Worker vs Workers'

[Red Enemy]

Wtf is a worker struggle.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Wtf is a worker struggle.I... I don't understand... :huh: :confused:

EDIT: I totally get it now. Nevermind. :D

[Sea]

The worker struggle is because the capitalist is bad. :D

[l'Enfermé]

It's Worker Struggles, not Worker Struggle. Both "Worker's Struggles" and "Worker Struggles" sound weird, but "Worker Struggles" is more grammatically correct I think. I have no idea who changed the name of this forum, though.

[Blake's Baby]

Workers' struggles. The many struggles of (belonging to) many workers.

[blake 3:17]

Workers' struggles. The many struggles of (belonging to) many workers.

But you spell it Workers Struggles. Cuz the apostrophe is weird...

[Blake's Baby]

But that means 'more than one worker is strugglesing' which is rather like the forum was named by an eight year old or someone who doesn't speak English very well. The apostrophe isn't 'weird', it's there to differentiate between a plural and a possessive.

'The struggles (more than one of them) of (belonging to = possessive) many workers'.

Workers' Struggles. No other way of writing it makes grammatical sense.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I perfer: "roughneck scrap-abouts" to either phrase. What about "Proletarian Punch-em-ups"?

But honestly, "worker's struggle" or "worker struggles"? I think people will understand what that section of the website is either way.

[The Jay]

I perfer: "roughneck scrap-abouts" to either phrase. What about "Proletarian Punch-em-ups"?

But honestly, "worker's struggle" or "worker struggles"? I think people will understand what that section of the website is either way.

Without good grammar we are no better than the capitalists. It has to be Workers' Struggles.

[Tenka]

Keen though I am on approximately proper use of this bastard language, it also matters how you look at it....

Worker Struggles:
A worker struggles,
OR
Struggles of The Worker?

[Blake's Baby]

But that's Worker's Struggles. Struggles of (belonging to, ie a possessive) a single worker.

As there are about 3 billion workers, we'd need 3 billion forums, one for each.

[Tenka]

But that's Worker's Struggles. Struggles of (belonging to, ie a possessive) a single worker.

As there are about 3 billion workers, we'd need 3 billion forums, one for each.

Struggles of Workers can be Worker Struggles just as Poops of Dogs are Dog Poop(s). It is not likely very common for people to say a dog's poop, or dogs' poop, as opposed to dog poop.
We really ought to be a little more lenient with the grammatical structures of titles. This forum is called "General". General WHAT? General discussion, it is supposed.

[MarxArchist]

It's dialectical. That's all you need to know.

[Red Enemy]

I have to agree with Blake's Baby on this; Workers' struggle is the grammatically correct variant, abut also puts the struggle in isolated locations in an internationalist perspective. That the struggle of miners in South Africa is connected to us in North America and Europe. Every proletariat struggle is the struggle of the international working class.

[Blake's Baby]

Sorry Red Enemy, Tenka just convinced me with this:


Struggles of Workers can be Worker Struggles just as Poops of Dogs are Dog Poop(s). It is not likely very common for people to say a dog's poop, or dogs' poop, as opposed to dog poop.
We really ought to be a little more lenient with the grammatical structures of titles. This forum is called "General". General WHAT? General discussion, it is supposed.

So we know when we have a forum called 'Dog Poop' I won't be arguing it should be 'Dogs' Poop' instead. See also 'Bird Shit', 'Horse Droppings', 'Camel Dung' and 'Bat Crap'.

I retire from the grammatical field, having conceded the point.

[Red Enemy]

Sorry Red Enemy, Tenka just convinced me with this:



So we know when we have a forum called 'Dog Poop' I won't be arguing it should be 'Dogs' Poop' instead. See also 'Bird Shit', 'Horse Droppings', 'Camel Dung' and 'Bat Crap'.

I retire from the grammatical field, having conceded the point.
Aha, but the problem lays with the example even:

Dog Poop refers to poop that belongs to A SINGLE dog. It is called Dog Poop because it doesn't belong to ALL dogs, but to one unidentified dog.

Ergo, Worker Struggles, is general, but general in the singular. Suggesting that the struggle is isolated, belonging to another entity than the entire working class. As all workers' struggles belong to the class as a whole, the use of "worker struggle" in the same means as "dog poop" is incorrect.

[Blake's Baby]

All dog poop is called dog poop. 'Look, that park is covered in dog poop, the children can't play there' doesn't imply that a single dog has done a great deal of pooping. It is more likely to be the poop (singular noun implying variable quantity) of many dogs.

'Look that dog's doing a poop' - singular doing doing one instance of pooping; 'look at all that poop'- many instances of pooping of one or more dogs, not 'look at all those poops'.

so, yeah, all dogs are to blame for all poop. Dog poop, anyway.

