dutchbarge Posted 21 May , 2011 Share Posted 21 May , 2011 Hello, In all of the references I have seen the uniform worn by officers is described as OFFICERS Service Dress. As a point of grammar I would have thought that OFFICER'S Service Dress would be correct. Am I missing something or has the non-possessive spelling just passed into common use with time? When describing a particular officer's jacket which would be more appropriate, Colonel Blimp's officer's/officers service dress jacket or, as we know he is an officer by the Colonel before his name, Colonel Blimp's service dress jacket. Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 21 May , 2011 Share Posted 21 May , 2011 The third option is, of course, Officers'. Depends whether you mean a jacket belonging to an officer (so Officer's), or to a group of officers (Officers'). In the example you give, I would think it perfectly self-evident that it is an officer's-style jacket; I would identify it were the good Colonel wearing a Tommy's jacket Personally, to answer the question, I would say Officer's, as we are describing a jacket worn by AN officer, of a pattern worn by all officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 21 May , 2011 Share Posted 21 May , 2011 Hello, In all of the references I have seen the uniform worn by officers is described as OFFICERS Service Dress. As a point of grammar I would have thought that OFFICER'S Service Dress would be correct. I am I missing something or has the non-possessive spelling just passed into common use with time? When describing a particular officer's jacket which would be more appropriate, Colonel Blimp's officer's/officers service dress jacket or, as we know he is an officer by the Colonel before his name, Colonel Blimp's service dress jacket. Cheers, Bill As there are more than one officer for whom the dress would be appropriate - would it not be "Officers'[plural possessive] Service Dress" when referring to the style of jacket (worn by all officers) rather than a garment belonging to a particular individual? Perhaps the whole question could be avoided by using the sort of format on some later labels. Service Dress: Officers (for the use of) Chris OOPS snap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wainfleet Posted 21 May , 2011 Share Posted 21 May , 2011 Perhaps the whole question could be avoided by using the sort of format on some later labels. Service Dress: Officers (for the use of)Chris I think it's this usage but "Officers" has been moved to the front of the phrase for some reason, perhaps because it's simpler to say. If that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 21 May , 2011 Share Posted 21 May , 2011 Hello, In all of the references I have seen the uniform worn by officers is described as OFFICERS Service Dress. As a point of grammar I would have thought that OFFICER'S Service Dress would be correct. I am I missing something or has the non-possessive spelling just passed into common use with time? When describing a particular officer's jacket which would be more appropriate, Colonel Blimp's officer's/officers service dress jacket or, as we know he is an officer by the Colonel before his name, Colonel Blimp's service dress jacket. Cheers, Bill The use of apostrophes seems to have fallen into disuse in much nomenclature, but within the Army we would still try to abide by the form mentioned by 4th Gordons and only use the possessive to relate to the officer who is named, as in - Major Jones's, Officers' (as in pattern) Service Dress jacket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piorun Posted 21 May , 2011 Share Posted 21 May , 2011 Officers' Service Dress - unless prefixed by an or the. Antony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 21 May , 2011 Share Posted 21 May , 2011 Officers' Service Dress - unless prefixed by an or the. Antony I agree with "an" but not "the". It could still be correct to say "the officers' (as in pattern for all) service dress". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 21 May , 2011 Share Posted 21 May , 2011 Officers used as an adjective to characterise the object. Officer's belonging to a particular officer and officers' belonging to a group of officers. The different words are not exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 21 May , 2011 Share Posted 21 May , 2011 Officers used as an adjective to characterise the object. Officer's belonging to a particular officer and officers' belonging to a group of officers. The different words are not exclusive. Precisely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchbarge Posted 22 May , 2011 Author Share Posted 22 May , 2011 Thank you all for your help. It seems pretty straightforward grammar. Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 22 May , 2011 Share Posted 22 May , 2011 Thank you all for your help. It seems pretty straightforward grammar. Cheers, Bill Unless you are a British Greengrocer and constitutionally obliged to misplace your apostrophes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 22 May , 2011 Share Posted 22 May , 2011 Unless you are a British Greengrocer and constitutionally obliged to misplace your apostrophes. Tread carefully, all of them greengrocer's is hero's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piorun Posted 22 May , 2011 Share Posted 22 May , 2011 I agree with "an" but not "the". It could still be correct to say "the officers' (as in pattern for all) service dress". Fine point taken. Would the capitalisation change that? Antony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FROGSMILE Posted 22 May , 2011 Share Posted 22 May , 2011 Fine point taken. Would the capitalisation change that? Antony I don't think so, but then I would not consider myself in any way an expert on the finer points of grammar. All I can say with certainty is that what I quoted is certainly how it is used within the Service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now