Help please.
I have submitted a course for approval called 'A Driver's Guide'
It has just come back duly checked and approved as 'A Drivers Guide'
This will bug me for the next 12 months as it has to appear on all paperwork and certificates.
Who is right, my 'governing body' or me........and do I dare challenge them?
Pat
|
I believe you are right Pat it is a guide for a driver so the apostrophe is in the right place
A guide for drivers would have the apostrophe after the s
In my best Scottish grammar that is :-)
|
"Who is right,"
I've just read this out to my wife (an English teacher), and we both agree that you are right, Pat. I would throw a wobbly if I were you!
Last edited by: Haywain on Tue 12 Jan 16 at 17:10
|
|
I bet they'll not change their mind, and it'll remain without the apostrophe. Although I believe Pat is correct.
Last edited by: Clk Sec on Tue 12 Jan 16 at 17:16
|
|
How about A Guide for Drivers? Clear and idiot-proof.
|
Well that's a reassuring start after spending hours checking and re-checking the legality, spelling and grammar in 7 hours of content!
Thanks
Pat
|
>>'A Driver's Guide'
A guide for one driver [singular guide, singular driver]
= This guide belongs to one driver
or
A guide for many drivers [singular guide, plural drivers]
I think you'll find that it is "A guide for many drivers", not "a guide for, or owned by, one driver". "drivers" is descriptive, not possessive.
Thus "A drivers guide" is correct.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 12 Jan 16 at 17:24
|
Trust you to stop me in my tracks just as I was preparing to dispute their grammar!
Pat
|
|
Hmmmm!
Last edited by: Roger. on Tue 12 Jan 16 at 17:33
|
Quick mind change there?
"You ARE right, Pat."
|
That'll do!!
I shall go and complain while I've got a cob on....as Smokie will confirm;)
Pat
|
|
Pat - don't misunderstand. I think you're wrong. I was quoting Roger who briefly thought you were right.
|
Yes - your logic is plausible in this case, I fear.
I find myself undecided. as to the merits and demerits of the opposing points of view.
Sits on fence!
|
Pat - I'm sure you look terrific wearing a pendant but I suspect 'pedant alert' is what we're about!
Mark's logic I think is that this is like the Companies Act (Act relating to companies rather than belonging to them) but if the copy is given to the drivers, as opposed to being available centrally or online, then you could say it belongs to them either collectively (A Drivers' Guide) or individually (A Driver's Guide, as you drafted it).
Personally I think 'A Guide for Drivers' sounds better and gets round the problem. Challenge your boss(es) as it's highly likely that they were careless rather than applying Mark's logic.
|
|
I suspect cluelessness rather than carelessness.
|
"Personally I think 'A Guide for Drivers' sounds better and gets round the problem."
I must admit, I like that one too as it gets round any objections.
|
>> "Personally I think 'A Guide for Drivers' sounds better and gets round the problem."
>>
>> I must admit, I like that one too as it gets round any objections.
Swot I would go for.
|
"A Drivers Guide" is 100 per cent incorrect.
In fact "A Driver's Guide" covers both an individual and numerous drivers' requirements - each only needs one copy.
|
|
Oh boy - this one is bubbling nicely :-)
|
|
The more I think and read, the more that I reckon "A Guide for Drivers" is the way to go.
|
I think you were right. You could have a debate about driver's or drivers', but there should be one.
I've noticed a trend to ignore them from people who don't know where they go.
Just tell the governing body that you will pass on all letters of complaint to them (and then make sure there are some).
|
"I have submitted a course for approval called 'A Driver's Guide'"
You've already generated enough interest to sell a dozen copies, and it hasn't even gone to print yet ....... you should have been in marketing!
|
As it's already been approved I can't change the name now!
I wish it could go to print and for sale but sadly I have to stand and deliver it in person!
Pat
|
FFS! Its for lorry drivers, they aint going to notice the apostrophe, they wont even see it after its got bacon fat and HP sauce on it.
If any of them do, tell em its a fag burn.
|
"they aint going to notice the apostrophe"
Yes, but, if they do notice it ............. Pat'll never hear the last of it!
|
>> "they aint going to notice the apostrophe"
>>
>> Yes, but, if they do notice it ............. Pat'll never hear the last of it!
Well they will after I point it out on the PDA forum. I'm not sure Pat realises I am registered on there.
|
>> >> "they aint going to notice the apostrophe"
No they ain't. And if they do, they will just give a supercilious titter, as one does.
It's very rare for extreme precision to be needed.
|
>> Well they will after I point it out on the PDA forum. I'm not sure
>> Pat realises I am registered on there.
