Which is correct when describing an association that belongs to all pedants?
![[Image: cinjin_banner_border.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=oggtheclever.com%2Fcinjin_banner_border.jpg)
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: February 19, 2025, 9:33 pm
| Poll: Which is correct? This poll is closed. |
|||
| Pedants Association | 0 | 0% | |
| Pedants' Association | 12 | 85.71% | |
| Pedant's Association | 2 | 14.29% | |
| Total | 14 vote(s) | 100% | |
| * You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
Thread Rating:
|
Apostrophe
|
 
H0ary H0bbit Religious Views: “Never to suffer would never to have been blessed.” - Edgar Allan Poe
1 & 2 ...1 is acceptable and 2 is strictly correct
Tho' shouldn't it be pedants that belong to the association? Lovin it 
Technically "pedants's association" is also correct, and the choice to use the extra 's' at the end is up to you.
 RE: Apostrophe
February 13, 2010 at 12:53 am
(This post was last modified: February 13, 2010 at 12:54 am by TruthWorthy.)
I'm thinking association belonging to Pedant's. The association is owned/run/membership of Pedants'; or in this case Pedants', or Pedants looks correct as a plural form but when you give them something you need to include it (Pedant's).
It somehow doesn't look right over all to have the group called Pedants Association, as an association isn't a proper noun so doesn't need the capital. => Pedant's Association. Coming soon: Banner image-link to new anti-islam forum.
I have no clue on how to sustain the structure of the cosmos by answering your question.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis Faith is illogical - fr0d0 
Not plural, before S
Plural, after S. Simple as that.
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
::Blogs:: Boston Atheism Examiner - Boston Atheists Blog | :  odcast:: Boston Atheists Report
Wouldn't that make the association of Pedants' like a double mention of a group? Instead of saying something like organisation, etc?
Coming soon: Banner image-link to new anti-islam forum.
But you wouldn't do that.
Association of Pedants Pedants' Association Only the second implies ownership, the first implies content, thus the apostrophe is only needed for the second. RE: Apostrophe
February 14, 2010 at 12:00 am
(This post was last modified: February 14, 2010 at 12:25 am by TruthWorthy.)
Yeah, a sort of bad example on my behalf.
I'm seeing double and boggles me. I think if it's a title of an organisation it should be encapsulated: "Pedants Association" But it looks like a sentence with two proper nouns where Pedants are in possession: Pedant's Association It's kind of breaking my brain. "To show ownership/possession: . . . . When the plural noun does not end in 's', it takes an apostrophe and an 's'. eg. Woman's roles have changed the years. Most plural nouns end in 's' and are followed by an apostrophe only. eg. My parents' anniversary; Smiths' farm in Switzerland. . . . . You may omit the apostrophe in plural nouns ending in 's' when they are considered to be adjectival rather than possessive. eg. It comes with a users manual; sign the visitors book." McKenzie. (2004). 'Australian Handbook for Writers and Editors' Coming soon: Banner image-link to new anti-islam forum.
 RE: Apostrophe
February 14, 2010 at 1:26 am
(This post was last modified: February 14, 2010 at 1:28 am by Shell B.)
(February 13, 2010 at 11:37 pm)Tiberius Wrote: But you wouldn't do that. Precisely. Padants' is the only way to do it, as far as the poll is concerned. I read Padants's somewhere up there. Correct or no, it's awkward. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
