The Lemon Fool

Two different scenarios... based on rugby training sessions for backs (ie not forwards)

1) Here is a session on backs moves

2) This is a backs moves session.

Where do the apostrophe's go. I'm happy with here I think they should go ( on the word backs in both sentences) but I have met with some disagreement. So what do you clever people think?

didds

Backs' moves.

But the sentence sounds awkward. Could you not say ' moves for backs' or something similar?

Gaggsy wrote:Backs' moves.

But the sentence sounds awkward. Could you not say ' moves for backs' or something similar?

If only it were that simple... (in the case I need it for where I am proofing somebody else's words!)

Ive been directed to http://archives.cjr.org/language_corner ... essive.php which would decree that 2) doesn't have an apostrophe.

didds

They're both badly worded. But backs' is surely correct for the first one as the phrase fairly clearly infers the plural. For the second, I'd be inclined to put back's - you need something to indicate the possessive but it could be discussing the moves that a back should make.

I am not into rugby myself. Is "backs" treated as a mass noun or a plural? Does the singular exist?

didds wrote:Two different scenarios... based on rugby training sessions for backs (ie not forwards)

1) Here is a session on backs moves
didds

Does this mean:
"Here is a session on moves performed by backs"
or,
"Here is a session on moves of type 'backs'"?

In the former case, there would be an apostrophe after the "s". It would be of the same form as "Here is a session on fielders' moves".
In the latter case, there would be no apostrophe. It would be of the same form as "Here is a session on fielder moves". One could also surmise that there should be no "s" after "back" either so the correct form should be "Here is a session on back moves". It depends upon how the word "backs" is treated.

All IMHO. I am not an authority on grammar.

Julian F. G. W.

didds wrote: Where do the apostrophe's go.

Lock him up.

If you look at https://www.rugbycoachweekly.net/rugby- ... cks-moves/ you'll see a lack of apostrophes.

Funny you say that PD...

didds

Indeed!

Any reason you didn't ask here?:

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewforum.php?f=70

Cos i was actually after an answer not a heated debate over the rights of wrongs of the butcher's (<<--- apostrophe

didds

didds wrote:Cos i was actually after an answer not a heated debate over the rights of wrongs of the butcher's (<<--- apostrophe

didds

Do you have the answer(s)?

didds wrote:Ive been directed to http://archives.cjr.org/language_corner ... essive.php which would decree that 2) doesn't have an apostrophe.

Which is American and therefore automatically suspect for British English usage

I'd be more inclines to look here http://www.eng-lang.co.uk/apostrophe_rules.htm.

My own opinion would be that in each case backs is a plural (yes you can have one back) and you are talking about a possessive, whichever wat the sentence is constructed, so it should be backs' moves in both cases.

Slarti

I agree with you Slarti!

didds

PinkDalek wrote:

didds wrote:Cos i was actually after an answer not a heated debate over the rights of wrongs of the butcher's (<<--- apostrophe

didds

Do you have the answer(s)?

No. LOL.

It's friendlier here

didds

Slarti wrote:...

My own opinion would be that in each case backs is a plural (yes you can have one back) and you are talking about a possessive, whichever wat the sentence is constructed, so it should be backs' moves in both cases.

Slarti

I don't agree as "backs" refers to "The backs". Being a term referring to all of the nancies as one (having been one of them, that is a polite reference).

Anyway, I'd prefer:

"This is a session on moves for the backs."

What is the point of the question mark?

Stonge wrote:What is the point of the question mark?

Which particular question mark or is this a brand new DAK?

Proofing someone' elses work does not necessarily exclude changes to bad structures.

Regards,
ep

Biggles wrote:But backs' is surely correct for the first one as the phrase fairly clearly infers the plural.

Do you mean "...clearly implies the plural"?

Strunk & White would probably go with backs's ....