Language desk
< March 6	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 7

affect/effect

Some please help me, which is it here:

No one else was {A,E}ffected by my not doing something.

I read a whole bunch of sites on the subject, and I'm still confused - especially since they don't mention the -ed form. Ariel. 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's affected. StuRat 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are a couple of oddities between these words, a good rule of thumb is that one uses affect when the word is a verb and effect when the word is a noun. In your sample sentence, the word is a verb, and hence should be affected. — Gareth Hughes 00:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is the noun affect, in which the first syllable is stressed, which means, roughly, physically apparent mood, as in Due to his sad affect, I assumed he was depressed. There is also the verb effect, meaning to make happen, as in He effected a change in his daily routine. But Gareth is right that, for the most commonly used words in this family, affect is the verb and effect is the noun. Marco polo 00:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ariel. 01:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bothering to distinguish between the words; many people just give up entirely and use impacted. ObtuseAngle 20:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - that's not a bad idea for next time :) Ariel. 15:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. Impact (in this context) is a noun, not a verb. To turn it into a verb is another small step towards the debasement of the English language (see also scapegoat). --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that same debasement which has been happening since 1066? That same debasement caused by the coinage of all of those unnecessary words by William Shakespeare? Corvus cornix 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed, yes. That's what makes me an unapologetic prescriptivist. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 23:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Do what you want because a pirate is free" in Latin

What is it? It'll potentially come in handy if I ever make a pirate (stereotypical pirates, not real pirates)-based group of some kind and need something for the coat of arms. Vitriol 01:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free meaning libre, not free meaning gratis... It took me some time to interpret the sentence, but I guess it is aimed at fellow pirates, as an in-group? 惑乱分からん * \)/ * (\ * (< * \) * (2 * /) * /)/ * 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, probably. And yes, 'free' as in possessing freedom, not 'free' as in you don't have to pay anything for them. Which is sort of the opposite. Vitriol 04:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence seems to consist of two clauses with two different points of focus, I don't know if that would make it harder to translate... 惑乱分からん * \)/ * (\ * (< * \) * (2 * /) * /)/ * 05:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fac quod vis quia pirata liber sit. --Lambiam ^Talk 12:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lambiam is spot on, except that there is no reason for the subjunctive at the end. Should be est instead of sit. Maid Marion 16:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dudes (assuming that's correct...). Vitriol 18:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this word exist?

I have often heard the term "to prostilitize" meaning to seek to convert others to your religion. It was once used on "All in the Family" TV show that way, but when I recently used it in a group everybody looked at me like I was crazy until I explained what I meant. I have searched several dictionaries including this one but never found it. Does such a word exist? Am I spelling or pronouncing it incorrectly?Dtrend 02:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

proselytize.—eric 02:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary is a great place to find these. proselytize. The Jade Knight 06:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. and Mrs. President

If Hilary Clinton becomes President, what would be the correct title for her husband?

There is no precedent, so he will be a trailblazer. How about "first dude"? Seriously, "first gentleman" may work. Being that he is a former president and former presidents are still addressed as "Mr. President", he may just be called that. So, we'll have "President and President Clinton" when they're together. --Nélson Ricardo 03:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. Living former presidents are still referred to as, eg. "President Clinton". But is it true that if I met Bill Clinton, I should address him as "Mr President"? I thought that would be reserved for the incumbent alone. No? JackofOz 03:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's still "Mr. President", and that would be the proper way to address him even now. I'm pretty sure that's how it works, anyway; it's what I've always been taught. --Miskwito 04:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is, I believe. Thus, Ford was still referred to as President Ford in the news when he passed away the day after Christmas. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've always felt that Big Daddy would be most appropriate, especially if Clinton got there first. You have a point, though, that a simple Mr. President has precedence. Black Carrot 11:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Clinton would still be called Former President Clinton; in reference to his being Hilary's husband, he would be called the firstman. Jtg920 20:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the original question, there's no real-life precedent, but reality might follow fiction. On Commander in Chief, the president's husband was called the First Gentleman. Other fiction writers might have made other choices, of course. --Anon, March 7, 2007, 22:26 (UTC).

I think Denis Thatcher was simply called "The Prime Minister's husband", if that's any help. JackofOz 22:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I can't see "first gentleman" catching on; I would expect that, should Hillary be elected, Bill will be referred to as "Mr. Clinton." ObtuseAngle 23:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Thatcher was indeed just the PM's husband - but then we have never had a specific term for the PM's spouse. 'First lady' is not a term used in the UK (since the US usage is now pretty familiar, I think most people would interpret it as meaning the US first lady).

