Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at. I'd use Teacups-the-name as singular.
Um, well, we listened to aggressively cheerful music sung by people chosen for their ability to dance. Then we ate cookie dough, and talked about boys.
Giles ,'Get It Done'
The Great Write Way
A place for Buffistas to discuss, beta and otherwise deal and dish on their non-fan fiction projects.
Jesse - Nov 18, 2002 10:08:23 am PST #340 of 10001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
Jesse - Nov 18, 2002 10:08:43 am PST #341 of 10001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
Note to self: possibly name child "Teacups."
Am-Chau Yarkona - Nov 18, 2002 10:23:54 am PST #342 of 10001
I bop to Wittgenstein. -- Nutty
Certainly in Bridget Jones' Diary they use s'.
Nuh-uh. At least in the version here in the US, it's "Jones's"
I suspect that s's is Us, and s' is British, then.
Note to self: possibly name child "Teacups."
And I'll call mine "Biscuits".
erikaj - Nov 18, 2002 10:26:40 am PST #343 of 10001
Always Anti-fascist!
Hey, everyone. Just posting to share what my writing instructor called a "Kinko's moment". That is to say, that the only time you should feel completely satisfied with your work is dragging it home from the copy place. I feel like I rock right now. Of course, given my track record, that should last...a minute and a half. Thanks to everyone who gave advice. Taking a moment...and we're done.
Hil R. - Nov 18, 2002 10:30:30 am PST #344 of 10001
Sometimes I think I might just move up to Vermont, open a bookstore or a vegan restaurant. Adam Schlesinger, z''l
According to Little and Brown, if a name is a plural of a word (they use the example of Rivers), then it just gets the apostrophe, no additional s.
§ ita § - Nov 18, 2002 4:56:21 pm PST #345 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
When I last asked the Buffistas, I was told that Jesus and Moses were special exceptions and that 's was mandatory everywhere else.
I often ignore that advice.
John H - Nov 18, 2002 5:03:37 pm PST #346 of 10001
Just catching up on Susan's piece, the one thing that stuck in my mind, since I read it last night, is that you said the heroine was "racist".
Maybe it's just me, but that just sounds awful to me. You went on and softened it afterward, but hey, if she's racist, she's pretty much a bad person and I don't care if she gets hit by a truck, let alone finds True Love. I'd have been much happier reading something like "she's been brought up in a racist family" or "she has the racist attitudes typical of her upbringing" or something.
§ ita § - Nov 18, 2002 5:10:20 pm PST #347 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I'd have been much happier reading something like "she's been brought up in a racist family" or "she has the racist attitudes typical of her upbringing" or something.
Wouldn't she still be racist?
Susan W. - Nov 18, 2002 5:12:18 pm PST #348 of 10001
Good Trouble and Righteous Fights
I'd have been much happier reading something like "she's been brought up in a racist family" or "she has the racist attitudes typical of her upbringing" or something.
That's what I was trying to get at by saying it's clear she's acting out of ignorance instead of malice, but I could certainly change it.
John H - Nov 18, 2002 5:18:12 pm PST #349 of 10001
Wouldn't she still be racist?
Well yeah, but there's something about saying a person is something that makes it sound final, and much more damning, than if you say that they have certain attitudes, which to my mind links it in a certain time in their life.
Do her attitudes change, Susan, as the book goes on? I'm assuming this isn't one of those aryan-fascist-KKK-sponsored-white-supremacist romance novels that are so common in bookstores today...