 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / September 2007pronunciations
What is it with the increasing number of people who think that leaving the final "s" off of the possessive form of "Jesus" (which you can certainly do if you want to) means leaving off the final syllable when you speak the word? It's bizarre. You wouldn't say that you were called into your "boss office", would you? Of course not. Yet almost every day, I hear people refer to "Jesus teachings" or "Jesus word". What's going on here? Linda > What is it with the increasing number of people who think that leaving > the final "s" off of the possessive form of "Jesus" (which you can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > every day, I hear people refer to "Jesus teachings" or "Jesus word". > What's going on here? i think you'll find it's "Jesus' teachings" with an apostrophe, so, it can be pronounced as "Jesus name" with no extra 's' sound. Jesus gets special treatment because some people think it sounds awkward to say; "Jesus's's name" although they might say "Burns's' poetry" one guy says the same sort of thing applies to "for righteousness' sake" if it makes you happy to say "Jesus's name" go right ahead, not many people will care. unless of course, they don't like hearing "Jesus' name" no matter how you intend to pronounce it, in which case, you'll have to ...deal with it. open forum and all, i've never heard anyone say "for goodnesses sake" so, if there is a regiionalism that uses this, it is rare, like there are still some people who say "nuculer" as well as some who use "nuclear" Eisenhower probably said "nuculer" and you stll hear it today. and there are people who say "progrum" and also "program" but, "Zeus's" doesn't hurt the ear, and it seems as if this " Jesus' " bit is a matter of redundancy" like, if you get a double "ez-ez" sound in the speaking of the thing, it is just cut to one "ez" so, Jesus' gets only one "ez" sound. Jesusez is redundant, Mosesez is redundant, Burnsez isn't redundant, Zeusez isn't redundant, if you were submitting a formal paper to whomsoever then, you might consult the particular style manual for whomsoever you would be submitting this, but, if it is a matter of how it sounds to a particular set of ears, you may wish to find out who is going to be hearing what you say, like, if some politician wants to get a certain ear to bear him, he might say "nuculer" and if he also wants soemone else to hear him, he may say "nuclear" it seems like "progrum" is used in the southern usa more than "program" etc.etc.etc. but, "for goodnessez sake" i don't think i've ever heard that. it's almost exclusively "for goodness sake" written with the apostrophe s. "for goodness' sake" anyway, "in Jesus' name" is perfectly good usage. > open forum and all, > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > is perfectly good usage. ObSDC: Name the poet. Adrian > > open forum and all, > > if you were submitting a > > formal paper to whomsoever > > then, you might consult the particular > > style manual for whomsoever you would > > be submitting this, > > but, if it is a matter of how > > it sounds to a particular > > set of ears, > > you may wish to find out who is > > going to be hearing what you say, > > anyway, "in Jesus' name" > > is perfectly good usage. > ObSDC: Name the poet. Stanley Kowalski Adrian Bailey filted: >> open forum and all, >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> >> so, Jesus' gets only one "ez" sound. >ObSDC: Name the poet. Lillian R Lieber?...r  Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > Adrian Bailey filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Lillian R Lieber?...r Many candidates. John Agard and Tom Leonard came to mind. Adrian Adrian Bailey filted: >> Adrian Bailey filted: >> > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >Many candidates. John Agard and Tom Leonard came to mind. Except for the punctuation and the occasional capital letter, I'd've said archy the cockroach....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > although they might say "Burns's' poetry" I see and hear both 'Dickens's novels' and 'Dickens' novels', as well as 'Keats's poetry' and 'Keats' poetry'. Of course I have also seen 'Dicken's novels' and 'Keat's poetry' more often than I care to mention. Peter >What is it with the increasing number of people who think that leaving >the final "s" off of the possessive form of "Jesus" (which you can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >every day, I hear people refer to "Jesus teachings" or "Jesus word". >What's going on here? I've heard something similar with "women". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > What is it with the increasing number of people who think that leaving > the final "s" off of the possessive form of "Jesus" (which you can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > every day, I hear people refer to "Jesus teachings" or "Jesus word". > What's going on here? Maybe they're using jesus as an adjective, e.g. jesus freak. > What is it with the increasing number of people who think that leaving > the final "s" off of the possessive form of "Jesus" (which you can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > every day, I hear people refer to "Jesus teachings" or "Jesus word". > What's going on here? When a word end in an s, people usually pronounce the possessive with an additional s (written, for example: Jesus's, Charles's), but often they don't pronounce it with an extra s. In many cases that is perfectly acceptable, and is then written, for example: Jesus', Charles'. Adrian > > What is it with the increasing number of people who think that leaving > > the final "s" off of the possessive form of "Jesus" (which you can [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Adrian Moses's would sound particularly silly. >>> What is it with the increasing number of people who think that leaving >>> the final "s" off of the possessive form of "Jesus" (which you can [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Moses's