|
Author | Topic: Others (Read 378 times) |
monton New Member
 member is offline
Joined: May 2012 Gender: Female  Posts: 2
|  | Others « Thread Started on May 19, 2012, 7:45pm » | |
Hello!
Answer please!
If you gaze into each others eyes, am I right in saying that others has no apostrophe?
Thank you!
| |
|
hubertus Senior Member
    member is offline
Joined: Jan 2012 Gender: Male  Posts: 458 Location: W. Yorkshire, England
|  | Re: Others « Reply #1 on May 19, 2012, 8:50pm » | |
Good point. Tricky rule.
Could be others' because it is a plural possessive (2 persons; 4 eyes). But I've seen it written other's which would seem to be the apostrophe of the single possessive.
Could be others to be consistent with his, hers, ours and theirs which are possessive pronouns which do not take the apostrophe.
I am reasonably well read in English but I am confounded by this conundrum. That is why I would be delighted if everyone just agreed to abandon the apostrophe of possession altogether.
| |
|
Tone Advanced Member
     member is offline
![[avatar] [avatar]](http://i1111.photobucket.com/albums/h462/Tone37/Farewell.jpg)
"I don't do Happy."
Joined: Feb 2009 Gender: Female  Posts: 909 Location: West of London (ex-Hampshire)
|  | Re: Others « Reply #2 on May 19, 2012, 9:26pm » | |
I'd go for "each other's eyes", but led by the presumed meaning of "gazing into".
Reasoning: Each "each" (person) is a singular item. "Eyes" is a singular concept (although apparently made of of two separate items) to be gazed into. Thus, "I could tell from her eyes that she was interested" -- a singular concept of "eyes" to convey an expression. But, "I could see from his eyes that he had conjunctivitis" -- the appearance of a plurality of eyes when looked at.
(Complex enough?) 
Tone 
| |
|
Dave Advanced Member
     member is offline
Joined: Feb 2009 Gender: Male  Posts: 702 Location: San Jose, CA
|  | Re: Others « Reply #3 on May 20, 2012, 6:44am » | |
May 19, 2012, 8:50pm, hubertus wrote:Good point. Tricky rule.
Could be others' because it is a plural possessive (2 persons; 4 eyes). But I've seen it written other's which would seem to be the apostrophe of the single possessive.
Could be others to be consistent with his, hers, ours and theirs which are possessive pronouns which do not take the apostrophe.
I am reasonably well read in English but I am confounded by this conundrum. That is why I would be delighted if everyone just agreed to abandon the apostrophe of possession altogether. |
|
Yet we still have it!
Others is not the answer: it isn't a personal possessive pronoun like his, hers, ours, its, or yours--it's like someone, everyone, anyone, and one (and the -body version as well).It's everyone's problem. This is somebody's book. One has to take care of one's self. It's anyone's game. If we wroteWe accidentally took each other's book. we're writing of a book belonging to the other (person), singular. So the possessive is singular: other's. Whether book is singular or plural doesn't matter, and the same goes for eyes.
|
Dave |
|
hubertus Senior Member
    member is offline
Joined: Jan 2012 Gender: Male  Posts: 458 Location: W. Yorkshire, England
|  | Re: Others « Reply #4 on May 20, 2012, 8:19am » | |
Dave, you've clinched the thread with the definitive explanation of the rule.
But added to all the other rules of the possessive apostrophe, it makes my case that learning its correct use is very difficult. And that those who don't learn the rules are not just lazy.
I was ignorant of this rule until now, but that is a different matter.
Imagine the amount of time you would have to devote to trying to explain all these rules to young children such that their application of them would be forever faultless.
| |
|
Tone Advanced Member
     member is offline
![[avatar] [avatar]](http://i1111.photobucket.com/albums/h462/Tone37/Farewell.jpg)
"I don't do Happy."
Joined: Feb 2009 Gender: Female  Posts: 909 Location: West of London (ex-Hampshire)
|  | Re: Others « Reply #5 on May 20, 2012, 2:32pm » | |
>Whether book is singular or plural doesn't matter, and the same goes for eyes. <
Indeed. I was just rambling on about the eyes. 
Tone
| |
|
hubertus Senior Member
    member is offline
Joined: Jan 2012 Gender: Male  Posts: 458 Location: W. Yorkshire, England
|  | Re: Others « Reply #6 on May 20, 2012, 8:06pm » | |
If we wrote We accidentally took each other's book. we're writing of a book belonging to the other (person), singular.
