/school/wherever you learn grammar, that possessive pronouns "are like pronouns, [but act] as another part of speech (usually adjectives)"? That's interesting... I've always learned it in the way that they always act like pronouns, not like adjectives. In the most basic pattern, "my house" vs. "big house" are not similar grammatically, because the use of a pronoun defines the noun it qualifies (ie. the house that it mine), while an adjective doesn't (ie. a house that is big).

But it doesn't have to be that way. If I have more than one house, "my house" refers to a house that belongs to me. Think of it this way: generally, pronouns take the place of nouns. If I said something about "Ois�n's house," isn't your name describing the house? IIRC, all possessives are considered adjectives (by at least some people). What else would you call them?

[Oisín]

Originally posted by lavar78:
But it doesn't have to be that way. If I have more than one house, "my house" refers to a house that belongs to me.

But still a definite house. In practical usage, if you have more than one house, you would normally have to know beforehand which house was the topic of conversation before you said 'my house'. Otherwise, you would say 'one of my houses'.

Think of it this way: generally, pronouns take the place of nouns. If I said something about "Ois�n's house," isn't your name describing the house? IIRC, all possessives are considered adjectives (by at least some people). What else would you call them?

I've been thinking about that too (my Latin lessons are a bit far behind me these days, and my grammar knowledge is being slowly taken over by Chinese grammar knowledge, which is somewhat different). I think we simply dealt with an extra category, nominal qualifiers. Like you said, possessives/pronouns take the place of subordinated nouns (or are subordinated nouns), and thus we called all of them (subordinated nouns, possessives, and pronouns) nominal qualifiers, as opposed to adjectives (and adverbs in certain very complex cases in Latin, if I recall correctly), which were obviously then called adjectival qualifiers. I think (and this is where my memory gets really shaky) that in cases where it was difficult to tell which it was, that we used some criteria based on "internal qualification" or "external qualification"; basically saying that an adjectival qualifier always describes an innate or "internal" property of the noun it's qualifying, or one's own opinion thereof, a nominal qualifier describes properties or qualities that are not innate (ie. are "external") to the noun described. But like I said, that part is very vague indeed in my brain...

[Oisín]

Oh, and while we have this grammar thread here, I have a little question of my own I'd like to ask:

How come I see more and more adverbs placed before the verb they qualify, rather than after?

To illustrate, first off a sentence as I would 'like' to see it (ie. as it seems most natural to me):
"It can also be seen that..." (rest not important)

However, I keep seeing people who write it as:
"It also can be seen that..."

This latter just seems very 'heavy' and not at all natural to me... Is it an American thing, is it simply a change in the language, or has it always been there, I've just never noticed it before?

[lavar78]

Originally posted by Ois�n:
But still a definite house. In practical usage, if you have more than one house, you would normally have to know beforehand which house was the topic of conversation before you said 'my house'. Otherwise, you would say 'one of my houses'.

You're ignoring something. Unlike "my house," "big house" must be preceded by an article. Other than that, I guess I just don't see how the two are different enough that they'd be two different parts of speech.

How come I see more and more adverbs placed before the verb they qualify, rather than after?

I've always thought that was one of the great things about adverbs. More than any other part of speech, they are allowed to roam around the sentence based on the style of the speaker/writer. It's been that way as long as I've known, but I'm only 27. I couldn't tell you if it's an American thing, but I don't think so.

"It can also be seen that grammar is fun."
"It also can be seen that grammar is fun."
"Also, it can be seen that grammar is fun."

[Oisín]

Originally posted by lavar78:
You're ignoring something. Unlike "my house," "big house" must be preceded by an article. Other than that, I guess I just don't see how the two are different enough that they'd be two different parts of speech.

The fact that it must be preceded by an article is exactly why they're different! The possessive pronoun automatically makes the noun definite, thereby removing the need for an article, whereas the adjective doesn't, and an article is still needed.

It's been that way as long as I've known, but I'm only 27.

Well, I'm only 22, so if it's been that way as long as you can remember, it's probably just me being a little slow on the uptake in realising it...

"It can also be seen that grammar is fun."
"It also can be seen that grammar is fun."
"Also, it can be seen that grammar is fun."