'Lady Mayoress' is a different matter (and deserves an article). Traditionally in the UK the Mayor's wife is termed the Lady Mayoress, and has some ceremonial roles of her own. But I understand that in many towns (maybe generally, I don't know), if the Mayor happens to be female her husband has no special title, and another woman is appointed 'Lady Mayoress'! --

ColinFine 00:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Mayor happens to be female, her husband can be referred to as the Mayor's Consort (or she can, as Necrothesp mentions, simply appoint another woman to the post - depends on the duties and the people in question, I suppose) --Wren-3^talk 19:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Lady of the United States tells us that the husbands of female US state governors are generally called "First Gentleman". JackofOz 02:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spouse of the Prime Minister has no official position and therefore no title. Any attempts to refer to Cherie Blair as "First Lady" are utterly inaccurate and merely indicative of Blair's perceived desire to have a presidential executive role which is alien to the British constitution. The only "first lady" (lower case) in the UK lives in Buckingham Palace.

It is common practice in the UK for a female mayor to appoint another woman as mayoress, since the post comes with responsibilities of acting as hostess at official functions, which would still be considered an odd role for a man to fill. -- Necrothesp 14:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Eisenhower's presidency was over, he was referred to as "General," so similarly the Clintons could be called President and Governor Clinton. Or just as Billery, like Brangelina. Or as "The President and Mr. Clinton." Edison 23:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The husband of a female Governor-General is referred to as the "first gentleman" of Canada and acts as host at official functions, and nobody bats an eye. The prime minister's wife is largely ignored, and I believe most PM's wives since Mila Mulroney have preferred it that way. --Charlene 03:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Doughnought errors

Why is your donut page so full of errors-- The proper etmyology is "doughnought" since the english word for zero is nought-- a donut is really a sweet in the shape of a zero-- The American version of the word is taken from Dunkin'Donuts--. Please correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluevanadium (talk • contribs) 03:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I see some cited evidence on the page for Doughnut which seems to contradict a) the "nought" etymology, b) the word "donut" as "the American version of the word", and c) Dunkin Donuts as the originator of the term "Donut". In fact, the article cites the first use of the term "doughnut" as coming before doughnuts even had holes. But if you have evidence that would support your case otherwise, please, by all means, bring it forward... Jfarber 03:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Um, actually, the word first appeared in American English in the very early 1800s, and the etymology is entirely transparent: it's just dough + nut. See [1] and [2] --Miskwito 04:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some still have peanuts on them today. StuRat 13:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based out of

The article Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation includes the statement that the foundation is "based out of Seattle, Washington". I was about to change this to "based in Seattle, Washington", but I thought I should check in case the meaning is somehow different from that. A literal reading suggests it is based somewhere in the world, anywhere but Seattle, but that doesn't seem right. Notinasnaid 09:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their contact address is in Seattle, not outside it, so I'd say make the change. —An gr 09:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard the phrase "out of" being used to mean "from", although it's slangy and (I think) mostly an Americanism. You hear it sometimes in relation to musical groups, for example "REM are out of Athens, Georgia", and boxers ("Fighting out of Los Angeles..."). This is the usage we're seeing in the Bill Gates article, but it's certainly incorrect to use it in conjunction with "based", and as you say is even contradictory. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 09:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've made the change. I observe [3] that there are over 1000 appearances of this phrase in Wikipeda. Even allowing for the occasional thing like "Faith-Based Out-of-School Time Program" that seems a lot. Now there's a mission for someone (else)! Notinasnaid 10:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, "based out of" should only be used for a group (e.g. a military unit) which has a home base in one place, but spends a lot of its time elsewhere. It certainly doesn't sound right in reference to a company or charity. -- Necrothesp 13:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's about frequently venturing from a home base, but it's not just groups. I hear "based out of" used very frequently by salespeople who travel a lot. "I'm based out of Chicago, but I come here to Detroit once a month, and my territory includes..." For a community with that specific experience, being away from home base as part of their routine, the usage makes sense. For many others, it does not, though it's frequently (colloquially) adapted in ways that sound awkward to me. I even heard a band introduce themselves as "We're from out of Boston." I agree that the B&MGF is better "based in Seattle." Petershank 20:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, "out of" was originally used for ships, to indicate the port she'd sailed from, so a signalman might send "We're the Titanic, out of Southampton". -- Necrothesp 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an almost-related pet peeve, does anybody else find it odd when the flight attendant finishes up the flight by saying "On behalf of your Seattle-based flight crew, thanks and have a pleasant..."? Everyone knows that they travel every day and frequently overnight away from home, but why do they think we care where their home is? Petershank 20:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never noticed that, but I've noticed one of my pet peeves in that same announcement: putting undue stress on a preposition, as in "We know you have a choice of airline, and we'd like to thank you for flying with us". —An gr 20:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"out of" could also be due to influence from another language - many of the Germanic languages use a preposition in the phrase "I am from...(town)" that would otherwise be translated as "I come out of..."

