A place for those passionate about port, and for those new to it. We hold lots of Port tastings: please join us!
https://www.theportforum.com/
djewesbury wrote:Roberson's
Rage has clouded your grammar chip No. You are thinking of jam perhaps?flash_uk wrote:djewesbury wrote:Roberson's
No other crime, just that onedjewesbury wrote:I am using a possessive apostrophe after a singular name. If I have committed some other crime, please specify.
Still think the phrase is grammatically invalid. What would be wrong with "Email sent to Roberson", Roberson being the shortened version of the business which is fully Roberson Wine.Mr Smith is a butcher. His shop is called J Smith, not J Smith's. However, we say, when popping out for a chop, "I'm just going to Smith's, back in ten minutes".flash_uk wrote:No other crime, just that onedjewesbury wrote:I am using a possessive apostrophe after a singular name. If I have committed some other crime, please specify.
Mmm. I still require convincing that this is not also grammatically incorrect. I agree the phrase "I'm just going to Smith's" may be used often but that doesn't make it correct. How about Primark, Tesco or Ryman. "I'm just going to Primark's to buy some socks." Doesn't work for me.djewesbury wrote:Mr Smith is a butcher. His shop is called J Smith, not J Smith's. However, we say, when popping out for a chop, "I'm just going to Smith's, back in ten minutes".flash_uk wrote:No other crime, just that onedjewesbury wrote:I am using a possessive apostrophe after a singular name. If I have committed some other crime, please specify.
Mr Roberson is a wine merchant (albeit a rather inefficient one). His shop is called Roberson Wine. However, we say, when complaining that he sent us the wrong bottle of 1985, "Email sent to Roberson's".
I would use this form in both the singular and the plural.
Now I'm more convinceddjewesbury wrote:Primark is not someone's name. The examples I used are. Smith's = the shop of Smith. Roberson's = the shop of Roberson. Used thus since time immemorial, and correctly moreover. Simples.
(And yes. Ryman's. The shop of Ryman.)
EDIT: I had a lovely pot of Earl Grey and a tarte aux framboise in Valerie's today!
Because different companies choose to do things differently. Personal preference at a particular point in time. Some choose a more colloquial brand ("Sainsbury's" - even though, when I was a child in the 1970s, the brand in big illuminated orange letters above the shop was "J Sainsbury"), some a more perfunctory and literal one ("Ryman").flash_uk wrote:Now I'm more convinceddjewesbury wrote:Primark is not someone's name. The examples I used are. Smith's = the shop of Smith. Roberson's = the shop of Roberson. Used thus since time immemorial, and correctly moreover. Simples.
(And yes. Ryman's. The shop of Ryman.)
EDIT: I had a lovely pot of Earl Grey and a tarte aux framboise in Valerie's today!
But why then do we see Ryman on those shops rather than Ryman's, yet Sainsbury's above all those grocery stores?
+1 for the request to splice out the above chain of posts pleaseflash_uk wrote:Edit: ...perhaps an admin could kindly shift our little grammar spat into the appropriate thread, I really shouldn't have started it here
I think that the first would always be the obvious implicit meaning.flash_uk wrote:So perhaps the rule would appear to be something like: a possessive apostrophe after a singular name may be used in situations where the object is implicit. Even though the object may be ambiguous. In this instance, it could be "Email sent to":
Roberson's shop
Roberson's customer service department
Roberson's mother
Roberson's incompetent warehouse chap
Which to me looked grammatically perfectdjewesbury wrote: Please note that out of deference to you, I referred to your employer in earlier email with no possessive apostrophe.
My poor grammar, spelling, punctuation, idiosyncratic/incomprehensible mangling of language hardly qualifies me as one to sit in judgement.jdaw1 wrote:Sits back. In one corner, Derek, bemused and cowering. In the other, Owen and Daniel, daggers drawn — which poisoned? — and the show about to start. Bread and circuses.DRT wrote:[over my head icon}
Even the mis-matched brackets herald an unequal fight.
DRT wrote:Anything currently made by the Symington's would do.
Quickest poisoned dagger in the business.DRT wrote:My correction was too slow. Speedy Gonzalez beat me to the draw.
Oops.LGTrotter wrote:...Billy McKay was the presenters name (I think).