>>
I bet she does. Know thine enemy. ;-)
|
|
Has everyone been too polite so far to say that this should be a Pedant Alert not a Pendant one?
|
>> Has everyone been too polite so far to say that this should be a Pedant
>> Alert not a Pendant one?
Avast did. But I think Pat was being droll anyway. Not a mistake she would make Shirley.
|
Avast behind.
Don't know why that came into my head, sorry, as you were. Probably too much exposure to Carry On films as a child. Scarred me mentally.
|
|
...or maybe it was Up Pompeii come to think.
|
It could be that the powers that be know that Pat is correct, but have made the change deliberately for the sake of simplicity. I've noticed that this happens quite frequently. Here's a couple of examples - I don't think they cause anyone any problems:
www.carterssteamfair.co.uk/index.html
www.frenchskips.com/index.html
|
It's an old argument and I think arguably comes into the category of false pedantry.
As FMR2 said originally (has he changed his view ?- I can't follow the thread on that one) I suspect the "drivers" could correctly be said to be adjectival rather than possessive.
It's one of the features of English that adjectives can be created at will. Thus, "drivers" is describing a particular kind of handbook. It might have been Workshop Handbook, Sales Handbook, Concise Handbook, etc.
But "pendant" is good. It suggests an argument being dangled provocatively, as if angling with juicy bait to see who is going to rise to it.
|
Got it in one Cliff:)
Pat
|
I'd've (snigger) gone with "A Drivers' Guide".
Example - the name of my old school - Windsor Boys' School. A school in Windsor for boys, the boys are plural and are being possessive, therefore apostrophe after the s. Same with the drivers and their guide. They are plural and being possessive of the guide. There for "A Drivers' Guide".
I have fun with pendants on this very subject regarding my surname, which ends in an s. It's singular, so when posessivising (?) it, you can write it as Xxxxxs's, or Xxxxxs'. Either are acceptable, according to authoritative sources. I always choose Xxxxxs's out of habit, and because that's how you would say it out loud, but pendants have tried to 'correct' it in the past, and I like to bring them down a peg by pointing out that either is correct.
I expect that, in the case of Pat's Drivers' Guide, similar applies and there is no one absolute correct answer. I would defer to the author and accept their interpretation of what they were saying, were I the proof reader in this case.
Yours,
A cunning linguist.
|
Example - the name of my old school - Windsor Boys' School. A school in Windsor for boys, the boys are plural and are being possessive, therefore apostrophe after the s. Same with the drivers and their guide. They are plural and being possessive of the guide. There for "A Drivers' Guide".
Only Windsor Boys' School belongs to, or is for, Windsor boys. By that logic, A Drivers' Guide would belong to, or be for, a drivers - which makes no sense.
Either are acceptable, according to authoritative sources.
But those same sources would insist on 'either is acceptable'.
See me.
Pat's original title is concise and correct, Drivers' Guide is clunky and Drivers Guide, for all NoFM's convoluted explanation, is just wrong. (The parliamentary language of Acts doesn't help us here; it's a shorthand for 'The Act Concerning Companies' or whatever, so there's no concept of possession or dedication to worry about, as there is in Pat's case.) Until we agree that the apostrophe in general is no longer necessary, I think she should insist on it.
|
>>>> Only Windsor Boys' School belongs to, or is for, Windsor boys. By that logic, A
>> Drivers' Guide would belong to, or be for, a drivers - which makes no sense.
>>
Why include the indefinite article in that? Of course it makes no sense when you do that, but there is no need to do so. The Drivers' Guide belongs to, or is for, Drivers.
>> Either are acceptable, according to authoritative sources.
>> But those same sources would insist on 'either is acceptable'.
>>
>> See me.
Happy to do so, Sir. Some would insist, others would say the usage is valid when referring back to multiple subjects, in so far as one can consider "either" to be an opposite to "both". Would you use "both is" or "both are"?
>> Pat's original title is concise and correct
I did not question that, however in English there are degrees of correctness and alternatives can be valid also. Some users may prefer one variant to another, we are not dealing with an absolute here. What we need to establish is whether pat intended this guide to be for one driver or many. Or perhaps whether she is intending one example of the guide to belong to one driver.
|
...in so far as one can consider "either" to be an opposite to "both".
Eh? 'Both' doesn't have an opposite - what is the opposite of two? - but if it did it would be 'neither'. (Some of those authorities of yours will tolerate 'neither are', which is OK in speech but probably not in writing.)
Would you use "both is" or "both are"?
'Both are', obviously; it's a plural. What school did you go...ah, I see.
|
>> 'Both are', obviously; it's a plural.
