Talk:everybody's

how about genitive: everybody's concern

What about "everybody has"? Whether it's correct or not, I'd say more people say "everybody's" instead of "everybody has".


 * Certainly enough to include it. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

everybody's
Do we want to actively delete these or leave them be if someone wants to create them? Conrad.Irwin 13:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to actively delete them. (I might be more O.K. with them if they were more accurate, though. "Genitive singular form" is misleading on three counts: this isn't really a "genitive"; it's a "singular" only in that undefined: is a syntactically singular pronoun, which hardly seems relevant to undefined:, since syntactically it doesn't have a number, and it's not like there's a genitive plural it needs to be distinguished from; and it's not really a "form". And our POS header, "noun", is flat-out wrong: undefined: is a pronoun, so there's no way undefined: is a noun.) —Ruakh TALK 02:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a reason the vote was for noun plurals only - to keep entries like this. Move to RFC.   Keep.  --Connel MacKenzie 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know what vote you're referring to, but the vote I remember did forbid entries like this. It explicitly made exception for "the irregularly-formed possessive forms of pronouns", and there seems to have been general agreement that the personal pronoun one's: would probably be O.K., or at least was a special case to be considered independently; but I see no suggestion that the vote only cover nouns. —Ruakh TALK 03:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Ruakh. The vote clearly only allows for irregular pronominal possessive forms, such as whose and its.  While I don't know how I would have voted, had I been around for this vote, its mandate is fairly clear.  Delete  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To quote Ruakh: "(I'd actually prefer that there also be an exception for one's, which is the only personal pronoun that we use the apostrophe in, but whatever. This way is quite fine.)". The only one, eh? Really? Not that it is my place to protest deletion: this is not my mother tongue. However, Dutch does have: ieder - ieders (everybody - everybody's) and imho ieders deserves a lemma. What translation should I give everybody's ?
 * Jcwf 04:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We do not create English entries simply to provide a translation substrate. I would probably do everybody's.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 04:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that when there is enough reason to we should, even for entries like father/mother's brother which could be linked in place of a translation of uncle in certain languages. It would not surprise me if several languages necessitated this for all possessives of pronouns. Therefore weak keep as a phrasebook entry. DAVilla 10:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The only one, yes. (In Standard English, at least. Certainly "it's" is a very common misspelling of "its".) I don't speak Dutch, but on the face of it, yes, [[everybody|everybody's]] looks like quite a reasonable translation, as does [[everybody]][['s]] [edit:] or, as Atelaes suggests, [[everybody]]'s. (From what I gather, the genitive in Dutch is mostly archaic except with pronouns like ieder:. If this is correct, then I agree with your opinion that ieders: deserves a full entry.) —Ruakh TALK 04:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, genitives are mostly archaic and in fact less common than the English possessive. They are mostly limited to persons: Jan->Jans etc. Pronouns are a bit of an exception like wiens, wier, ieders, niemands, but then there is a whole bunch of adverbs that derive from genitives. I still don't understand your 'the only one' argument: i.e. I fail to see the difference between everybody's, one's, somebody's and anybody's.

Jcwf 04:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The vote Votes/pl-2007-07/exclusion of possessive case definitely disallows this entry (The proposed exclusion of entries for Modern English possessive case forms of words formed by the addition of the enclitic ’s or its postsibilant form). As for the translations, that's for the foreign-language Wiktionaries to discuss. --Jackofclubs 18:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That was a contentious vote at first, and there were at least three people in support of the vote who still had trouble with the wording, making exceptions specifically for prepositions. Keep on the this-ain't-a-slippery-slope-so-what's-the-big-deal-about-it-anyways-yous-guys principle I just made up. DAVilla 05:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Kept, no consensus. We can come back to this later, in another vote if need be --Jackofclubs 18:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)