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8896&start=25#p81756]Here[/url] benread wrote:Alex Sammonds definition
Not once but thrice. I was tempted to post it but thought it was too much like shooting fish in a barrel. Ben, Ben, Ben…DRT wrote:[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8896&start=25#p81756]Here[/url] benread wrote:Alex Sammonds definition
djewesbury wrote:What on earth has this got to do with the study of insects??DRT wrote:I have not yet seen a bottle that looks like a chicken. Are we sure The claims about the entomology of the name are not just urban myth?
Honestly, come on team, I feel like the Head Prefect here. Let's sharpen it up.
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8896&start=100#p81998]Here[/url] PhilW wrote:Inspired by your zeal, I know have my bottle sitting on:
Deflecting from your own crimes?DRT wrote:[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8896&start=100#p81998]Here[/url] PhilW wrote:Inspired by your zeal, I know have my bottle sitting on:
No. Just being an honest citizen and reporting crime to the authorities when I see it.djewesbury wrote:Deflecting from your own crimes?DRT wrote:[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=8896&start=100#p81998]Here[/url] PhilW wrote:Inspired by your zeal, I know have my bottle sitting on:
TautologyDRT wrote:the TRPF
Hmm...I missed this. I didn’t realise we were moving on from apostrophe crimes to typing errors!!djewesbury wrote:Sorry. I left this as long as I could.
But there it still is.
Here, Jacob created a thread entitled
"Oporto and the Duoro"
Richard Shannon, in [url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3zs7AQAAMAAJ&dq=duoro&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false]A Practical Treatise on Brewing, Distilling, and Rectification &c. &c.[/url], wrote:By the law of the general company of the Alto Duoro it is expressly provided that if the sambucus fructus in umbella nigro, C. B. P. or the alder tree is found in or about a vineyard the penalty of forty shillings shall be incurred:--and if any of the berries or expressed juice (which they term baga) is found or discovered in any lodge or repository of wine besides the confiscation of all the wines of the said lodge to the company the owner or proprietor is liable to be imprisoned at the mercy of the king
"BBC Worldwide (International Site)AW77 wrote:Here is an interesting BBC article that might be relevant to this thread:
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/201409 ... ammar-nazi
Same for me. So, obviously, it applies only to foreigners.PhilW wrote:"BBC Worldwide (International Site)
We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee"
BBC Worldwide is an entirely commercial enterprise and therefore not funded through the licence fee...AW77 wrote:That's quite strange. While the international programme may not be funded by the licence fee, it will certainly be funded by the taxes you pay. So I think you as tax payers should be entitled to it.
Shall I post the whole article here on the forum or would the moderators advise against that due to copyright difficulties this might ensue?
Old Reith would not have liked that at all...djewesbury wrote: BBC Worldwide is an entirely commercial enterprise and therefore not funded through the licence fee...
Well, the letters BBC originally stood for British Broadcasting Company. It was a private enterprise, running the radio station 2LO from a building on the Strand (Marconi House I think). The Managing Director was John Reith. It wasn't until 1927 that it was nationalised. So Reith would have been fairly comfortable with the current arrangement!AW77 wrote:Old Reith would not have liked that at all...djewesbury wrote: BBC Worldwide is an entirely commercial enterprise and therefore not funded through the licence fee...
I can't tell at this resolution, but is there an additional error in the diagonal arms of the Union Jack?jdaw1 wrote:Re previous post, it’s the Residencial Ponto Grande in Pinhão, a different error having been corrected since Google’s car visited.
As I recall, yes, but it looks to me like that particular error exists in both pictures. I have not found the corrected error to which he refers.PhilW wrote:I can't tell at this resolution, but is there an additional error in the diagonal arms of the Union Jack?jdaw1 wrote:Re previous post, it’s the Residencial Ponto Grande in Pinhão, a different error having been corrected since Google’s car visited.
Not again.PhilW wrote:
Actually, I disagree that this was a crime. Discuss.DRT wrote:Not again.PhilW wrote:
I must not repeat my thes.
I must not repeat my thes.
I must not…
PIN number?DRT wrote:Actually, I disagree that this was a crime. Discuss.DRT wrote:Not again.PhilW wrote:
I must not repeat my thes.
I must not repeat my thes.
I must not…
I could, but wouldn't that seem implausible to women reading this thread?jdaw1 wrote:Derek: are you willing to plead to being ugly but not criminal?
I agree with your disagreement. In this case, "TPF" is an adjective describing the equivalent. Even if not abbreviated I would include both thes.DRT wrote:Actually, I disagree that this was a crime. Discuss.DRT wrote:Not again.PhilW wrote:
I must not repeat my thes.
I must not repeat my thes.
I must not…