But the third example here is different in that 'also' acts as a sentence adverb (are they called that in English too?), not simply an adverb; ie. it qualifies the entire sentence to come after it, rather than only the verb. I remember vividly our old English teacher raving on about how sentence adverbs must always be placed at the very beginning, or in some cases the very end, of a sentence, never in the middle of it! (Which is, of course, completely wrong, as this sentence shows, but the intent was good enough)

P.S.: Nice sample sentences

[lavar78]

Originally posted by Ois�n:
The fact that it must be preceded by an article is exactly why they're different! The possessive pronoun automatically makes the noun definite, thereby removing the need for an article, whereas the adjective doesn't, and an article is still needed.

You don't need an article in front of other adjectives. "Two," "many," and "different" are some examples.

I looked it up and it appears I'm right:
http://web2.uvcs.uvic.ca/elc/studyzo...ammar/poss.htm
http://www.polseguera.com/freegrammar/pronouns.htm
http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/.../adjectve.html

But the third example here is different in that 'also' acts as a sentence adverb (are they called that in English too?), not simply an adverb; ie. it qualifies the entire sentence to come after it, rather than only the verb. I remember vividly our old English teacher raving on about how sentence adverbs must always be placed at the very beginning, or in some cases the very end, of a sentence, never in the middle of it! (Which is, of course, completely wrong, as this sentence shows, but the intent was good enough)

I've never heard of sentence adverbs.

[Agent69]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
The "s's" are becoming the standard EXCEPT when dealing with "ancient" names like Jesus, Moses, etc.

I recommend everyone stop what you're doing and buy Eats, Shoots & Leaves. This book is HIGHLY entertaining and gives you the basic of English (and American English) grammar in a "fun to read" sort of way.

Maury

Ahh, you beat me to it Maury.

EDIT:

Here is a link to the The Apostrophe Protection Society.

[RAILhead]

Another punctuation-related annoyance of mine -- and one in which I agree with British English over American English -- is the positioning of commas in conjunction with quotation marks.

In American English, it's proper to write:
Sally asked Bill if he "took the dadgum trash out yet."

In British English, one would write:
Sally asked Bill if he "took the dadgum trash out yet".

I'm with the Brits on this one.

You could attribute it two ways:
"Did you take the dadgum trash out, Bill," asked Sally.
Sally asked Bill, "Did you take the dadgum trash out yet."
...and both would end with the terminal within quotations.

A complete sentence that is a quote in and of itself should also terminate within quotes:
"I haven't taken the trash out, Sally."

If only a portion of the sentence is a quote, American English would write:
Bill knew Sally was in a "take out the trash mood," and tried to avoid her.

British English would write...
Bill knew Sally was in a "take out the trash mood", and tried to avoid her.

The nutshell is this: if the punctuation relates to the words being quoted, the punctuation should go within said quotes. Conversely, if the the punctuation relates only to the sentence, it should go outside the quotation marks.

However, in American English we are taught that punctuation -- especially terminal punctuation -- should always, no matter what, be placed within the closing quotations. This has ALWAYS bothered me, and I'm starting to give a rat's arse to American English and start punctuating properly.

Maury

[TubaMuffins]

I've got a grammar question. I know when to use "I" or "me," and I know that "I" comes after the other people, but I always remember learning that "me" comes before the other people until one of my friends said otherwise (her mom is an English teacher). We looked it up on the internet and she was right. Have I been using and taught the placement of "me" wrong this whole time? How do you use it? Let it be known that the "I" vs. "me" battle is a huge pet peeve of mine. Thanks.

[effgee]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
... the positioning of commas in conjunction with quotation marks. ...

Isn't that identical to the US English usage of punctuation with parenthesis?

Hi, I'm eff (the dude with the abysmal knowledge of English grammar.)
Hi, I'm eff (the dude with the abysmal knowledge of English grammar).

I always found that to be rather odd looking as well.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by TubaMuffins:
I've got a grammar question. I know when to use "I" or "me," and I know that "I" comes after the other people, but I always remember learning that "me" comes before the other people until one of my friends said otherwise (her mom is an English teacher). We looked it up on the internet and she was right. Have I been using and taught the placement of "me" wrong this whole time? How do you use it? Let it be known that the "I" vs. "me" battle is a huge pet peeve of mine. Thanks.

You ALWAYS name yourself last...

Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by effgee:
Isn't that identical to the US English usage of punctuation with parenthesis?

Hi, I'm eff (the dude with the abysmal knowledge of English grammar.)
Hi, I'm eff (the dude with the abysmal knowledge of English grammar).

I always found that to be rather odd looking as well.

