Herdman - Disney is Safe Again

[i am herdman]

Just be honest Yags. You were going back to your local Southern NY/Northern PA accent and colloquialism. Most of us are from WV so, we revert back to it every now and again.

I understand when you say I am going down to the WalMart's or going to Nordstrom's. It is all good, no problem.

 

[big_country90]

Rifle… Jason may own the house, but Nordstrom IS the store. There is a distinct difference in the two.

Why do you think it’s called Ruth’s Chris Steak House? It’s because Ruth bought Chris Steak House. If Jason owned a Nordstrom store you would call it Jason’s Nordstrom. Since Nordstrom is simply the building, comprised of brick and mortar (just like Jason’s house), it cannot be possessive.

This is not difficult to understand. For a self-proclaimed genius, you are having a very hard time.

 

[ThunderCat98]

There is nothing better than when somebody tries correcting somebody on here, is a dick about it, and ends up being wrong. This one is even better than usual because Tier Three also liked your post showing he supported your incorrect attempt.

My use was entirely correct, and it is very easy to educate you as to why.

Let's say you have a friend name Jason. Jason has the guys over for a card game once a week. Before leaving your house to go to the house where your friend Jason lives, you say to your wife "Hey, I'm going over to JASON'S."

Even though the proper noun is "Jason" and not "Jason's," is saying "Jason's" wrong? No. Why not? Because it is implied that it is "Jason's house" you are referencing. Likewise, the proper noun is "Nordstrom" and not "Nordstrom's." However, saying "Nordstrom's" implies you are going to the Nordstrom store/location. The apostrophe shows ownership/possession. You are going to the house of Jason. You are going to the location of Nordstrom. Those are possessions.

Had I said "Nordstroms" without the apostrophe, you would have had a valid argument. But I didn't, which is why I used the apostrophe.

Now, go wipe the egg off of your face before going to Jason's (note the apostrophe).

When this thread first dropped, I was wondering which tactic Rifle would use - (1) ignore the correction altogether and pretend it didn't happen, or (2) come back with an absolute garbage argument in an attempt to support his mistake. Not surprised to see he went with the latter.

 

[MarshallManiac]

That has absolutely no relevance to it. Your argument is that one is a possessive when using an implied location because it is an individual while the other isn't a possessive because it is a business? You should ask your "friends" for some help with that argument.

They are both proper nouns. They both have an implied target which is "house" for Jason and "store" for Nordstrom.



They absolutely do! Not only are the Nordstroms the largest shareholders (which is ownership), but they are also the founders. Them being publicly traded has as much relevance as your previous argument.



I was implying Nordstrom's store. I went to a Nordstrom's store. That's entirely accurate and entirely correct.



You work in computers. Amazing that you happen to have such close, immediate contact with two English PhDs. Regardless, I know plenty of people with advanced degrees in English who aren't as versed as I am in it. One was an English professor at Marshall who I argued relentlessly with regarding points being deducted, incorrectly, for what she claimed was an English error. It was either that I started a sentence with "but" or that I didn't put a period after it. I knew I was right, she took points off, and I challenged it to the department chair. Guess who ended up being right? My mother has an advanced degree in English. It isn't even close about which one of us is more versed in it.

The fact that your "friends" claim I am full of it proves you're either lying or they aren't very bright. It isn't wrong, because in order to correctly argue it is wrong, they would have to know the intent. And my intent was the store owned by Nordstrom, hence Nordstrom's store.

Had I made an error regarding it I would have used "Nordstroms" without the apostrophe similar to "Wegmans."

You're becoming more like extra every day. Now, not only are you wrong and won't admit it but you're best defense is "liar!"

First, you're simply trying to change the original intent of the original post. Nobody (except extra) is ever going to believe you were implying possession. Second, I'm sure you were implying the store owned by the Nordstrom family. You definitely were not. You were doing the same thing described by many others when they say "I'm going to Walmarts" or "I'm going to Krogers." Lastly, for as much as you stalk people on social media I'm surprised that you didn't know that I really don't work with computers that much. I haven't for almost 15-20 years. I work in higher education in Learning Technologies. That means, that I work with instructors and IT in a consulting role where I assist them in better delivering their instructional content online. At Marshall was technically in "IT" but in my new role here in Florida I'm actually in Academic Affairs. So, it's actually very easy to have a relationship with people that have been in academia for many years. The second person I was referencing was a good friend that used to attend my church. She got her PhD from the University of Utah and is now a writer in the Pacific Northwest. But I'm sure you'll try to stalk my Facebook and try to figure out who she is in an effort to discredit her. You'd like her. She's quite the liberal...but at least she knows when to use an "'s."

 

[MarshallManiac]

No, because my intention is never to say I am going to the store owned by Burger King. This discussion and the ability for you to understand it and how it pertains to grammar is way above your ability.

Then why are you trying to sell us on the fact that you DID mean to imply you were going to the store owned by the Nordstrom family?
If you would NEVER say it about Burger King, why would you say it about Nordstrom?

