a blogger's code of conduct?

8769

Senior Member
Japanese and Japan
The passage below is part of what I transcribed, listening to a radio program. The blank below is where I got stuck. The commentator is talking about "civility."

Which, #1, #2, or #3 below, do you think she said for the blank below?
1. a blogger's code of conduct
2. a bloggers' code of conduct
3. a bloggers code of conduct
Maybe civility is becoming a bit less than it has been in the past is uh... if you look on the web, use the... one of the browsers and put "civility" in, you will find all kinds of advice and information. A couple I've found kind of interesting is somebody started writing a draft version for ( ). It's not settled yet. This is for a specific blog, but they have six points on it, and it's things about... for example, taking responsibility for your own words, and not saying anything online that you wouldn't say directly to someone's face, also that everyone agrees it's wrong to unfairly attack people, you won't post or accept anonymous comments. It's a whole bunch of those kinds of things that I think people would do face to face.
I transcribed #1, but I’m not sure if it is correct.
 
  • cuchuflete

    Senior Member
    EEUU-inglés
    You transcribed the spoken words correctly if you wrote any of the three!
    I would punctuate it as number 2, but the transcription of the spoken words certainly allows for all three, as speakers generally omit saying "apostrophe".
     

    Giordano Bruno

    Senior Member
    English, England
    Hi cuchuflete,

    I would have said number 1. making a distinction between "the bloggers' code", and "a blogger's code''.

    What do you think?
     

    Primal

    Senior Member
    Canadian English
    I think that it's number one. Number three, "Bloggers" is plural, "Bloggers' " would be pronounced "Bloggerses" which is wrong. This kind of punctuation is used in contexts like "I'm going to the Jacobs' house tonight" where the singular ends in S. In number one the apostrophe shows posession.
    Prymal
     

    cuchuflete

    Senior Member
    EEUU-inglés
    Hello Giordano,

    I think I can find good grounds for all three. Number two is my preference, but I don't think the others are wrong.

    1. a blogger's code of conduct - The code of conduct applies to, or is owned by, the blogger of a specific site. ("This is for a specific blog..."). This is certainly plausible, but I discarded it because that site has multiple posters or bloggers, and I believe that who it applies to is more meaningful than who wrote it.

    2. a bloggers' code of conduct -This implies the code of conduct that belongs to the site's bloggers, collectively.

    3. a bloggers code of conduct - This one also works if you take bloggers as a non-possessive adj. modifying code of conduct. The emphasis is on bloggers as a type of code, rather than a reference to which one or more bloggers owns it or is obligated by it.
     

    Primal

    Senior Member
    Canadian English
    Cuchuflete,

    When you add the suffix S to a word, does it not become plural. I don't understand how the word "bloggers" can be an adjective. I'm pretty sure this would be a plural noun, which would mean that it can't fit, because they say A Blogger(')s('). Am I wrong?

    As for having the apostrophe after the S, again, the only time I've ever seen something like this is when the singular ends in S, such as someone's name. Ex. to describe the mother of someone named Jesus, you would say Jesus' mother, wouldn't you? Not, "Jesus's". Or would you? Either way, "Bloggers" is a plural form, for "Blogger."

    Like you said, I think that who it applies to is more important than who wrote it, in this case, but in my oppinion, it applies to A (one)Blogger.
    Therefore, I still think that the proper form is, "Blogger's".

    Prymal
     

    Giordano Bruno

    Senior Member
    English, England
    Just another thought. It can't be an adjective because when you join two nouns the make an adjective/noun pair, the adjective is only ever singular unless the plural form is irregular.

    Examples rat infestation, but mice infestation, claw marks, but teeth marks. You cannot say rats infestation of claws marks.
     

    cuchuflete

    Senior Member
    EEUU-inglés
    Stopping back to see what more I can learn, I find quite a bit of good, thought-provoking material. Unfortunately, much of it commits the same error I made in an earlier post: the assumption that we are discussing written language. We are not, or at least are somewhat off-topic in doing so. Let's remember, the original question posed by 8769 was about transcription of spoken language.

    Whatever we think the speaker ought to have meant, according to rules, 'rules', and customs of grammar and syntax is interesting and potentially instructive. When all is said and done, it is also speculative to assume the speaker's intentions, knowledge of and adherence to the rules, and pronunciation. The three options in post #1 all sound the same when spoken.


    In the spirit of collaborative exploration, I'll try to reply coherently to some of the points raised. Please remember, though, that our conversation may have little or nothing to do with spoken English, which often ignores what the prescriptive grammarians put on the shelves.



    1.
    a blogger's code of conduct
    2. a bloggers' code of conduct
    3. a bloggers code of conduct
    When you add the suffix S to a word, does it not become plural. (Was that an assertion or a question? I don't see a "?" I'll just assume it's a question, or a rhetorical assertion disguised as one.) When I add the letter S to a word, it may be to make it plural, or, if I'm writing, and I add both an apostrophe and the letter, it may be to show possession. The dilemma to be discussed below is that we don't typically speak the apostrophe, so its presence or absence can affect the meaning of the word to which we append the S.

    Just to beat this to death before moving on,

    Base word= red [red may be a noun or an adjective, depending on context. Even if it were only a noun, it could be used attributively, serving as an adjective in describing a contiguous noun or noun phrase. Luckily, it does have adjectival properties all by itself, so we don't have to argue that point. Here are some dictionary snippets to establish the credential of red as both noun and adjective:
    –noun 1.any of various colors resembling the color of blood...
    2. something red.
    –adjective
    7. of the color red.
    10. radically left politically.