No, parenthesis are a different matter and as far as I know (I haven't read up on them in a while). My remembrance is that you never have terminating punctuation within the parenthesis unless the entire sentence is in parenthesis:

He asked (not nicely, mind you) how the food was.
(He not so nicely asked how the food was.)

Maury

[lavar78]

Originally posted by TubaMuffins:
I've got a grammar question. I know when to use "I" or "me," and I know that "I" comes after the other people, but I always remember learning that "me" comes before the other people until one of my friends said otherwise (her mom is an English teacher). We looked it up on the internet and she was right. Have I been using and taught the placement of "me" wrong this whole time? How do you use it? Let it be known that the "I" vs. "me" battle is a huge pet peeve of mine. Thanks.

You were taught incorrectly (and, to be honest, that really surprises me). You're always supposed to name yourself last when listing a group of people.

Originally posted by RAILhead:
In British English, one would write:
Sally asked Bill if he "took the dadgum trash out yet".

I'm with the Brits on this one.

I'm not. I've always found that ugly. I like my periods and commas to come immediately after the last letter! It just looks nicer that way.

In a related issue, here's an example of an even uglier occurrence in British English:

British:
Marvin asked, "What's going on?".

American:
Marvin asked, "What's going on?"

Technically, the British way makes more sense, but it's just so ugly. Besides, it's obvious that (A) the sentence has ended and (B) it's a statement.

[lavar78]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
My remembrance is that you never have terminating punctuation within the parentheses unless the entire sentence is in parenthesis

BTW, "parentheses" is the plural of "parenthesis."

[effgee]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
... My remembrance is that you never have terminating punctuation within the parenthesis unless the entire sentence is in parenthesis ...

So it is: He asked how the food was (it sucked).
and not He asked how the food was (it sucked.)

(same thing in German, btw)

Oh my, you have no idea how many proposals, letters, etc. I have written over the years with literally dozens of typos of that kind in them. Weird thing is that no one ever told me - be it co-workers or clients.

Bastards.




"parentheses" ...

lavar78 - you're right of course. Even I knew that (and according to this thread, that means a thing or two). I do however plead innocence - it's 4:50am here and I am beyond tired. My personal rule - if you find a typo in any of my posts posted after 3am, you get to keep it.

[malvolio]

My favorite literary* example of the dreaded Dangling Preposition:


"Where to?"

"Never end a sentence with a preposition."

"Okay. Where to, a s s h o l e?"








* from a novel by Kinky Friedman

[RAILhead]

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by malvolio:
My favorite literary* example of the dreaded Dangling Preposition:

Dangling preps are another one of my pet peeves. Whenever I hear someone ask where something's at, like, "Where's the coffee at?" I respond by saying "between the 'A' and the 'T'".

I really ticks people off after a while. I also keep saying what, or I don't understand that language until they correct the sentence (my wife hates it when I do that to her).

Maury

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by lavar78:


BTW, "parentheses" is the plural of "parenthesis."

Actually, parentheses is either or both while parenthesis is either of two.

So, in my sentence, I was really referring to any and all parentheses (plural) one may encounter in a sentence. Though, more technically, since I was using only one sentence in my example, it may have been clearer to use the singular parenthesis.

Maury

[Xeo]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Dangling preps are another one of my pet peeves. Whenever I hear someone ask where something's at, like, "Where's the coffee at?" I respond by saying "between the 'A' and the 'T'".

I really ticks people off after a while. I also keep saying what, or I don't understand that language until they correct the sentence (my wife hates it when I do that to her).

Maury

Don't come to the midwest then. We're always saying stuff like, "Hey, are you coming with?" It's perfectly natural up here and I really doubt anyone would ever get why you are "not understanding them" and they'd eventually just give up asking you. If I remember correctly, my Linguistics prof blamed it on Norwegian influencing the language here. We had a lot of Norse immigrants. Can confirm or deny that Norwegian has dangling preps?

I agree with lavar on the punctuation thing. I find it aesthetically better to have the period or comma inside the quote. However, as a CS major, the logic behind that doesn't make much sense and therefore I wish I had learned it the other way so that I wouldn't be fighting "what looks right." But, it's OK because it's not incorrect to do it one way or the other, since you have various countries around the world that will defend you in either situation.

However, with parens, I always do it like this (and it looks better to me, as well).

"He ran quickly up the stairs."
"He quickly ran up the stairs."

I honestly don't know which is more correct. Neither sticks out as more common than the other. Oh well.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Xeo:
"He ran quickly up the stairs."
"He quickly ran up the stairs."

