Jump to content

Talk:The Adventure of Silver Blaze: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
BattyBot (talk | contribs)
m Talk page general fixes & other cleanup using AWB (9417)
Pergish1 (talk | contribs)
Line 21: Line 21:


From [[Apostrophe]]: "In general, a good practice is to follow whichever spoken form is judged best: Boss's shoes, Mrs. Jones' hat (or Mrs. Jones's hat, if that spoken form is preferred). In many cases, both spoken and written forms will differ between people." I was always taught that a possessive ending in a hard 's' (or 'z', if you prefer, like 'Charles') takes just an apostrophe to form its possessive. (So titles such as ''[[Bridget Jones's Diary]]'' (in my opinion) should have been written ''Bridget Jones' Diary'' — but then this may have been deliberate to reflect the quirks of the character.) However, obviously everyone has a preference on this so I'm not getting into an edit war — except to state that I think "Holmes's" is an awkward way of saying something that could be communicated with one fewer letter (and indeed syllable). Thus we'll have to agree to disagree. [[User:Chris 42|Chris 42]] 10:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
From [[Apostrophe]]: "In general, a good practice is to follow whichever spoken form is judged best: Boss's shoes, Mrs. Jones' hat (or Mrs. Jones's hat, if that spoken form is preferred). In many cases, both spoken and written forms will differ between people." I was always taught that a possessive ending in a hard 's' (or 'z', if you prefer, like 'Charles') takes just an apostrophe to form its possessive. (So titles such as ''[[Bridget Jones's Diary]]'' (in my opinion) should have been written ''Bridget Jones' Diary'' — but then this may have been deliberate to reflect the quirks of the character.) However, obviously everyone has a preference on this so I'm not getting into an edit war — except to state that I think "Holmes's" is an awkward way of saying something that could be communicated with one fewer letter (and indeed syllable). Thus we'll have to agree to disagree. [[User:Chris 42|Chris 42]] 10:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

== Eille Norwood film version ==

The article says a short film starring [[Eille Norwood]] was released in 2001. However, according to IMDB, Norwood's version was released in 1923 and Norwood himself died in 1948. Was there a restoration/re-release in 2001 or is this a simple mistake? I don't have any original research to back up the earlier dates though I have a book with photos of Norwood as Holmes that clearly date from the early 20th century. --[[User:Pergish1|Pergish1]] ([[User talk:Pergish1|talk]]) 22:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:57, 19 December 2013


Untitled

The Inspectors are not usually counted as clients. You could put "the police" though, I suppose.

As to the villain, Straker cannot truly be called the villain since Holmes is investigating his murder, which turns out to be a death by misadventure. He is a villainous character, to be sure, but I don't think you can call him "The Villain". Kelisi 03:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apostrophe

From Apostrophe: "In general, a good practice is to follow whichever spoken form is judged best: Boss's shoes, Mrs. Jones' hat (or Mrs. Jones's hat, if that spoken form is preferred). In many cases, both spoken and written forms will differ between people." I was always taught that a possessive ending in a hard 's' (or 'z', if you prefer, like 'Charles') takes just an apostrophe to form its possessive. (So titles such as Bridget Jones's Diary (in my opinion) should have been written Bridget Jones' Diary — but then this may have been deliberate to reflect the quirks of the character.) However, obviously everyone has a preference on this so I'm not getting into an edit war — except to state that I think "Holmes's" is an awkward way of saying something that could be communicated with one fewer letter (and indeed syllable). Thus we'll have to agree to disagree. Chris 42 10:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eille Norwood film version

The article says a short film starring Eille Norwood was released in 2001. However, according to IMDB, Norwood's version was released in 1923 and Norwood himself died in 1948. Was there a restoration/re-release in 2001 or is this a simple mistake? I don't have any original research to back up the earlier dates though I have a book with photos of Norwood as Holmes that clearly date from the early 20th century. --Pergish1 (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]