>>
Exactly. And 'either' can be singular or plural, depending on the context. Keep up at the back.
|
|
Can we have a sentence, please, in which 'either' behaves as a plural?
|
Either the pluralists or the singularists are going to win this argument.
:-)
|
|
Foul! 'Either' there is merely an adverb, not the subject of the sentence. You could omit it without changing the sense.
|
Sigh. OK, poor example.
Either Readingensians or Henleyites cause the biggest arguments. ;-)
See: theeditorsblog.net/2015/09/12/either-neither-and-subject-verb-agreement/
"the choice between singular and plural will depend not only on the words either and neither, but on other words in your sentence as well."
"If both subjects are singular or both plural, the choice for the verb is easy. It’s when one subject is singular and the other plural that you have to pay attention.
e.g.
Either his mother or my sisters are singing in the pub tonight."
|
Those are just two more examples of the same use. I want to see a plural equivalent of this, with 'either' acting as a pronoun.
American English favours -ize over -ise endings, but in British English either is correct.
I don't think you'll find one, because the noun for which 'either' is deputizing is effectively 'option', always in the singular.
Blue trousers may be worn with black or brown shoes; either is acceptable.
The shoes are plural but there are only two options, each one singular. 'Either are acceptable' doesn't work. If you want to use 'are' it has to be 'both are', which might require four shoes or one of each colour. (Ask Bromp about that style tip.)
|
>> I want to see a
>> plural equivalent of this, with 'either' acting as a pronoun.
Well you're not going to, are you, because that's not what I, and the author of the editor's (editors'?) blog are saying.
Perhaps you'd like to take it up with him because I've had enough now.
Cheers.
|
>> Can we have a sentence, please, in which 'either' behaves as a plural?
'How happy could I be with either,
Were t'other dear charmer away' ?
Or perhaps not. I dunno.
|
As Pat's work will undoubtedly be a modern classic, I turned to earlier masters to see how they had dealt with apostrophisation in their titles.
Two examples are constructed thus: 'The Pilgrim's Progress' and 'A Rake's Progress' - so Pat's 'A Driver's Guide' falls well in line with Bunyan and Hogarth.
|
I can't let a thread on pedantry go by without a contribution. :-)
Your examples are not really analogous. What we have in Pat's case is a clear example of the false possessive. As has been pointed out "drivers" is a noun used adjectivally and does not need an apostrophe. For further reading:
grammar.about.com/od/fh/g/False-Possessive.htm
|
|
Yet none of the cases in that link applies here. A driver is animate, so is entitled to the possessive form; and we're not mistaking a plural for a possessive. If we're going to turn 'driver' into an attributive noun, it has to stay singular, so (A) Driver Guide, like 'User Manual'.
|
It's all irrelevant anyway, no one ever reads the manual.
;-)
|
|
Particularly our exile in Chile, Mark, who has no flippng manual 2 read!
|
>> we're not mistaking a plural for a possessive.
However, it could be both a plural and a possessive. In which case, "A Drivers' Guide" (a guide belonging to, or for, drivers). Only Pat can tell us if she meant the title to imply multiple drivers. If she meant "One Driver's Guide", that's one thing, if she meant "A Guide for all Drivers", that's another and would be written "A Drivers' Guide".
|
>>if she meant "A Guide for all Drivers", that's another and would be written "A Drivers' Guide".>>
As I've pointed out earlier, "A Driver's Guide" covers both individual and multiple drivers. One guide (at least it's being implied) therefore serves ALL drivers, so "A Driver's Guide" is both logical and applicable.
|
It's the title of a 7 hour course delivered to a quantity of 15 drivers at a time!
Pat
|
Pe(n)dant mode ON
A number (countable) not quantity ( measurable, but not generally countable)
Ho, ho, I said this would run :-)
|
If she meant "One Driver's Guide", that's one
>> thing, if she meant "A Guide for all Drivers", that's another and would be written
>> "A Drivers' Guide".
It is presumably 'a guide for any driver' which means it isn't just for one; and "any" is singular, so we are back to "A Driver's Guide".
I'm getting into the swing of this.
|
Can I just say.......this course is approved for 12 months, any chance of a decision before it runs out?:)
Should I consult the board next year before dreaming up a title?
Pat
|
>> Should I consult the board next year before dreaming up a title?
>>
Better start now then.
:)
|
As I mentioned yesterday, I believe you were correct in your OP, and I expect your employers would agree with that. But like many other firms, they probably favour using less apostrophes.
Or should it be fewer?
Last edited by: Clk Sec on Wed 13 Jan 16 at 14:47
|
|
Winding us up, eh? Fewer, of course!
|
>> Winding us up, eh? Fewer, of course!
