For you, maybe. Not for everyone. As evidenced here.
Yes, that would work. But it is unreasonable to assume that the writer would necessarily follow that ‘rule’ that you have formulated.
Possibly. You really can’t know that.
Possibly. Possibly not. There is nothing to guide you either way - apart from your own predelictions.
Oh, fine. If you don’t care what the writer is saying then of course you can put whatever interpretation you wish on it. And of course it really doesn’t matter - the world will continue much as it did previously. No-one here is suggesting otherwise. This is simply a discussion on how the sentence could have been written more clearly. And it really isn’t hard to think of ways of doing so. It really isn’t a matter going out of his or her way to make it clear - it really is easy to do so. I’m not sure why you think that it would be unreasonable to do so. Perhaps because you are very confident that you know what the writer meant to say, and you don’t care what they are saying anyway.
Years ago I got involved in an online discussion with someone who failed to understand the men’s road cycling event at the 2012 Olympics, criticising those riders who apparently had been in contention for most of the event but in the last few hundred yards as the sprint for gold developed had sat up and finished in the group. That too went round in circles till after a while I realised he was pulling my plonker pretending not to grasp the reasons and the logic behind road cycling and was - as he later admitted - taking the p. He earned himself a ban, rightly so.
I sense the same here. I’ve clarified my interpretation enough and have justified it. If you can’t accept that that’s your lookout not mine. For me I’m quite happy that Southampton didn’t play 3 games in a day and that an imaginary bloke on an imaginary holiday didn’t spend most of his last day travelling between various [real] pubs. I’ve explained why I’m happy with my interpretation. If you need more, fine, but I’m full of going round in circles justifying why my take on a grammatically correct and not misleading sentence construction is ok with me.
Can journalists write novels ?
Most that I know have taken ambiguity to another level.
And, what about journalists who have taken prime ministerial duties to another ambiguous level.
This belongs here not the dealership thread, and it was a throwaway comment, but…
If I own a Jeep, I have a Jeep. If I buy another I have two Jeeps,
If I own a Ford, I have a Ford. If I buy another I have two Fords,
If I own a radio, I have a radio. If I buy another I have two radios,
…
If I own an Alfa, I have a Alfa. If I buy another I have two Alfas,
If I own a Ferrari, I have a Ferrari. If I buy another I have two Ferraris,
Etc
A greengrocer’s apostrophe refers to the arbitrary use of apostrophes on grocers’ signs; typically potato’s, carrot’s, pea’s etc, and has been discussed on here widely enough for it now to be an in-joke where someone does indeed pluralise anything with 's. 's isn’t a plural; for some reason there seems to be a belief that a word ending in a vowel requires 's to make it plural, but it doesn’t.
To be fair, the Apple IOS system is often the cause of the grocer’s apostrophe as it adds it in often and it’s easy not to check before sending the posting.
Like I said, a throwaway comment and just a bit of a joke, but then a few seemed not to have a clue so it seemed worthy of explanation rather than leaving folk in the dark.
But hey, whatever, yh. I’ll get my life on track and sorted if it suits you better.
It’s not that at all, it’s just there are more appropriate ways to bring it to someone’s attention. I’ll try to do better next time, however your post came across as a little smug and condescending. Hopefully that wasn’t your intention.
What is the ’ doing in the sentence? It’s not relevant for plurals; it indicates possession or omission.
Enzo’s Ferrari.
It’s [<< It is hence It’s, omission of an i] likely he had more than one so Enzo’s Ferraris.
His collection of Ferraris’ nosecones tells us he had a number of nosecones from numerous Ferraris. If the nosecones were from the one he owned it would be his collection of his Ferrari’s nosecones.
Really though, it’s getting convoluted by this stage; reword the sentence to remove its clunkiness.
So, what’s with this new thing of starting every post with so? So, I’ve bought a new x. We now even have a whole thread starting with so. So, have I so missed something?
