Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
So it all began innocently enough. There I was at my favorite happy hour at Brasserie Montmartre in Portland, having Frogs legs.... three of them to be exact. Then I went to post it to facebook, and that where the trouble began. I asked the person next to me, are these frog's legs or frogs legs. Oh boy. Everyone at the bar (Francophiles... you know, "Frogs") all had a different opinion. The discussion went something like this.... So there is a frog swimming by and it has one red leg.. someone says "Look at that frog's leg!" Ok so two frogs, both with red legs swim by and now someone says "Look at those frogs' legs - they are red!" Now we have a problem. Are all of the legs red, one on each leg red or what? Of course it could be clarified, but so far we have no idea what is going on. Then the legs are "harvested" and now someone has one who is not very hungry has one leg. He is enjoying his frog's leg. The person next to him has three and is enjoying his frogs' legs. What about the person with two legs, are they enjoying a frog's legs? or maybe frogs legs? When did these legs cease to become the frog's and become mine? When I purchased them, when I ate them, when I took them home in a doggie bag? It seems insensitive to the frog to call them my legs, and yet didn't I buy (or eat) them? So where does the possessive end and the plural begin? I sure seems to me like it would depend on your perspective. Thoughts, brilliant wordsmiths?
When discussing cuisine, I like frog legs, adjectival, no possessive required. Analogies are many: chicken fingers, lobster tails, quail eggs, beet greens, zucchini blossoms. (Buffalo wings?)
As for the frogs on the swim, the possessive depends on the number of frogs, regardless of how many legs each.
This problem seems in some way related to mine when I tried to tell someone that I had no first cousins. I could say "My father was an only child, and so was my mother", but there was no way to shorten it: "Both my parents were only children" seems to say something else altogether.
Ron Draney said:
This problem seems in some way related to mine when I tried to tell someone that I had no first cousins. I could say "My father was an only child, and so was my mother", but there was no way to shorten it: "Both my parents were only children" seems to say something else altogether.
Maybe my brain is blocked but I don't see a problem with "Both my parents were only children" I think I would understand exactly what you meant. The only other way to interpret it is to mean that both of my parents were children and nothing else, and that's crazy. Maybe if I were writing it I would put "only children" in quotes. And maybe if I were speaking it I would use "air quotes", or maybe not.
Ron Draney said:
This problem seems in some way related to mine when I tried to tell someone that I had no first cousins. I could say "My father was an only child, and so was my mother", but there was no way to shorten it: "Both my parents were only children" seems to say something else altogether.
How about "Both my parents were siblingless." Sure, it's an ugly word, and spell-check flags it, but it's logical, and grammatically correct.
Heimhenge said:
How about "Both my parents were siblingless." Sure, it's an ugly word, and spell-check flags it, but it's logical, and grammatically correct.
You have opened my mind. How about, "Neither of my parents had siblings" or "I never had uncles or aunts". thee are probably many ways to say this.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)