>>
:-)
|
It's not my employer, it's the governing body who approves the courses I write and deliver.
They also audit my training centre and my courses and can be incredibly picky (as Z will confirm!) over minor details such as the placing of the unique logo I'm given being slightly in the wrong position etc.
Timings have to be spot on, and if they walk in (unannounced) at 3 hrs 42 mins into the course, I have to be delivering the correct section for that time regardless of questions from drivers or failure to understand a section.
They also charge me £252 to approve a course for 12 months so I sort of resent them changing my title:)
So, I would relish the chance to be picky with them back!
Here is their website www.jaupt.org.uk/
Pat
|
I would relish the chance to be picky with them back!
>>
>> Here is their website www.jaupt.org.uk/
>>
You could suggest that the Operations Manager stops using daft words like "up-skill":
www.jaupt.org.uk/about-us/the-team/dan-charlesworth
|
>> words like "up-skill":
Another I recall is Up-Sell. Recently on these pages, I think.
|
My wife works in corporate banking. I can always tell when she has been on a course. They have a whole new level of BS jargon phrases.
I wind her up by asking her things like if she could possibly facilitate a cup of tea on a priority time scale without any denigration to the shirt pressing critical path previously agreed at the last meeting etc...
This usually elicits a response along the lines of her suggesting that I might consider de-centralisation of the tea making department and that this should now be considered a branch level self help task...
|
>> >> words like "up-skill":
>>
>> Another I recall is Up-Sell. Recently on these pages, I think.
>>
And yet another recent addition:
up-vote...
Gordon Bennett!
|
|
Upsell is jargon, but a useful and descriptive term for a common method of marketing stuff. Upskill is common, and useful, as are many apparent neologisms. I expect both are in at least some proper dictionaries
|
>>I'm getting into the swing of this.>>
Equally, if it's being used in the plural, you don't need the "A" - "Drivers' Guide" would be quite sufficient...:-)
|
How would you describe a man who walked ahead of vehicles with a flag to warn others of their approach?
Would he be a driver's guide or a drivers' guide do you think?
;-)
|
|
Are we clear that it's a guide, as in set of instructions, and not Guide, as in Akela and lashings of lemonade?
|
|
Guides have Brown Owls, Scouts have Akelas.
|
|
Do they? I wasn't in either so missed out on something, no doubt.
|
|
Cub Scouts have Akelas, or did when I was one. Scouts just have Scout Leaders, I think.
|
|
Where does Brown Owl fit into all this?
|
|
The Woodcraft Folk have e****s.
|
|
Crikey - they trigger the swear filter
|
>>e****s<<
Now I am totally confused, can you explain please CG?
BTW, are your Peregrines around yet?
Pat
|
I'm a lorry driver and even I can't think of a word beginning with E that is swearing:)
Pat
|
Well I though e l f I n s was innocuous but not here!
No Peregrines yet - I don't Think they will return to the neat sit until March.
|
:)
I really must watch my 'language' if it's that sensitive!
I had a look at NTU today and nothing there either.
Pat
|
Perhaps, you inadvertently typed the word using two Fs rather than an L and an F?
Would sort of explain the wobbly.
;-)
|
|
Ar you sayin my typin is not wht it shld be.!
|
|
Drunking rid win and eating Pom beers.
|
|
It was me, I used effin as a replacement swear word, so Dave stuffed it in the swear filter even tho i spilt it rung
Last edited by: Zero on Wed 13 Jan 16 at 18:35
|
|
For your sake I hope the Woodland Folk don't find out. They are prone to acts of retribution when made aware of any perceived insults to their members.
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 13 Jan 16 at 21:21
|
|
Do they have tiny members, then?
|
>> For your sake I hope the Woodland Folk don't find out. They are prone to
>> acts of retribution when made aware of any perceived insults to their members.
I pee on woodland folk
and if dont, the dog poos on them.
|
Thank goodness we still have b*******.
Oh no! Aunt Maud has grabbed our b******* too.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Wed 13 Jan 16 at 19:54
|
>> Drunking rid win and eating Pom beers.
You are Officer Crabtree and I claim my £5.
|
God Moaning. The resist-once have accqo-aired a bum. They are going to ex-plod the whaleway brodge.
|
>> I'm a lorry driver and even I can't think of a word beginning with E
>> that is swearing:)
'Eff off !
|
Is this for a DCPC course Pat?
If so, may I suggest the alternative title of "Seven Hours of your Life that you won't get back"?
;-)
|
It is HM, and I can assure you after 7 hours with me you won't want then back:)
Pat
|
Pendant Alert! - commerdriver
