Spoon Fulls?????

[mscallisto]

It has always bothered me when one says "three spoon fulls" in place of "three spoons full".

Others are Surgeon generals, hand fulls, brother-in-laws etc. Am I correct or wrong?

 

[Stella740pl]

Wait...is it 'sometimes' or 'some time'?
Depending on what you mean.

Well, if it is "Sometimes you are too funny!", then "sometimes" is correct.

If it is "I am busy today, but can find some time for you tomorrow", then "some time" is correct.

 

[LFI]

Well, if we replaced "Attorney General" with a noun that takes an 's' when pluralizing (e.g., lawyer/lawyers), we would write "lawyers' office." However, here is a case where the 's' doubles as the pluralizer and the possessivizer (I'm making up words here, I know). So it might seem appropriate to write "Attornies Generals' office" (since pluralizing and possessivizing must be done). However, since the move of the apostrophe to the rear comes when that 's' does double-duty (like in "lawyers'"), I wouldn't be surprised if "Attornies General's office" was really the proper way to write this. After all, we use "men's club" and "People's Republic..." etc.

Being the mouthfuls (mouths full?) these phrases can be, however, I'm with sleipnir214. I would say "office of the Attornies General."

For my part, I'm glad this seldom comes up!

--Dave


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O Time, Strength, Cash, and Patience!

 

[SilentAiche]

Toshilap

It would be "sum Tim" if I 'add' anything to do with it!

Tim

(kind words - many thanks!)

[blue]______________________________________________________________
I love logging onto Tek-Tips. It's always so exciting to see what the hell I
said yesterday. [/blue]

 

[CajunCenturion]

Let's back up one step. Remember from my previous post, we are talking about a noun phrase, consisting of a noun and an adjective, which is treated as a single semantic unit. 'Attorney General' and 'Surgeon General' are examples of this type of noun phrase. When dealing with this type of construct, the plural is formed off of the noun, and the possessive off of the adjective. That's why is "Surgeons General" for plural and "Surgeon General's" for the possessive.

"Lawyer's office" is not that type of construct, since office is not, nor is it functioning as an adjective. Similarly, in "men's club", 'club' is not, nor is is functioning as, an adjective, and the same holds true for People's Republic.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[AnotherHiggins]

possessivizing

Nice word!! I really like that.

[tt]_____
[blue]-John[/blue]
[/tt][red]Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur[/red]

Help us help you. Please read FAQ181-2886 before posting.

 

[CajunCenturion]

You mean -- nice neologism.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[LFI]

The question was (to paraphrase): what happens when you pluralize the possessive. I wasn't comparing "Lawyers Office" to "Attorney Generals" but to "Attornies Generals office". [NOTE: apostrophes intentionally dropped].

--Dave


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O Time, Strength, Cash, and Patience!

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> The question was (to paraphrase): what happens when you pluralize the possessive.
The plural goes to the noun and the possessive goes to the adjective. Therefore it would be " attornies general's " office. It would not be " generals' " because you don't pluralize the adjective.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[LFI]

Yes, thus my supposition about the 's' doing double-duty in "lawyers'" vs. the way the esses (I didn't even want to attempt "s"'s!) are used in "attornies general's." Really, I was suggesting "Attornies Generals'" and then arguing against it (myself) in the same post!

--Dave


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O Time, Strength, Cash, and Patience!

 

[AnotherHiggins]

*Ahem*

It's Attorneys, not Attornies. At least for us yanks. I'm not sure about the British.

->You mean -- nice neologism.

Yes, yes. I nearly said that, but I always feel a bit snooty using 'neologism'. I'm not sure why that is.

[tt]_____
[blue]-John[/blue]
[/tt][red]Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur[/red]

Help us help you. Please read FAQ181-2886 before posting.

 

[LFI]

Well, that's another one on me. Like I said:

For my part, I'm glad this seldom comes up!

--Dave


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
O Time, Strength, Cash, and Patience!

 

[CajunCenturion]

Damn that cut & paste!!! Still should proofread.

--------------
Good Luck
To get the most from your Tek-Tips experience, please read FAQ181-2886
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[mscallisto]

Wow so much info in such a short time.

So what should I say in my instructions?

use three spoonsfull
use three spoonfulls
use three spoon fulls
use three spoons full

I need a vote

and I thought baking was easy !!!

 

[Stella001]

your missing one "spoonfuls"

 

[Stella740pl]

So what should I say in my instructions?
...I need a vote

You don't really need a vote. It looks like everyone agrees on this. You just need to read your thread through and check the links, too.

I short, you should say "Use three spoonfuls of sugar" (or whatever is that you are using). It would mean that you don't really need to use three spoons, you need three times the contents of one spoon.
Note one "l", not two, and "s" at the end of a single word.

In some cases, you might say "Three spoons full of sugar", but probably not in an instruction. I don't know if others would agree, but it sounds to me more suitable for a poetical/literary/fictional use. This phrase would implicate three separate spoons, each filled with sugar at the same time.
Note double "l", two separate words, and "s" at the end of the first one.

 

[grande]

Hey, out of curiosity, does any one know why 'ox' is pluralised to 'oxen'?

-------------------------
Just call me Captain Awesome.

 

[Stella740pl]

For the same reason that "child" is pluralised to "children"?

They are pluralised that way for historical reasons, as both words are coming from Old English, "and that have exotic pluralization rules", as sleipnir214 noted above.

 

[sleipnir214]

The pluralization of ox is likely older than Old English.

YourDictionary.com lists the PIE (Proto-Indo-European) root of the word as "uks-en-" (

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/roots/zzu00200.html),

so that pluralization rule may have a really exotic source.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions!

TANSTAAFL!!

 

[grande]

I've made it my mission to modernise English. From now on, childs go to daycare. Gooses and Deers and Mouses are all animals. I <3 Tek-Tips forums. I like the taste of oxes.

We should start referring to foxes as foxen.

-------------------------
Just call me Captain Awesome.

 

[AnotherHiggins]

And now there's a new Stella in town (Stella001 in addition to the venerable Stella740pl). Shall we refer to the two of them together as Stelli? Or maybe Stellapoda?

Actually, since Stella001 has been a member since March 24, 2004, I guess she isn't so much a newcomer as (maybe) a lurker? In any case, New Stella, welcome to the group. What part of NC are you posting from? There are a few of us here from the Triangle.

[tt]_____
[blue]-John[/blue]
[/tt][red]Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur[/red]

Help us help you. Please read FAQ181-2886 before posting.