I honestly don't know which is more correct. Neither sticks out as more common than the other. Oh well.

Adverbs are the easy ones as they can be placed anywhere in a sentence with only minimal rules for time, frequency, degree, manner and place.

For time adverbs, you can place them anywhere:
I will finish this post.
My wife works as an accounting supervisor.

Frequency adverbs can also go anywhere:
I never eat peppermints.
You should daily take a shower (at least).
He does laundry reularly.

Degree adverbs should be placed before the adjective or the adverb they are modifying:
This food is really good!
She almost saw me checking her out.

Manner adverbs should be placed after the main verb or after the object:
He runs fast.
Ballmer shouted angrily to the crowd of d0rks.

Place adverbs should be placed after the main verb or after the object:
My wife is driving home.
The cat ran upstairs.

Whew.


EDIT: I forgot to respond to your sentences. Your examples relay two different meanings, so this is where one must be careful on adverb placement:

"He ran quickly up the stairs" describes his running -- it was quick, fast, with much speed.

"He quickly ran up the stairs" doesn't necessarily relate to the speed at which he ran, rather, that he got up and went up stairs in a more hurried manner than usual.

See the difference?

Maury

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
You should daily take a shower (at least).

That sounds wrong dude. I don't know what it is about it that sounds wrong, but if someone actually said that to me (grammar, not content!) I'd hit 'em with a big stick.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
That sounds wrong dude. I don't know what it is about it that sounds wrong, but if someone actually said that to me (grammar, not content!) I'd hit 'em with a big stick.

To each his own, but the examples illustrate that you can place frequency adverbs anywhere and they're still grammatically correct.

Maury

[Millennium]

Jesus' car - belong to Jesus (s's never happens)

Not technically true; in this particular case "Jesus's car" is correct. It is very rare for a singular noun to end in an s, but it does happen on occasion, almost always when dealing with proper names. This situation comes up so rarely, however, that it is often overlooked.

Singular possessive nouns always append 's. Plural possessive nouns append 's if the noun doesn't end in an s; otherwise they append only the apostrophe.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Not technically true; in this particular case "Jesus's car" is correct. It is very rare for a singular noun to end in an s, but it does happen on occasion, almost always when dealing with proper names. This situation comes up so rarely, however, that it is often overlooked.

Singular possessive nouns always append 's. Plural possessive nouns append 's if the noun doesn't end in an s; otherwise they append only the apostrophe.

Incorrect, mien kapitan.

Ancient/historical names like Jesus, Moses, etc., do NOT use 's. The robe of Jesus should be written as Jesus' robe. The staff of Moses should be written Moses' staff. The followers of Isis should be written Isis' followers.

All other words, like James's car or George Burns's cigar, should end with 's.

This rule is in both British and American English.

Maury

[lavar78]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
Actually, parentheses is either or both while parenthesis is either of two.

Are you sure? I've never heard that. Dictionary.com verifies my belief that "parentheses" is the plural form of "parenthesis." Do you have a source?

So, in my sentence, I was really referring to any and all parentheses (plural) one may encounter in a sentence. Though, more technically, since I was using only one sentence in my example, it may have been clearer to use the singular parenthesis.

Here's your original sentence:

No, parenthesis are a different matter and as far as I know (I haven't read up on them in a while). My remembrance is that you never have terminating punctuation within the parenthesis unless the entire sentence is in parenthesis:

The first "parenthesis" is clearly plural (the verb is "are"), so that one should be "parentheses." Because you're talking about punctuation being within the second "parenthesis," I'd say that one should also be plural. The same goes for the third one (because you're talking about a sentence being in them).

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by lavar78:
Are you sure? I've never heard that. Dictionary.com verifies my belief that "parentheses" is the plural form of "parenthesis." Do you have a source?

I stand 110% corrected -- thank you for pointing this out to me. We're all learning something today, aren't we!

Maury

[lavar78]

Originally posted by RAILhead:
I stand 110% corrected -- thank you for pointing this out to me. We're all learning something today, aren't we!

No problem. Learning's great! Unfortunately, most kids don't realize that until they're already out of school.

[BRussell]

Aside from proper names like Jesus', the other controversial area is acronyms. Writers often use an apostrophe for just a plural, like:

Learn your ABC's.
MInd your P's and Q's.
I have two PC's.

I'd prefer to use ABCs and PCs, but it seems to be fairly standard practice for many professional writers, like in newspapers and magazines. I suppose without the apostrophe it looks like the 's' may be part of the acronym.