Proofreading Service - Pain in the English
Proofreading Service - Pain in the English

Your Pain Is Our Pleasure

24-Hour Proofreading Service—We proofread your Google Docs or Microsoft Word files. We hate grammatical errors with passion. Learn More

Proofreading Service - Pain in the English
Proofreading Service - Pain in the English

Your Pain Is Our Pleasure

24-Hour Proofreading Service—We proofread your Google Docs or Microsoft Word files. We hate grammatical errors with passion. Learn More

Username

sigurd

Member Since

February 1, 2011

Total number of comments

43

Total number of votes received

26

Bio

Latest Comments

To me, they sound natural. In British English, I’ve heard people say, ‘[town/city/area name]’s [person]’ when association is meant, especially as a way to differentiate the person mentioned from other familiar namesakes. E.g., ‘Do you remember Yorkshire’s Laura?’ and ‘I just saw Gloucestershire’s Jamie at the pub.’

However, I just realized, because Loxley still very much exists and may have many Robins, using ‘Robin of Loxley’ instead of ‘Loxley’s Robin’ is useful in differentiating Loxley’s historic Robin from other Robins.

Likewise, ‘Joan of Arc’ is probably more useful when referring to the historic one. Oh, and it turns out (just checked) Joan of Arc was born in Domrémy, not Arc. Apparently, she got her surname, d'Arc, from her father.

Another correction: ‘A Loxley’s townsman and an Arc’s townswoman, [...]’.

I meant ‘[...] his Babylonian captivity [...]’.

I very much appreciate all the answers.

I know now ‘possession’’s meaning is broader in the linguistic sense and can denote association distinct from property. However, I still don’t see how ‘the Covenant’s Ark’, ‘Ezekiel’s Book’, ‘Loxley’s Robin’ or ‘Arc’s Joan’ are wrong.

Containing the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) tablets, not only was the Ark closely associated (=linguistic possession) with the Covenant, the agreement between God and His people, but the Ark was also literally the Covenant’s property.

Ezekiel’s Book, describing his Babylonian capticity, was initially written by the priest prophet Ezekiel.

Loxley’s townsman and Arc’s townswoman by birth and upbringing, the famous Robin and Joan hailed respectively from Loxley and Arc and were so associated(=linguistic possession).

Thank you for answering, but I’m not entirely convinced ‘’s’ only denotes possession. I think it can also denote association.

E.g., ‘Though Godfrey’s friend, Liam isn’t owned by Godfrey’ and ‘The town’s hero Jack, though not town property, was praised by the townsfolk’.

Had he breakfast this morning?

  • November 20, 2011, 1:48pm

Oh, I see now. Thank you, Warsaw, for the helpful answer. :)

Correct way to omit words?

  • November 12, 2011, 9:23am

Correction: ‘porsche’ with ‘s’.

Correct way to omit words?

  • November 12, 2011, 9:20am

porche, referring to your last paragraph, does that mean ‘Had he breakfast this morning?’ is correct when meaning ‘Did he have breakfast this morning?’ I just want to be sure.

Correct way to omit words?

  • November 12, 2011, 9:13am

Moreover, if ‘Haven't you anything better to do?’ when meaning ‘Have you not anything better do?’ is correct, then, following the same logic, isn’t ‘Hadn't you been there, they would have fallen through the ice’ also correct when meaning ‘Had you not been there, they would have fallen through the ice’?

Since the semicolon joins sentences, which can stand on their own, I think whether or not a coordinating conjunction can follow a semicolon as in the aforequoted examples depends on if an independent sentence can begin with a coordinating conjunction.

Is ‘And that is a promise I will keep’ correct?