So, Dave, would four dancers take each others' arms?
| |
|
Tone Advanced Member
     member is offline
![[avatar] [avatar]](http://i1111.photobucket.com/albums/h462/Tone37/Farewell.jpg)
"I don't do Happy."
Joined: Feb 2009 Gender: Female  Posts: 909 Location: West of London (ex-Hampshire)
|  | Re: Others « Reply #7 on May 20, 2012, 8:35pm » | |
>would four dancers take each others' arms? <
Or, would each (one) take the arms of each other one? Or, would each (one) take the arms of each of the other ones?
Tone
| |
|
Dave Advanced Member
     member is offline
Joined: Feb 2009 Gender: Male  Posts: 702 Location: San Jose, CA
|  | Re: Others « Reply #8 on May 21, 2012, 2:48am » | |
May 20, 2012, 8:06pm, hubertus wrote:If we wrote We accidentally took each other's book. we're writing of a book belonging to the other (person), singular.
So, Dave, would four dancers take each others' arms? |
|
Grammar aside, could it be done? A different description of what is happening is what's needed.
Perhaps there's an implied number of people that is two when we use the phrase each other's, whereas that number is open-ended when, as Tone alludes to, we use each of the other's. If we inadvertently took each of the other's book(s), are we not still at singular because we took from each? If the group of others jointly owned the book(s), we wouldn't be using each:I accidentally took the others' book(s).
Perhaps the dancers were just trading guns!
|
Dave |
|
verbivore Guest
|  | Re: Others « Reply #9 on May 21, 2012, 3:28am » | |
Yup -- it's the each that sets it. Eaches are individuals, not groups, so it can only be each other's.
| |
|
Geoff Full Member
   member is offline
![[avatar] [avatar]](http://images.proboards.com/avatars/smiley.gif)
Joined: Feb 2009 Gender: Male  Posts: 164 Location: Melbourne, Australia
|  | Re: Others « Reply #10 on May 21, 2012, 6:39am » | |
Why wouldn't you simply recast the sentence, like any other possessive situation, to eliminate the possessive apostrophe to see who or what does the 'possessing', and hence determine the position of the apostrophe:
The child's toys - the toys of the child. The toys are 'owned' by the child. Child is singular, so child's.
The participants' enthusiasm - the enthusiasm of the participants. The enthusiasm 'belongs' to the participants. Participants is plural, so particiipants'.
Each other's eyes - the eyes of each other. The eyes belong to the other (person) Other is singular (as defined by each), so other's. Seems simple enough to me.
| |
|
hubertus Senior Member
    member is offline
Joined: Jan 2012 Gender: Male  Posts: 458 Location: W. Yorkshire, England
|  | Re: Others « Reply #11 on May 21, 2012, 6:55am » | |
You can always recast or re-cast (see hyphen thread) to remove the confusion of the apostrophe. I would do this always if the result didn't frequently sound stilted.
'They fell into the arms of each other.' sounds fine and skirts round the problem of where to place the thing.
What about 'The four dancers tripped over and fell into one anothers arms'?
| |
|
Geoff Full Member
   member is offline
![[avatar] [avatar]](http://images.proboards.com/avatars/smiley.gif)
Joined: Feb 2009 Gender: Male  Posts: 164 Location: Melbourne, Australia
|  | Re: Others « Reply #12 on May 21, 2012, 12:13pm » | |
May 21, 2012, 6:55am, hubertus wrote:| What about 'The four dancers tripped over and fell into one anothers arms'? |
|
By my method, to eliminate the possessive apostrophe I would recast as: 'The four dancers tripped over and fell into the arms of one another.' Therefore, I would have written the original sentence as: 'The four dancers tripped over and fell into one another's arms.'
Does anyone disagree?
| |
|
Dave Advanced Member
     member is offline
Joined: Feb 2009 Gender: Male  Posts: 702 Location: San Jose, CA
|  | Re: Others « Reply #13 on May 21, 2012, 3:20pm » | |
Geoff, your recast of hubertus's restatement of what the dancers are doing is different from what his original statement was: falling into each other's arms after tripping compared with taking each other's arms, which was trying more to sound like an impossible dance move!
|
Dave |
|
Dave Advanced Member
     member is offline
Joined: Feb 2009 Gender: Male  Posts: 702 Location: San Jose, CA
|  | Re: Others « Reply #14 on May 21, 2012, 3:23pm » | |
hubertus: I think Geoff is suggesting recasting only to figure out who "owns" what to determine singular/plural for the purpose of appropriate apostrophe use, not necessarily to leave the sentence in that form.
|
Dave |
|
|