[Red Enemy]

All dog poop is called dog poop. 'Look, that park is covered in dog poop, the children can't play there' doesn't imply that a single dog has done a great deal of pooping. It is more likely to be the poop (singular noun implying variable quantity) of many dogs.

'Look that dog's doing a poop' - singular doing doing one instance of pooping; 'look at all that poop'- many instances of pooping of one or more dogs, not 'look at all those poops'.

so, yeah, all dogs are to blame for all poop. Dog poop, anyway.
Aha, but alas:

We know the owner of the struggles, whilst we DO NOT know the owner(s) of the poop.

Ergo, that is why we say workers' struggles.

[Blake's Baby]

All dog poop belongs to all dogs. We are communists after all. Social production of poop, social distribution of poop. Stop being a poop-propertarian.

[Tenka]

Aha, but alas:

We know the owner of the struggles, whilst we DO NOT know the owner(s) of the poop.

Ergo, that is why we say workers' struggles.

Dog poop is any and all poop of the collective canine menace, just as Worker struggles are the struggles of the collective worker, and bird droppings are the droppings of the collective bird. I can't articulate it any more clearly!

And now, I've done all I can do in the struggle against the apostrophe encroaching upon our forum titles.

[Red Enemy]

Dog poop is any and all poop of the collective canine menace, just as Worker struggles are the struggles of the collective worker, and bird droppings are the droppings of the collective bird. I can't articulate it any more clearly!

And now, I've done all I can do in the struggle against the apostrophe encroaching upon our forum titles.
But that doesn't make sense, because the poop does NOT belong collectively to the animal in regard. Each poop is not interconnected, or intertwined with the wider species.

[hatzel]

What's all this talk I hear about labour struggles? :cool:

[Blake's Baby]

Yer, but, no, but, yer, but, we've stopped taking the discussion seriously.

I'm not sure what other nouns would correspond to 'struggles' in this context. If one is studying children's play (the activity called play that is done by many non-specific children, corresponding to the activity called struggle(s) that is done by many non-specific workers) then children's is indeed a possessive. If one is talking about dog racing (the activity called racing racing by many non-specific dogs) it isn't a possessive. Other potential examples are eluding me.

[Red Enemy]

I propose this forum be called "The Class Struggle"

[Tenka]

I propose this forum be called "The Class Struggle"

I concur on the condition that "The" is dropped, so that it's more in line with the other forum titles. But I'm still fine with Worker Struggles. Labour Struggles is good, too, just so long as it is spelled properly as above and not amerikanized (labor, which incidentally the forum software views as the proper spelling. :( ).

[Blake's Baby]

Well, there are about 60 million speakers (though in this context 'writers' is more to the point) of British English, and 300 million speakers of American English, so which of them is the 'right' spelling? Languages change, or we'd be conducting this board going
"Hwa! Monig man spreac englisc-tonge, in far-londen ful spreacen thoe, micel manne ofer thare, pucel manne heore" or whatever. You get the jist, and apologies if anyone actually is a scholar of Old English.

[Tenka]

Well, there are about 60 million speakers (though in this context 'writers' is more to the point) of British English, and 300 million speakers of American English, so which of them is the 'right' spelling? Languages change, or we'd be conducting this board going
"Hwa! Monig man spreac englisc-tonge, in far-londen ful spreacen thoe, micel manne ofer thare, pucel manne heore" or whatever. You get the jist, and apologies if anyone actually is a scholar of Old English.

Yes, of course. But Noah Webster was a prick and American spellings were standardised in a consciously different direction for the sake of nationalism. More speakers doesn't mean more correct!

At any rate, I can't see this thread inspiring someone to change the forum name who has the ability to change it. Nor do I think it needs changing, really, for reasons already gone over.

[Blake's Baby]

Yes, of course. But Noah Webster was a prick and American spellings were standardised in a consciously different direction for the sake of nationalism. More speakers doesn't mean more correct!...

That's exactly what 'more speakers' means. Language isn't... a thing that is 'right' or 'wrong'. It is (always) what people make it. Otherwise all modern English is 'wrong' and we should all speak Old English (Northumbrian dialect rather than West Saxon, obviously, oh no that's just my preference, actually the earliest texts are in the little-known Kentish dialect). One doesn't just get to say 'the language spoken in this place at that time is correct, deviation from that is wrong'.

