Salad...I'm sitting in my office with two ex-Roan grammar school boys(both in their 70's I may add), who tell me that's correct....Curb's...my spelling isn't that great I know but my punctuation isn't that bad...I think we're right here?
[cite]Posted By: SoundAsa£[/cite]Salad...I'm sitting in my office with two ex-Roan grammar school boys(both in their 70's I may add), who tell me that's correct....Curb's...my spelling isn't that great I know but my punctuation isn't that bad...I think we're right here?
Think Salad is right. It would be correct if it was Curbs' job/book but not as a nickname. Could be justified as a contraction of Curbishley as in wasn't or hasn't but I think that is stretching a point
For example Pard's is wrong, Pards would be correct.
(grammatically not in terms of employment obviously)
I can't believe you are all going on about the bloody apostrophes and have missed the glaringly obvious cockup that Ipwich Council's highways department has made. Surely it should be Kerb not curb?
I wonder if the Millwall and Palace fans have similar grammatical debates.
Just for the record, Curbs is without an apostrophe. Curb's suggests he is taking ownership of something or that it's an abbreviation of his name, which of course it is not.
That said, I think we all understood what you meant Sound.
If his nickname is Curbs, then it should be - Ipswich pursue Curbs
Unless its a headline in an American paper in which case it should be - Ipswich pursues Curbs - as Americans seem to view a collective noun as singular.
If the sentence starts with his name it should be - Curbs's pursued by Ipswich
[cite]Posted By: scruffle[/cite]however "Curb's pursued by Ipswich" now thats ok
only if his nickname's "Curb", which it ain't
Ok fair nuff
edit - "however Curbs's pursued by Ipswich" is correct grammer wise - just sounds stupid
so was i right, my spelling excepted?
Well, actually Dazzler ......logically it should be "Curbs's pursued by, etc" ...., but grammatically the second S should be dropped
= "...Curbs' pursued by, etc....."
Which reads as Curbs pursued by Ipswich .... which is where we came in, of course! )
Comments
I saw it in one of Mortamerician's dreams !
Think Salad is right. It would be correct if it was Curbs' job/book but not as a nickname. Could be justified as a contraction of Curbishley as in wasn't or hasn't but I think that is stretching a point
For example Pard's is wrong, Pards would be correct.
(grammatically not in terms of employment obviously)
I went to a comprehensive BTW : - )
His nickname is "Curbs", so even if there were to be an apostrophe it would be after the "s", for example:
Ipswich pursue Curbs' signature.
I went to Crown Wood's ; - )
I wonder if the Millwall and Palace fans have similar grammatical debates.
Just for the record, Curbs is without an apostrophe. Curb's suggests he is taking ownership of something or that it's an abbreviation of his name, which of course it is not.
That said, I think we all understood what you meant Sound.
Unless its a headline in an American paper in which case it should be - Ipswich pursues Curbs - as Americans seem to view a collective noun as singular.
If the sentence starts with his name it should be - Curbs's pursued by Ipswich
I think........
Apologies edited... Happy to admit my spelling fell short there!
Ok fair nuff
edit - "however Curbs's pursued by Ipswich" is correct grammer wise - just sounds stupid
so was i right, my spelling excepted?
Or should that be lad's and lassies?
Oh and scruffle...by the way.....it's grammar not grammer.
You gotta laugh folks...we could be here all day at this rate!
Well, actually Dazzler ......logically it should be "Curbs's pursued by, etc" ...., but grammatically the second S should be dropped
= "...Curbs' pursued by, etc....."
Which reads as Curbs pursued by Ipswich .... which is where we came in, of course!