 

[MarshallManiac]

Just be honest Yags. You were going back to your local Southern NY/Northern PA accent and colloquialism. Most of us are from WV so, we revert back to it every now and again.

I understand when you say I am going down to the WalMart's or going to Nordstrom's. It is all good, no problem.

He will never admit to that but it is certainly the truth.

 

[extragreen]

You're becoming more like extra every day

^^^Proof that idiots run in packs.

 

[MarshallManiac]

^^^Proof that idiots run in packs.

Right. You and rifle make an odd but surprisingly cute couple.

 

[extragreen]

Right. You and rifle make an odd but surprisingly cute couple.

I didn't know you were attracted to males. I'm not interested.

 

[MarshallManiac]

I didn't know you were attracted to males. I'm not interested.

lol...I always love your attempts at a comeback. They so bad they are funny. I'd literally pay $10 to talk to some people that went to high school with you. I bet you got bullied a lot.

 

[extragreen]

lol...I always love your attempts at a comeback. They so bad they are funny. I'd literally pay $10 to talk to some people that went to high school with you. I bet you got bullied a lot.

Wanna meet them at Walmart's? Moron.

 

[MarshallManiac]

Wanna meet them at Walmart's? Moron.

Zingers to spare.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

Since Nordstrom is simply the building, comprised of brick and mortar (just like Jason’s house), it cannot be possessive.
.

Not only can it be possessive, but it is also much more than "simply the building." It's a brand that has many other portions to it (men's department, cafe, etc.). Saying " . . . going to Nordstrom's" implies Nordstrom's store.

(2) come back with an absolute garbage argument in an attempt to support his mistake.

Yet another example of why you have earned the "Tier Three" monikor. This "garbage argument" is quite a shared argument which has many proponents, hence the links others have posted on here discussing the merits of arguments on both sides. That doesn't equate to a garbage argument.

. Second, I'm sure you were implying the store owned by the Nordstrom family. You definitely were not.

Christ, your reading comprehension and retention is atrocious. I already responded to you in which I stated that I wasn't arguing that I was implying the store owned by the Nordstrom family. I couldn't have stated that any better than I did. I did was correct a false statement you made regarding ownership of Nordstrom. That isn't what I was implying when I said "Nordstrom's," and I already stated that.

But I'm sure you'll try to stalk my Facebook and try to figure out who she is in an effort to discredit her. You'd like her. She's

So within a matter of a few hours, you showed/linked this to multiple friends? Not only is that weird, but again, this isn't an argument of what is correct grammatically. It is an argument of what the intent was. Having any type of English knowledge doesn't help one determine the intent. In fact, it's clear that your friends don't have the intelligence to understand that, so they should stick with English.

She's quite the liberal...but at least she knows when to use an "'s."

She probably also, like you, doesn't realize a single letter/number is a rare exception to the usual "end quotation after punctuation" rule. The end quotation mark should be inside of the period in this use.

Then why are you trying to sell us on the fact that you DID mean to imply you were going to the store owned by the Nordstrom family?

Again, I clearly stated that was not what I was arguing on the previous page. Hell, it was even in a response to something I quoted of yours. My argument about the Nordstrom family was simply correcting you on yet another error on your part.

 

[ThunderCat98]

You're wrong. Sorry. I know that eats at you, but it's true.

 

[MarshallManiac]

You're wrong. Sorry. I know that eats at you, but it's true.

It's quite entertaining at this point.

 

[extragreen]

Breakfast at Tiffany

 

[mlblack16.]

Breakfast at Tiffany

You're not helping him, at all.

Oops, meant to say yore

 

[extragreen]

You're not helping him, at all.

Oops, meant to say yore

What was the actual name of that movie? Moron.

 

[big_country90]

Not only can it be possessive, but it is also much more than "simply the building." It's a brand that has many other portions to it (men's department, cafe, etc.). Saying " . . . going to Nordstrom's" implies Nordstrom's store

No, it doesn’t. And that isn’t what you were implying anyway.

If, instead of Nordstrom, the store you originally referenced had been Walmart, you would have never called it “Walmart’s“ because you realize how dumb that sounds and how incorrect it is. The fact that it was a high end store is the only reason you’re pretending to defend yourself.

 

[extragreen]

Today the store's full and proper name is Tiffany & Company; however, its original name in 1837 was Tiffany, Young and Ellis which was shortened to Tiffany & Company in 1853.

Colloquially, the store is often referred to as Tiffany's, in speech (TIF-uh-nees; or /ˈtɪfəniz/ ) and in writing. The use of the apostrophe was often a trait or a type of hallmark for many local businesses and stores in the past, but it also served a purpose, the apostrophe informed its clients that the business, store, shop, bank, etc. they were seeing or entering was founded (and usually owned) by a person....
The use of the apostrophe in Breakfast at Tiffany's is orthographically justifiable because one its founders was Charles Lewis Tiffany.
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/195184/when-do-i-use-the-possessive-with-tiffany-co

 

[i am herdman]

Let's go to the WalMart's and get me some hair gel and tanning cream.