SneakyGuy101 on 18/9/2014 at 20:59
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
No need for the scare quotes, it actually is grammatically incorrect.
Well, hopefully you're better at DromEd than you are at English.
Hahaha of course I'm good at dromeding :joke:
Tannar on 18/9/2014 at 22:04
Quote Posted by Marbrien
I fear the development of a members' tendency to not read posts in their entirety...:cheeky:
Oops! You're right. Guilty as charged. :D
Quote Posted by Purgator
Except it isn't grammatically correct.
But "A Thieves' Pawn"
is grammatically correct. When in doubt about adjectives just ask a question such as "What kind of pawn is he?" Answer: "He's a thieves' pawn". There is nothing wrong with the grammar here.
Purgator on 19/9/2014 at 07:52
What kind of pawn is he? He's a thief's pawn. This is correct.
Not specifying any particular thief, implies that he could ply his trade with any number of thieves or individual thief.
You would use the indefinite article "a", because we don't know enough about the thief or his pawn.
We haven't been introduced.
All we can assume is that:
We know what a thief is.
We know what a pawn is.
A thief is in possession of a pawn.
What kind of pawn is he? He's the thieves' pawn.
Using "Thieves" would imply we have prior knowledge of their number.
In this case you we would use the definite article, "the".
All we can assume is that:
We know what a thief is.
We know what a pawn is.
We know a quantity of thieves are in possession of a pawn.
"A pawn for thieves" would work.
It would also work If there was such a thing as a thieve.
A thieve's pawn.
But there isn't.
So we can't.
Tannar on 19/9/2014 at 22:13
There isn't really anything wrong with what you're saying, it's just that you are hung up on the article and the article is irrelevant. It will change depending upon what is being described. Picture this scenario:
A man, perhaps a fence (or whatever you want), is used by a group of Thieves for their own ends. So in that case you would say that he was the pawn of those thieves. But then he got used by a different group of thieves for their own purposes as well and so he was then their pawn. Word got around that he was an easy mark and pretty soon he got a reputation and many different groups of thieves used him as their pawn. So he became a thieves' pawn. A pawn used by many different groups of thieves.
"A thieves' pawn" is correct in some scenarios, while "the thieves' pawn" would be correct in others. Or "a thief's pawn" or "the thief's pawn", etc. It just depends on what you are describing. All of the above are correct as far as grammar goes if they are used to describe the correct scenario.
SneakyGuy101 on 20/9/2014 at 03:48
Quote Posted by Tannar
There isn't really anything wrong with what you're saying, it's just that you are hung up on the article and the article is irrelevant. It will change depending upon what is being described. Picture this scenario:
A man, perhaps a fence (or whatever you want), is used by a group of Thieves for their own ends. So in that case you would say that he was the pawn of
those thieves. But then he got used by a different group of thieves for
their own purposes as well and so he was then
their pawn. Word got around that he was an easy mark and pretty soon he got a reputation and many different groups of thieves used him as their pawn. So he became a thieves' pawn. A pawn used by many different groups of thieves.
"A thieves' pawn" is correct in some scenarios, while "the thieves' pawn" would be correct in others. Or "a thief's pawn" or "the thief's pawn", etc. It just depends on what you are describing. All of the above are correct as far as grammar goes if they are used to describe the correct scenario.
It goes a lot like the situation you were talking about and is quite similar to it in the actual mission :sly:
downwinder on 20/9/2014 at 07:00
thieves pawn refers to cutty,as he was a pawn for garrett,at least in the om
there is a hammer guard who explains it in cragscleft to another hammer guard
cause block 4 might never sleep due to that thieves pawn cutty
one would think they never faced tribulation in there lives :)
SneakyGuy101 on 20/9/2014 at 07:45
Quote Posted by downwinder
thieves pawn refers to cutty,as he was a pawn for garrett,at least in the om
there is a hammer guard who explains it in cragscleft to another hammer guard
cause block 4 might never sleep due to that thieves pawn cutty
one would think they never faced tribulation in there lives :)
It's also sorta like that one too except a different fence, one from Thief 3 ;)
Old and Cunning on 20/9/2014 at 16:46
Quote Posted by Tannar
If that was the intended meaning, then it would be: A Thieves' Pawn. You'd need the apostrophe. But while this is grammatically correct, it wouldn't be common usage.
I can't imagine what else would constitute "common usage" as there is no other correct way to write it. "Thieve" by itself with no "s" is a verb (I thieve), so simply adding an "s" leaves it a verb (she thieves) or a plural of thief (a bunch of thieves). Placing the apostrophe before the "s" creates indeterminate nonsense (sorry!) that is correct in neither context. A noun or adjective that ends in "s" gets the apostrophe after the "s" in every circumstance that I can think of. Forgive me for jumping in on this but I do language for a living and can't leave any error uncorrected. It's a sick compulsion. :)
SneakyGuy101 on 20/9/2014 at 17:03
Why is my incorrect grammar such a big deal *cries in corner* :laff:
fortuni on 20/9/2014 at 17:38
Don't you worry about your grammar sneaky....just you carry on working to deliver yet another superb mission and all will be forgiven :D