--Wren-3^talk 19:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of whom

"Reader Ann Eldridge recently sent along an example of an erroneous whom from a New Yorker piece by Louis Menand: the pact bound to her for life a man whom she knew could never be faithful." John Hough Jr., spotted another in a recent Globe article: [We must ensure] that government surveillance is never used against the political enemies of whomever is in power." This hypercorrect" whom is the blind spot of literate Americans," he says."

Why are these examples incorrect? 66.91.225.188 10:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first one should read "bound to her for life a man to whom she knew she could never be faithful". The second one should be "whoever is in power". I'm not sure I can state the grammatical rules relating to who and whom with certainty - I know that basically "who" refers to the subject, and "whom" to the object, but I'm not clear how that relates to the second example here. I'm sure others can enlighten us.

By the way, the word 'hypercorrect' probably refers to the phenomenon whereby people think they are going out of their way to be grammatically correct, whereas in fact they are making a mistake. Another example would be people saying "he gave the books to John, Peter and I", where 'I' is incorrect (it should be 'me'). --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I read it that the misuse of whom relates to the man being the subject in the second clause i.e. "the pact bound to her for life a man who she knew could never be faithful". Perhaps to her at the end of the sentence, but perhaps to anyone. Anyway, seems to show a thoroughly ambiguous sentence. Notinasnaid 11:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, I hadn't thought of that meaning. As a sentence, it's not only ambiguous but messy. "Bound her for life to a man..." is marginally better. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A trick I always use is to try to rephrase using "he" or "him". If "he" works, use "who"; if "him" works, use "whom". So, taking just the relevant phrases, "she knew he could never be faithful", and "he is in power". A similar trick for figuring out me/I is to make it singular. To use Richardrj's example, "he gave the books to me". Ingrid 15:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original questioner's first example is a pet dislike of mine, and has become very prevalent even in good authors. I think the way to analyse it is by recognising that 'who' has been attracted into the object (accusative) case by its proximity to 'she knew'. But if we do that, we leave 'could never be faithful' without a subject, and the syntax collapses. What we should do instead is to write 'who' - nominative, subject case, because it is the subject of 'could never be faithful' - while regarding 'she knew' as a parenthesis. Maid Marion 16:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. If the text were "the pact bound to her for life a man whom she knew", then whom would be correct. But in the sentence you provided, it's who. JackofOz 22:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes 'she knew' does take the accusative, even in contexts like this one: the sentence "She knew he was a truly patriotic man" isn't so far from "She knew him to be a truly patriotic man", where we really are using the accusative. Tesseran 10:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In meaning, they're almost identical. But syntactically (or grammatically), they're very different constructions. The first sentence could be replaced with "She knew that he was a truly patriotic man", where the clause after "that" is a simple subject-verb-object, taking the nominative for the subject. The second sentence is completely different. JackofOz 06:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi

h r u man. I am student of mca in India. I whould like to help by u inmy study.

Welcome to the language reference desk. Do you have a specific problem or question that you would like help with? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 10:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have more luck by finding the Wikipedia project in your language. Here's a list. - Taxman ^Talk 16:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy to or embassy in?