That doesn't mean I don't get pissed off at bad grammer or people using words wrongly ('socialism' anyone?) but that's because language is about communication. If people aren't clear then they're failing to communicate, so changing the definition of words (like socialism) is failing to be clear, but so is hanging on to forms that a diminishing number of people use (like 'through'). If 300 million people who write in English use one form and 60 million use another, it's the 60 million who are 'wrong' even if our form is older than theirs. "(dh)rogh" is even older but that doesn't make it 'more right'.


...At any rate, I can't see this thread inspiring someone to change the forum name who has the ability to change it. Nor do I think it needs changing, really, for reasons already gone over.

Well, yeah. I think the title is shit, I don't really think workers' struggles are like dog poop. Or 'poo' as we tend to say this side of the Atlantic, 'poop' is definitely an Americanism.

[Tenka]

That's exactly what 'more speakers' means. Language isn't... a thing that is 'right' or 'wrong'. It is (always) what people make it. Otherwise all modern English is 'wrong' and we should all speak Old English (Northumbrian dialect rather than West Saxon, obviously, oh no that's just my preference, actually the earliest texts are in the little-known Kentish dialect). One doesn't just get to say 'the language spoken in this place at that time is correct, deviation from that is wrong'.

That doesn't mean I don't get pissed off at bad grammer or people using words wrongly ('socialism' anyone?) but that's because language is about communication. If people aren't clear then they're failing to communicate, so changing the definition of words (like socialism) is failing to be clear, but so is hanging on to forms that a diminishing number of people use (like 'through'). If 300 million people who write in English use one form and 60 million use another, it's the 60 million who are 'wrong' even if our form is older than theirs. "(dh)rogh" is even older but that doesn't make it 'more right'.

I'm not suggesting older is better. I don't like old/middle-English and Shakespeare and the KJ Bible can't make Elizabethan appeal to me. Really, I just hate Noah Webster and what he did, and dread a future where "colour" is universally regarded as incorrectly spelled English (the forum software already regards it as such!).

What is this about "through"? Are you saying it is diminishing? In favour of... what?...




Well, yeah. I think the title is shit, I don't really think workers' struggles are like dog poop. Or 'poo' as we tend to say this side of the Atlantic, 'poop' is definitely an Americanism.

Well I am an American, sadly, and cannot extinguish all influences of my environment. I doubt Noah Webster is responsible for poop, though... except in a certain abstract sense. I don't care what the name of the forum is, really, but was inexplicably attracted by the fighting about grammar.

P.S. Northumbrian dialect is great.

[Blake's Baby]

Through as opposed to thru (which I think looks ugly, and should be pronounced 'thruh' not 'throo').

I think Noah Webster is responsible for a lot of poo(p)...

[Orange Juche]

It's Worker Struggles, not Worker Struggle. Both "Worker's Struggles" and "Worker Struggles" sound weird,

Say it like ten times repeated and it starts to sound like some goofy tv show for small children.

[Tenka]

Reviving this thread because I just noticed the name of the forum in question was changed, and I have strengthened my position with the aid of Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct
Alas, too late.

[BIXX]

This is one of my favorite threads.

[Sea]

Without good grammar we are no better than the capitalists. It has to be Workers' Struggles.
without well grammar, you mean

[VivalaCuarta]

Workers here is not a possessive noun or a plural noun or any kind of noun.

It is an adjective modifying struggles.

Luchas obreras, etc.

[Redistribute the Rep]

without well grammar, you mean

I believe it's correct as good :


Good or Well?

Good is an adjective, so you do not do good or live good, but you do well and live well. Remember, though, that an adjective follows sense-verbs and be-verbs, so you also feel good, look good, smell good, are good, have been good, etc. (Refer to rule #3 above for more information about sense verbs and verbs of appearance.)

Confusion can occur because well can function either as an adverb or an adjective. When well is used as an adjective, it means "not sick" or "in good health." For this specific sense of well, it's OK to say you feel well or are well — for example, after recovering from an illness. When not used in this health-related sense, however, well functions as an adverb; for example, "I did well on my exam."

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/537/02/

Anyway, I think Workers' Struggles is correct. I mean you wouldn't say Woman Struggle, you would say Women's Struggles.

[Devrim]

I think this whole thread clearly shows that the worst possible thing that you can do is trust the English (or Americans) with their own language. If you don't have some native speaker with a decent command of the language (generally they come from the Western side of the Irish Sea), then you would probably be best asking a non native speaker who had spent some time learning the intricacies of the language rather thatn a Brit (or Yank) who has grown up butchering it.

Devrim

[Left Voice]

'Worker Struggles' does sound very weird to me, though. It sounds like we're referring to one worker in the singular who just happens to be having a bad day. Poor old Steve forgot his lunch box.

Assuming we're talking about all workers (plural) and and also in the possessive sense (the struggles of workers), then Workers' Struggles is the only phrasing that makes grammatical sense.

