- This topic has 28 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Posting about BB on another thread made me wonder about the apostrophe.
He’s Big Buck’s and his dam is Buck’s (whose dam was Buckleby), so that apostrophe in his name sort of makes sense.
However, if I was to write about his race at Cheltenham, would it be:
Big Buck’s race at Cheltenham or
Big Buck’s’ race at Cheltenham ?The latter seems as though it should be right, but doesn’t look right. Can any punctuation policemen advise please?
Thread title amended following Drone’s erudite advice…
As a standalone phrase the punctuation in Big Buck’s is incorrect as there is no appended noun to justify the inflection. It only makes sense to those who know his father was Buck’s, which again as a standalone phrase is grammatically incorrect unless you know it is an oblique reference to his father Buckleby. So both apostrophes are only correct if you are aware of the inference.
To the unaware his name should include a qualifying noun e.g Big Buck’s Son/Lad/Boy whatever. Such are the vagaries of naming horses; Big Buck and Buck without the unnecessary, unqualified possessive inflection would have been better.
As things are you do indeed encounter the need for a strange ‘double possessive’ Big Buck’s’ or Big Buck’s’s race, which I’m pretty certain would result in Grammarians having a fit.
IMHO
Beautiful and superb explanation, Drone. A man of letters bringing a touch of the Classics to the Forum. Amo, amas……
Cheers, that makes sense.
Personally I blame Paul bloody Nicholls! Kawto, Cow-toe, Korto- and now this
As a standalone phrase the punctuation in Big Buck’s is incorrect as there is no appended noun to justify the inflection. It only makes sense to those who know his father was Buck’s, which again as a standalone phrase is grammatically incorrect unless you know it is an oblique reference to his father Buckleby. So both apostrophes are only correct if you are aware of the inference.
To the unaware his name should include a qualifying noun e.g Big Buck’s Son/Lad/Boy whatever. Such are the vagaries of naming horses; Big Buck and Buck without the unnecessary, unqualified possessive inflection would have been better.
As things are you do indeed encounter the need for a strange ‘double possessive’ Big Buck’s’ or Big Buck’s’s race, which I’m pretty certain would result in Grammarians having a fit.
IMHO
Spot on, Drone. Compare and contrast this with a horse like Echo’s Of Dawn, for whom the application of an apostrophe simply appears to be a grammatical blight with nothing in his breeding or ownership to offer grounds for mitigation.
On a couple of occasions on RUK I’m sure I’ve heard Lydia Hislop read out the name of a horse like Big Buck’s, and follow that immediately with "Big Buck’s what?" or similar, half under her breath. I enjoy the mischief.
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
On another apostrophical note, there is/was a horse called ‘Iggins, lifetime form here, whose name played havoc with the databases of the racing press. The BHWhatever then changed their naming rules so that you now cannot name a horse with anything other than a letter.
IMO you should only be allowed name a horse if the name is grammatically and spellingly correct.
Lydia Hislop had been banging on about the unnecessary apostrophe in Big Buck’s for sometime, and I mentioned it the other day in dispatches.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Spot on, Drone. Compare and contrast this with a horse like Echo’s Of Dawn, for whom the application of an apostrophe simply appears to be a grammatical blight with nothing in his breeding or ownership to offer grounds for mitigation.
gc
Was Echo’s Of Dawn named by a greengrocer maybe?
davidbrady wrote:
IMO you should only be allowed (to) name a horse if the name is grammatically and spellingly correct.
That would assume that the staff at Weatherbys, and their Irish and French equivalents, are capable of correcting spelling and grammar. I think that’s unlikely, given that the English teachers in our schools seem no longer to have a grasp of the basic rules.
I believe that 2000 Guineas winner King’s Best had his name adjusted twice to deal with that apostrophe.
IMO you should only be allowed name a horse if the name is grammatically and spellingly correct.
That’s the problem with the world; people’s’ grammaticality and spellingliness are shot to pieces (sic).
I have to be honest and say I find it very difficult to get too pedantic about some of the fussier points of punctuation.
Let’s face it language is evolutionary and is constantly changing.
The main point is that language is used for communication. As long as the message is generally understood does it matter if it is 100% grammatically correct or not? I would contend not.
I would predict in 100 years time the apostrophe will be “some quaint little mark our grandparents used in the 20th century.”
Look at Chaucer, Shakespeare , the King James Bible, Dickens and compare with the language today.
Chaucer
Whan that the Knyght had thus his tale ytoold,
In al the route ne was ther yong ne ooldThat he ne seyde it was a noble storie,
And worthy for to drawen to memorie;And namely the gentils everichon.
Shakespeare
I pray you, tarry: pause a day or two
Before you hazard; for, in choosing wrong,
I lose your company: therefore forbear awhile.
There’s something tells me, but it is not love,
I would not lose you; and you know yourself,
Hate counsels not in such a quality.King James
Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
Dickens
The sergeant and I were in the kitchen when Mrs. Joe stood staring; at which crisis I partially recovered the use of my senses. It was the sergeant who had spoken to me, and he was now looking round at the company, with his handcuffs invitingly extended towards them in his right hand, and his left on my shoulder.
According to the Oxford website (scroll down to the Emoticons (or should that be Emoticons’) section) the word is "smiley" as opposed to "smilie", which doesn’t return any entries when you search for it.
http://www.askoxford.com/betterwriting/ … s/?view=uk
FWIW, IMO this is an XLNT site for all those annoying SMS abbreviations
L8R
That would assume that the staff at Weatherbys, and their Irish and French equivalents, are capable of correcting spelling and grammar. I think that’s unlikely, given that the English teachers in our schools seem no longer to have a grasp of the basic rules.
How would sir like his brushstrokes? Broad, perchance?
Be assured that the 20 or so correspondences I’ve had from various arms of Weatherbys so far this week have all been absolutely meticulous in observing strictures of spelling and grammar, including all of those to have been created by the youngest members of staff. Professional integrity prevents any behaviour other than that.
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.