    Therefore, I'll add a spoken S to the base word red.

    Possibilities include:
    reds (npl)
    red's (possessive singular noun)
    reds (npl) used attributively, functioning as an adjective. This is context driven. For discussions of attributive use of nouns, use Search. We have had some very fascinating and lengthy theads about the topic. To keep it simple, the word is not an adjective. It remains a noun, but it behaves lexically as if it were an adjective. For a simple example, take fire engine. Fire is a noun. It acts attributively to adjectivally describe another noun in that compound.

    Having sowed confusion, let's continue on.

    I don't understand how the word "bloggers" can be an adjective. I'm pretty sure this would be a plural noun, which would mean that it can't fit, because they say A Blogger(')s('). Am I wrong? See above, the introduction of the pesky attributive use of a noun, whether it be singular or plural. This is mind-altering at first glance, so I'll try to think of a routine example. I may fail!
    [a] Fathers’ Day, Father’s Day, [c] Fathers Day

    [a] npl, or if you prefer, plural noun, possessive case
    singular noun, possessive
    [c] npl, not possessive, functions as adjective. A.k.a., an attributive noun, which happens to be plural.

    This is a sticky mess, as usage often dictates whether to include or omit the possessive apostrophe, or to put it another way, whether to use a possessive plural noun, or a plural noun used attributively.

    Do we say Mother's Day, Mothers' Day, or Mothers Day? Most dictionaries prescribe
    the singular possessive. That's usage and custom for you. The hell with grammatical logic! But, wait a minute. What about the
    Department of Veterans Affairs? Aren't those affairs, or matters, just as much the possession of Veterans as the Day is the possession of Mother"?

    If you are perplexed by these examples, or by Publishers Weekly or Diners Club, I'm right there with you. The Chicago Style Manual is too, and does a nice little dance, pleasantly non-prescriptive, to settle the matter:

    "the line between a possessive or genitive form and a noun used attributively--as an adjective--is sometimes fuzzy, especially in the plural." emphasis added

    That's all I have time for now. I'll try to return in a while to address the good points made by Prymal and Giordano more fully.



     

    Primal

    Senior Member
    Canadian English
    Wow. I can see I have a lot to learn. Maybe I shoudn't drop English. Not that I have the choice. I totally still don't understand the thing about a noun acting as an adjective. I'll have to reread your post again when I have more time.

    I see what you mean about how this is a spoken sentence, and it could still be any of the three possibilities...
    What about the Department of Veterans Affairs? Aren't those affairs, or matters, just as much the possession of Veterans as the Day is the possession of Mother"?
    Or is "Veterans" an adjective of "Affairs?"
    When you add the suffix S to a word, does it not become plural?
    Yeah, that was supposed to have a question mark on it. I forgot. Too much Instant Messaging.
    fire engine. Fire is a noun. It acts attributively to adjectivally describe another noun in that compound.
    Before now, I always just considered "Fire Truck" to be a two-word noun. I didn't know this was possible.

    Have we come to a conclusion yet as to the correct punctuation? I didn't really catch whether you still think it's the second suggested answer, or whether we have an anwer at all anymore. Again, I'll have to do some rereading when I have more time.
    Later,
    Prymal
     

    cuchuflete

    Senior Member
    EEUU-inglés
    Hi Prymal,

    I will try to get back to this soon, holiday and head cold (is that a compound, two word noun, or is "head" acting as an attributive noun~adjective? Head isn't usually classified as an adjective.) have me sidetracked at the moment. Try to find the thread(s) about
    nouns as adjectives, or attributive nouns. It is full of thought provoking examples.

    Please do keep learning. This notion was new to me just a few months ago, and I still haven't got my head completely around it. I do a little work helping to build dictionaries, and often wonder why some nouns, with no change in written form, are
    also listed as adjectives, while others are simply nouns that are sometimes used attributively.

    I'll have to reread the thread before deciding if I'm still leaning towards the second answer. As I said earlier, I think all three are possible, and there is logic to support each one.
     

    Blues Piano Man

    Senior Member
    USA English
    Hi 8769,
    I can't say I understand the context but I can tell you which is correct. This is an example of possessive. The code "is for" (similar to "belongs to") the blogger. So you use an apostrophe s.

    "A blogger's code of conduct" is correct.

    Blues :)

    Edit...
    Somehow I wrote this before seeing any of the other responses. I'm going to leave my comments as they are, but I can't be sure they are 100% correct.

    Regarding the point made that this is a reference to spoken words, I would argue that a transcription should be written as correctly punctuated English and based on the best understanding the writer has of the original speaker's intent.


    The passage below is part of what I transcribed, listening to a radio program. The blank below is where I got stuck. The commentator is talking about "civility."

    Which, #1, #2, or #3 below, do you think she said for the blank below?
    1. a blogger's code of conduct
    2. a bloggers' code of conduct
    3. a bloggers code of conduct
    Maybe civility is becoming a bit less than it has been in the past is uh... if you look on the web, use the... one of the browsers and put "civility" in, you will find all kinds of advice and information. A couple I've found kind of interesting is somebody started writing a draft version for ( ). It's not settled yet. This is for a specific blog, but they have six points on it, and it's things about... for example, taking responsibility for your own words, and not saying anything online that you wouldn't say directly to someone's face, also that everyone agrees it's wrong to unfairly attack people, you won't post or accept anonymous comments. It's a whole bunch of those kinds of things that I think people would do face to face.
    I transcribed #1, but I’m not sure if it is correct.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top