This change [4] modified "The British Embassy in Washington, D.C. is the United Kingdom's embassy to the United States." Instead of "embassy to", it now reads "embassy in". I have a vague feeling of unease with this, but I can't put my finger on it. Notinasnaid 11:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it doesn't read quite right. But I don't much like the original sentence either. Your sense of unease might stem from the fact that "ambassador to" is correct. I'd be tempted to rewrite the sentence to say "the UK's embassy to the US is in Washington". Much simpler and says the same thing. As for whether 'embassy to' is preferable to 'embassy in', I think it is. 'To' conveys the legal/diplomatic status of the embassy, whereas 'in' is simply about geographical location. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that "embassy" can mean more than one thing. It can refer to a building, in which case the embassy is in Washington, DC, but it can also refer to the abstract diplomatic mission itself, which is sent to a country. So the above sentence is correct, but confusing because it uses the two meanings of "embassy" in the same sentence: "The British Embassy_concrete in Washington, D.C. is the United Kingdom's embassy_abstract to the United States." —An gr 11:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Diplomatic mission contains the wording "The British Embassy to the United States is in Washington, D.C.". It uses the two meanings of "embassy" in the same word. --Lambiam ^Talk 12:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - which was my suggested rewrite above. Hurrah :-) --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A slightly different challenge: the article is called Embassy of the United Kingdom in Washington, DC, and according to Wikipedia style I would expect this exact phrase to appear, and to appear early in the first sentence (typically as the subject). Currently it doesn't. How can it now be redrafted? Notinasnaid 10:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Angr says above, the use of the word "in" indicates that the subject of the article is the building, not the abstract mission. So I would be tempted to rewrite along the lines of "The Embassy of the United Kingdom in Washington, DC is the building housing the UK's diplomatic mission to the US". --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You will find the Embassy of the United Kingdom in Washington, D.C." :) --Lambiam ^Talk 16:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But presumably the United Kingdom has embassies in more than just one city? Corvus cornix 22:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point: the UK has over a hundred embassies worldwide. They even have more than one embassy within US boundaries, as the UK Embassy to the United Nations is in New York. --Charlene 03:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CASE CLOSED I need five lines translated from Spanish to english

Yup, I could do it myself, but ...the translation should be done by a neutral (and uninvolved) third party, because it is an important piece of evidence in a complex and protracted dispute (see Talk:2004_Madrid_train_bombings#Request_For_Comment:_How_much_weight_shall_the_community_assign_to_the_Spanish_Judiciary)

Reward: An Spanish speaker owes you one... ; )

Spanish original:

¿Cómo ve las condenas contra el general Galindo y Julen Elgorriaga?

Las veo injustas, porque tengo la convicción de que ellos no fueron los autores, ni de los secuestros, ni de los asesinatos...[]...Creo que no hay pruebas, y no critico a los jueces, porque creo que humanamente tienen una convicción, pero por eso no tienen derecho a condenar a unos inocentes. (words uttered by Felipe González Márquez) [5]

English translation

?

...[]...

Randroide 17:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is just prose... Why do you need a third party? (I've got the rough draft of it, buy I don't know if I'm fit to translate it...) 惑乱分からん * \)/ (\ (< \) (2 /) /)/ * 21:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My guess:

How do you see the condemnations of/charges against General Galindo and Julen Elgorriaga?

I see them as unjust, because I have the conviction that they were neither the [...] nor among the people assassinated. I believe that there is no evidence/proof, and I do not criticize the judges, because I believe that they, as humans, have a conviction, but they do not have the right to condemn innocent people because of that.

It's been a while since I studied Spanish, but I think that whatever I have translated is reasonably accurate. --Siva 21:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts (though I'm not fluent in Spanish either):

"How do you see [how should we view?] the condemnations of [charges against?] General Galindo and Julen Elgorriaga?

"I see them as unjust [more poetically: "To me they appear unjust"?], because I am certain that they were not among[?] the perpetrators, nor among those kidnapped, nor among those killed/murdered/assassinated ... [] ... I believe that there is no proof, and I don't criticise the judges, because I believe that they as humans[?] have a ~~[humanly??]~~ conviction, but ~~because of this~~ they do not have the right to condemn innocents people because of that."

--Miskwito 22:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed a bit to incorporate parts of Siva's version that were clearly better than mine. I'm uncertain about how to translate the section that goes no fueron los autores, ni de los secuestros, ni de los asesinatos --Miskwito 22:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"How do you see the sentences against general Galindo and Julen Elgorriaga? I see them as unjust, because I am convinced that they were not the perpetrators, neither of the kidnappings, nor of the murders...[]...I believe that there is no proof, and I don't criticize the judges, because I believe that, being human, they have a conviction, but they do not have the right to condemn innocent people because of that." --Lambiam ^Talk 17:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, guys. Thank you very much for the work.

I did not make this myself because I need a "third-neutral-party" translation, because this text (in English) is required for a flamed dispute.

Finally, Lambian hitted the nail in the head with the tricky line:

no fueron los autores, ni de los secuestros, ni de los asesinatos

Yup, Lambian translated this line AOK.