would sound particularly silly. It doesn't sound silly to me, and if I felt the need to refer to something belonging to Moses then that's what I'd say. Signatureathel > What is it with the increasing number of people who think that > leaving the final "s" off of the possessive form of "Jesus" (which > you can certainly do if you want to) means leaving off the final > syllable when you speak the word? I'm not sure that "increasing" is the right word. The tradition of saying Jesus' rather than Jesus's, on the grounds that the latter is difficult to pronounce, seems to be centuries old. Similarly, I don't think I've ever heard anyone say Moses's. (Not that I claim to be centuries old. As far as I know, though, the forms Jesus's and Moses's are missing even in the oldest writings (in English) that have survived.) SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> What is it with the increasing number of people who think that >> leaving the final "s" off of the possessive form of "Jesus" (which [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > forms Jesus's and Moses's are missing even in the oldest writings > (in English) that have survived.) Don't know that it's relevant, but I find it interesting that, in the names cited (Moses, Jesus, Charles), the final "s" in each case is a grammatical ending imposed by a language into which the name was borrowed, and was not present in the original name. In some other names accorded the apostrophic genitive (Socrates), it's a grammatical ending too, although not one imposed by a borrower. >>> What is it with the increasing number of people who think that >>> leaving the final "s" off of the possessive form of "Jesus" (which [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > names accorded the apostrophic genitive (Socrates), it's a > grammatical ending too, although not one imposed by a borrower. It's standard practice with classical names: e.g., /Polyphemus'/, /Ulysses'/. Similarly with non-classical names in Latin or Greek form, such as /Jesus/. /Moses'/ also comes under the same rule as /Hodges'/, because the final /-es/ is sounded, unlike that in /Jones/, which gives /Jones's/. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com On Sep 6, 9:34 am, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>> What is it with the increasing number of people who think that > >>> leaving the final "s" off of the possessive form of "Jesus" (which [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > - Show quoted text - It's been standard for years and years that ancient names ending in "s" do not get a possessive "s" added, only (in writing) an apostrophe. Most of those ancient names are Latin (Hercules, Julius) or Greek (Heracles, Zeus), or Greek forms (Moses, Jesus). It's been standard for years and years that when a possessive noun ending in "s" even before it gets the possessive marker is followed by a noun beginning with "s," the possessive marker is left out. For goodness' sake! Current nouns and names ending in "s" often end with the /z/ sound. Whether they get the possessive marker or not is up to the individual speaking. See any style manual. And look at the older ones, too. This predates Fowler! Cece > It's been standard for years and years that ancient names ending in > "s" do not get a possessive "s" added, only (in writing) an > apostrophe. Most of those ancient names are Latin (Hercules, Julius) > or Greek (Heracles, Zeus), or Greek forms (Moses, Jesus). Hm. I don't see--or hear--anything wrong with "Zeus's". Adrian Adrian Bailey filted: >> It's been standard for years and years that ancient names ending in >> "s" do not get a possessive "s" added, only (in writing) an >> apostrophe. Most of those ancient names are Latin (Hercules, Julius) >> or Greek (Heracles, Zeus), or Greek forms (Moses, Jesus). > >Hm. I don't see--or hear--anything wrong with "Zeus's". By the time you get to "Xerxes's" you sense that something's wrong....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > Adrian Bailey filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > By the time you get to "Xerxes's" you sense that something's wrong....r I don't agree. Once you accept that Xerxes is a reasonable name then I see no reason not to make the possessive in the normal way. Signatureathel Athel Cornish-Bowden filted: >> By the time you get to "Xerxes's" you sense that something's wrong....r > >I don't agree. Once you accept that Xerxes is a reasonable name then I >see no reason not to make the possessive in the normal way. She: "Amestris wants to know if we'll stop by Friday night." He: "No thanks. I've had it up to here with the Xerxeses's little parties." ....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" >> Adrian Bailey filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I don't agree. Once you accept that Xerxes is a reasonable name then I > see no reason not to make the possessive in the normal way. Sort of depends on one's definition of "normal". SignatureRob Bannister >> It's been standard for years and years that ancient names ending in >> "s" do not get a possessive "s" added, only (in writing) an >> apostrophe. Most of those ancient names are Latin (Hercules, Julius) >> or Greek (Heracles, Zeus), or Greek forms (Moses, Jesus). > > Hm. I don't see--or hear--anything wrong with "Zeus's". Well, there /is/ nothing wrong with it. It's simply, as I said, (though of course Cece will probably agree violently with me on this) that the plain-apostrophe form is conventional. As fewer and fewer people are trained in classics, that convention is getting weaker: I give it another generation at most. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>> It's been standard for years and years that ancient names ending in >>> "s" do not get a possessive "s" added, only (in writing) an [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >trained in classics, that convention is getting weaker: I give it >another generation at most. In some grade, we were taught that single-syllable words always get the apostrophe-s, Zeus's, three or more syllables never get the added "s", and two-syllable words could go either way, writer's preference. Was that just an example of a Miss Thistlebottom? SignatureAl in St. Lou > On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:17:20 +0100, "Mike Lyle" > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > "s", and two-syllable words could go either way, writer's preference. > Was that just an example of a Miss Thistlebottom? That's a new one on me. I was taught in eleventh grade (I think) that the rule was very simple: all words ending in "s" got a plain apostrophe and all others got an 's. That will probably be new to anyone who wasn't in Mr. Jusseaume's class. (The rule I follow now is that all words get 's except plurals ending in "s" and names from classical antiquity ditto.) -- Jerry Friedman >>On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:17:20 +0100, "Mike Lyle" >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > (The rule I follow now is that all words get 's except plurals ending > in "s" and names from classical antiquity ditto.) I learnt Mr Jusseaume's rule, but these days I use the apostrophe according to how I pronounce the words. Since I (mostly) say James' and Charles' rather than James's and Charles's, that's the way I write it. When I'm more in a "zes" mood, I write it the other way. SignatureRob Bannister [This article best viewed in a monospaced font.] >In some grade, we were taught that single-syllable words always get >the apostrophe-s, Zeus's, three or more syllables never get the added >"s", and two-syllable words could go either way, writer's preference. >Was that just an example of a Miss Thistlebottom? It may or may not be, but I can confirm being told that as well. Specifically: [201] The possessive form of singular nouns is usually made by adding an apostrophe and _s_. Carter's daughter; John Denver's song Note: When a singular noun ends with an /s/ or /z/ sound, the possessive may be formed by adding just an apostrophe. When the singular is a one-syllable word, however, the possessive is usually formed by adding both an apostrophe and _s_. Thomas' cabin [or] Thomas's cabin boss's; lass's (one-syllable nouns ending in /s/) - Patrick Sebranek and Verne Meyer, _Basic English Revisited: A Student Handbook_, 5/e (Burington, Wis.: Basic English Revisited, 1985) _BER_ was the reference book all freshmen were required to purchase for English class at my high school.[1] I don't recall any teacher saying this, however. In ordinary prose, I would read the possessive of "Zeus" as "Zeus's" regardless of how it was actually spelled in the text. -GAWollman [1] I think, in fact, that it was the only textbook (as opposed to literature for reading) that we were actually required to purchase; all the other texts were property of the school and would be reused in subsequent years (or in some cases were already a decade or more old). SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >[This article best viewed in a monospaced font.] > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >all the other texts were property of the school and would be reused in >subsequent years (or in some cases were already a decade or more old). I was taught the rule during the seventies, btw. I think you're a bit younger. Maybe it's only been taught in the northeast of the U.S.--perhaps only in New Jersey. I was in the West Morris Regional School District. SignatureAl in St. Lou [s's easier to pronounce with your teeth in] >> Don't know that it's relevant, but I find it interesting that, in >> the names cited (Moses, Jesus, Charles), the final "s" in each [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > /Hodges'/, because the final /-es/ is sounded, unlike that in > /Jones/, which gives /Jones's/. Agreed. The Socrates was only intended as an example. But I would say that in all those names, the final "s" is a grammatical ending. The irony (FSVOI) is that "Jones", like "Hodges", is already a genitive form. [ ... ] > Don't know that it's relevant, but I find it interesting that, in the > names cited (Moses, Jesus, Charles), the final "s" in each case is a > grammatical ending imposed by a language into which the name was > borrowed, and was not present in the original name. In some other > names accorded the apostrophic genitive (Socrates), it's a > grammatical ending too, although not one imposed by a borrower. For once, on this topic at least, Will Strunk had something to say that is both relevant and useful: <http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html#1>. > What is it with the increasing number of people who think that leaving > the final "s" off of the possessive form of "Jesus" (which you can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > every day, I hear people refer to "Jesus teachings" or "Jesus word". > What's going on here? In the case of Jesus, though not of the other classical names mentioned down-thread, I suspect that it arose from the habit of hymn writers to write it this way in order to sound better when singing. I seem to recall that in my hymn-singing days (long gone) there were plenty of hymns that included such things as "in Jesus' name". Signatureathel >> What is it with the increasing number of people who think that leaving >> the final "s" off of the possessive form of "Jesus" (which you can [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > recall that in my hymn-singing days (long gone) there were plenty of > hymns that included such things as "in Jesus' name". I think our choirmaster told us we were really singing "in Jesu's name". SignatureRob Bannister > I think our choirmaster told us we were really singing "in Jesu's name". Yes, as in 'All hail the power of Jesu's name'. But my understanding was that 'Jesu' was the vocative form - which makes the previous example an incorrect use, whereas 'Jesu, joy of man's desiring' or 'O Jesu, I have promised' are correct. Peter |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.