[Ele'ill]

Reviving this thread


:bored:


Can a mod or admin confirm that this thread topic made it to the mod forum as relevant topic, does anyone remember that is that just a fantasy thing I imagined in a drunken haze

[Ele'ill]

I think this whole thread clearly shows that the worst possible thing that you can do is trust the English (or Americans)

Devrim hates freedom

[Sea]

I believe it's correct as good :



https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/537/02/

Anyway, I think Workers' Struggles is correct. I mean you wouldn't say Woman Struggle, you would say Women's Struggles.No, you see, it's well. Your grammar is doing well, it's all well and grammar, this place is a veritable well of grammar.

[Devrim]

Language isn't... a thing that is 'right' or 'wrong'. It is (always) what people make it.

This is a very Anglophone point of view though. Many languages actually have some official organisation, which says what is right and wrong, such as 'L'Académie française', or the 'Türk Dil Kurumu'.

Devrim

[Blake's Baby]

Aye that may be true, it's said that English didn't so much borrow from other languages, as take them down a back ally and give them a good going over. It isn't very 'pure'.

But even in French you have <<le weekend>>, <<le camping>> and <<le MacDo>>. Trying to fix what is 'official' in a language is I think a pointless endevour, as people will speak in the way that is convenient for them to speak, no matter what official pronouncements say - to the point where in Norway for example, many people can't even read the official 'Bokmal' ('book tongue').

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This is a very Anglophone point of view though. Many languages actually have some official organisation, which says what is right and wrong, such as 'L'Académie française', or the 'Türk Dil Kurumu'.

Sure, but often (as is the case with Serbocroat in Croatia) the "official" variant doesn't match up to how people actually speak. It seems odd to say that the most common usage is "wrong" because some toff in a government (or quasi-government) office, usually with a nationalist agenda, says so.

[Devrim]

Aye that may be true, it's said that English didn't so much borrow from other languages, as take them down a back ally and give them a good going over. It isn't very 'pure'.

But even in French you have <<le weekend>>, <<le camping>> and <<le MacDo>>. Trying to fix what is 'official' in a language is I think a pointless endevour, as people will speak in the way that is convenient for them to speak, no matter what official pronouncements say - to the point where in Norway for example, many people can't even read the official 'Bokmal' ('book tongue').


Sure, but often (as is the case with Serbocroat in Croatia) the "official" variant doesn't match up to how people actually speak. It seems odd to say that the most common usage is "wrong" because some toff in a government (or quasi-government) office, usually with a nationalist agenda, says so.

Yes, they do do much nationalist nonsense. There was a particularly absurd word that they tried to replace 'otobüs' with in Turkish, and actually I think that 'Le Weekend' has been banned in France. Of course people still say it though.

They do also deal with the question of what is correct though. Should one say 'I ate something that made me ill' or 'I ate something what made me ill'. You hear both in the UK. Countries that have this governing body for the language also have a definite answer on which one is right. It's the difference between a prescriptive and a descriptive grammar.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Aye that may be true, it's said that English didn't so much borrow from other languages, as take them down a back ally and give them a good going over. It isn't very 'pure'.

But even in French you have <<le weekend>>, <<le camping>> and <<le MacDo>>. Trying to fix what is 'official' in a language is I think a pointless endevour, as people will speak in the way that is convenient for them to speak, no matter what official pronouncements say - to the point where in Norway for example, many people can't even read the official 'Bokmal' ('book tongue').


Sure, but often (as is the case with Serbocroat in Croatia) the "official" variant doesn't match up to how people actually speak. It seems odd to say that the most common usage is "wrong" because some toff in a government (or quasi-government) office, usually with a nationalist agenda, says so.

Yes, they do do much nationalist nonsense. There was a particularly absurd word that they tried to replace 'otobüs' with in Turkish, and actually I think that 'Le Weekend' has been banned in France. Of course people still say it though.

They do also deal with the question of what is correct though. Should one say 'I ate something that made me ill' or 'I ate something what made me ill'? You hear both in the UK. Countries that have this governing body for the language also have a definite answer on which one is right. It's the difference between a prescriptive and a descriptive grammar.

Devrim

[Tenka]

Aye that may be true, it's said that English didn't so much borrow from other languages, as take them down a back ally and give them a good going over. It isn't very 'pure'.


Damn straight it isn't. No language is, but English is... different. Worse somehow. When I was little I'd read a lot of words and pronounce them wrong because I knew not of their French origins and the special Frenchy pronunciation rules. Goddamned Normans.

Anyway, I didn't intend to start up the silly debate over the forum title again; merely to show that my position had some grammatical basis, though I did not know what it was when it mattered.