Remember: "Dial R for Randroide" if you need something from a Spanish speaker.Randroide 17:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CASE CLOSED Randroide 17:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "I don't criticize the judges" should be emended to "I'm not criticizing the judges." Present continuous is more common in English for describing an action that is occurring in the moment of speaking. Spanish does not employ the present progressive as strictly in this sense. Many sentences that employ the present indicative simple of Spanish such as:

Que pasa?

What/That happen (1P - S present indicative)?

What's happening?

are more accurately translated into English sentences employing the present progressive: and I am not criticizing the judges, because I believe that, being human . . . .

Joshua Crowgey 07:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking For Granted

what is the general meaning of 'taking for granted'?Coffsneeze 22:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(dictionary.com): "10. take for granted,

a. to accept without question or objection; assume: Your loyalty to the cause is taken for granted.

b. to use, accept, or treat in a careless or indifferent manner: A marriage can be headed for trouble if either spouse begins to take the other for granted."--Fuhghettaboutit 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To assume something/someone will always be around or available. Example: For years, we've been taking oil for granted. Cyraan 22:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so, can I say: 'Cinderella takes her dress and glass slippers for granted, assuming the valueable possessions will always be around or avaliable without question or objection'?Coffsneeze 22:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can say it, but you seem to be saying the same thing twice. I don't think the part starting with "assuming the ..." has quite the same nuance as "takes for granted". It might be better to shorten it to "Cinderella assumes the ~~valueable~~ valuable possessions will always be around or ~~avaliable~~ available without question or objection". JackofOz 22:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possessive and names

I was wondering, what if you have a name like James, or a last name like Powers where the name ends in a name and you are trying to use the name in a possessive way. How is it presented? Is it presented like "It is James's notebook." or is it "It is James' notebook."? Does it really matter? And do different citation styles matter on this also (if it matters i use APA style of citation)? Thanks for any input! --Agester 23:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My memory was confirmed by a trip to bartleby.com, which includes The American Heritage Book of English Usage; in most cases proper nouns are made possessive using the same rules as for common nouns. However, certain proper nouns ending in the 's' sound which could be awkward or confusing with the addition of "apostrophe-s" can be made possessive by adding just an apostrophe, so that you might discuss Xerxes' conquest or Moses' children. Petershank 00:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "right" or "wrong" here, it's simply a matter of style, and different style guides advise different, and sometimes rather complicated, rules (some based on sounds, like that mentioned above, with or without exceptions for historical huses (e.g. "In Jesus' name"). The easiest rule is to always add "'s". - Nunh-huh 01:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one I follow adds an s except when it's plural. I think it's more consistent that way, but James' looks fine too me too. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It gets tricky with the plural possessives of these sorts of names. Imagine a family with the surname Jones. "The Joneses' house is red" would be the pedantically correct way to write it, but you might get away with "the Jones' house", or even just "the Jones house". It hardly seems to matter much anymore, but a consistent style is important. (I'm not even sure if all surnames ending in -s necessarily take an extra -es; the plural of Powers may or may not be Powerses.) JackofOz 03:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get the idea that Joneses' would be correct from, Jack? It seems wrong to me. I would go with Jones'. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jones is singular. If we're talking about Bill and Mary Jones, they are the Joneses. If we're talking about their house, it's the Joneses' house. JackofOz 08:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught that an apostrophe without an s is used when the word is one syllable, but "'s" is used when the word is more than one syllable. Corvus cornix 22:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the Jesus and Moses reference i still think the same as Richard. I would say "that's Moseses' friend" when it could indeed be Moses' (or Moses's if that's still an option!). Similar arguement with Jesus. But if you do say it that way it does sound a little funny / off if that was what you were leaning towards. However, I think that would apply to the "Joneses'" too. Powerses' would just sound a bit silly to me but i guess i would say "Powerses'" as an emphasis to saying it's possessive with respect to Powers but I'm not sure if that would be correct written. --Agester 05:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though we add another syllable in speech when we attribute something to Moses, it's never written with an extra "es" on the end. ("Those tablets belong to Moses. Those tablets are his. Those tablets are Moses'. OR Those tablets are Moses's.") Similarly, we write Jesus' or Jesus's. (Whether we write 's or just an apostrophe at the end is a matter of personal style.) The reason that "Joneses" and "Powerses" appear above is because here the words are plural. Together, Bill and Mary Jones are the Jones family, or the Joneses. So the Jones family's dog is the Joneses' dog. The only time we could write Moseses' or Jesuses' is if we were talking about more than one person named Moses. Since Moses is a first name, this rarely happens: in this article, the author uses Moseses to refer to Harvey and Betty Moses. Tesseran 10:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]