The use of apostrophes!

[XmisterIS]

Here's one for ya!

When making a reference in an academic paper, would you write:

"... this is consistent with Smith & Clark's assertion that ... (etc)"

or

"... this is consistent with Smith's & Clark's assertion that ... (etc)".

I know you can re-arrange the sentence so that the possessive case is not required, but I'd be interested in the answer nonetheless!

The first one looks right to me, but you never know, what with the oddities of the English language!

 

[Norm]

If their assertion is joint, if it is in a joint paper, for instance, then the former.

If they have made their assertions separately, then the latter.

Thus,

"Marks and Spencer's mince pies are lovely"

But...

"Sainsbury's and Tesco's mince pies are lovely"

(Leaving aside any comment about the food itself, just using it as an example. )

 

[Aperitif]

'

 

[XmisterIS]

If their assertion is joint, if it is in a joint paper, for instance, then the former.

That's the badger!

It's a bit unfair though that the first Author gets and apostrophe and the second one doesn't! What's even more unfair is the "Smith et. al." protocol when there are three or more authors. Everyone apart from "Smith" is "et. al."! That's discrimination that is!

 

[Theseus]

Unless it is by TRT

 

[numbnuts]

"Sainsbury's and Tesco's mince pies are lovely"

ah but mine are better, Ive just made 36 and eating 2 now

 

[Bollo]

That's the badger!

It's a bit unfair though that the first Author gets and apostrophe and the second one doesn't! What's even more unfair is the "Smith et. al." protocol when there are three or more authors. Everyone apart from "Smith" is "et. al."! That's discrimination that is!

Apropos nothing, but the corrupt and egomaniac head of the department where I post-doced for a while many years ago had a 'policy' that the name order for papers should be alphabetical. Funny that his surname started 'Ba'. So first name on pretty much everything, even though he'd contribute f*** all to 99.9% of the department's research output. The only time he changed this policy was for a Saudi post grad who's name began with 'Al ....'. Can't think why?

Names on papers - very touchy subject that.

 

[Globalti]

I would get round it by writing: "...this is consistent with the assertion of Smith and Clerk that...."

 

[Over The Hill]

"Sainsbury's and Tesco's mince pies are lovely"

Have you put an apostrophy in the first word?


They call themselves "Sainsbury's" anyway for some reason. (which the begs the question) why do the likes of Cadbury or Kellogg call themsleves Cadbury's or Kellogg's.
We dont say Ford's or Heinz's.

 

[XmisterIS]

I would get round it by writing: "...this is consistent with the assertion of Smith and Clerk that...."

Quite so ... and I refer you to my OP in which I state, "I know you can re-arrange the sentence so that the possessive case is not required" [XmisterIS, 2009].

 

[MacB]

just a passing phase, as the language evolves we'll probably see that back of lots of little bits.

 

[swee'pea99]

Apropos nothing, but the corrupt and egomaniac head of the department where I post-doced for a while many years ago had a 'policy' that the name order for papers should be alphabetical. Funny that his surname started 'Ba'. So first name on pretty much everything, even though he'd contribute f*** all to 99.9% of the department's research output. The only time he changed this policy was for a Saudi post grad who's name began with 'Al ....'. Can't think why?

Names on papers - very touchy subject that.

That's brilliant! What an arse!

 

[Norm]

Have you put an apostrophy in the first word?

Hold on, let me check... yup, there it is!

They call themselves "Sainsbury's" anyway for some reason. (which the begs the question) why do the likes of Cadbury or Kellogg call themsleves Cadbury's or Kellogg's.
We dont say Ford's or Heinz's.

I did use them as their web site is www.sainsburys.co.uk which doesn't have an apostrophe (because you can't have one in a URL) but it is the possessive word.

The reason is that the brands you mention are used in the possessive. When we say (if we do) that we are going to Sainsbury's, what we mean is that we are going to a shop which was originally set up 140 years ago by J Sainsbury. It is the shop of J Sainsbury so it is Sainsbury's. J Sainsbury plc call their retail store "Sainsbury's", whereas Tesco plc don't, although I do say that I'm going down to Tesco's. Similarly, the breakfast cereal is made by Kellog so it is "Kellog's Corn Flakes".

We do say Ford's when we use the words in the same manner. If, for instance, we wanted to compare small family cars, we would say that Ford's is better / worse than Renault's.

I know exactly what you mean with Heinz, though. We should talk about Heinz's Baked Beans just as we talk about Kellog's Corn Flakes. I would think that we don't because of corporate marketing as much as abuse of the language.

 

[rich p]

I would get round it by writing: "...this is consistent with the assertion of Smith and Clerk that...."

Clerk? Who's Clerk?

It was Clark's assertion

Perhaps Clerk was Clark's clerk.

 

[MacB]

Clerk? Who's Clerk?

It was Clark's assertion

Perhaps Clerk was Clark's clerk.

slow day Rich?