simple question from a drunk person

i'm writing a paper, and i need your help.. which sentence is the correct one to use:

1) should dave warn upper management about bob and ryan's intentions?

2) should dave warn upper management about bob's and ryan's intentions?

I'm thinking it's option #1, but i'm not sure...

please help!

i'm writing a paper, and i need your help.. which sentence is the correct one to use:

1) should dave warn upper management about bob and ryan's intentions?

2) should dave warn upper management about bob's and ryan's intentions?

I'm thinking it's option #1, but i'm not sure...

please help!

bminns

Well, the intentions are those of "Bob" and "Ryan", rather than being the intentions of "Bob and Ryan".

[QUOTE="bminns"]

i'm writing a paper, and i need your help.. which sentence is the correct one to use:

1) should dave warn upper management about bob and ryan's intentions?

2) should dave warn upper management about bob's and ryan's intentions?

I'm thinking it's option #1, but i'm not sure...

please help!

MrGeezer

Well, the intentions are those of "Bob" and "Ryan", rather than being the intentions of "Bob and Ryan".

i see what you're saying, but are one of the options correct? if they're both not correct, how could i reword this?

Neither. You need to capitalize the first letter of the sentence. :)

Then I would choose option #1.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="bminns"]

i'm writing a paper, and i need your help.. which sentence is the correct one to use:

1) should dave warn upper management about bob and ryan's intentions?

2) should dave warn upper management about bob's and ryan's intentions?

I'm thinking it's option #1, but i'm not sure...

please help!

bminns

Well, the intentions are those of "Bob" and "Ryan", rather than being the intentions of "Bob and Ryan".

i see what you're saying, but are one of the options correct? if they're both not correct, how could i reword this?

I don't know, man. I THINK that number two is correct, but then again, I never have been big on reading and grammar and ****. So whatever I have to say, take it with a huge grain of salt.

But I THINK that #2 is right. Because what we are really talking about are "intentions", and those intentions belong to Bob and Ryan (which makes them "Bob's and Ryan's intentions").

By contrast, #1 makes it seem like you are concerned about Ryan's intentions, but are also just concerned about Bob in general. I mean, take the claim that you are concerned about "Bob and Ryan's intentions." That implies that there are two things that you are concerned about. You're concerned about Bob. You are also concerned about Ryan's intentions. But Bob has nothing to do with Ryan's intentions. And you are not really concerned about Bob's intentions, you're just generally concerned about Bob. And furthermore, if "Bob" and "Ryan's intentions" are different and distinct concerns, then you ought to be able to flip that around and say that you are concerned about "Ryan's intentions and Bob." Once you flip the two parts around, does the meaning change? If so, then I think that #1 is wrong.

[QUOTE="bminns"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Well, the intentions are those of "Bob" and "Ryan", rather than being the intentions of "Bob and Ryan".

MrGeezer

i see what you're saying, but are one of the options correct? if they're both not correct, how could i reword this?

I don't know, man. I THINK that number two is correct, but then again, I never have been big on reading and grammar and ****. So whatever I have to say, take it with a huge grain of salt.

But I THINK that #2 is right. Because what we are really talking about are "intentions", and those intentions belong to Bob and Ryan (which makes them "Bob's and Ryan's intentions").

By contrast, #1 makes it seem like you are concerned about Ryan's intentions, but are also just concerned about Bob in general. I mean, take the claim that you are concerned about "Bob and Ryan's intentions." That implies that there are two things that you are concerned about. You're concerned about Bob. You are also concerned about Ryan's intentions. But Bob has nothing to do with Ryan's intentions. And you are not really concerned about Bob's intentions, you're just generally concerned about Bob. And furthermore, if "Bob" and "Ryan's intentions" are different and distinct concerns, then you ought to be able to flip that around and say that you are concerned about "Ryan's intentions and Bob." Once you flip the two parts around, does the meaning change? If so, then I think that #1 is wrong.

i see what you're saying.. i'm thinking #2 is correct, because it's not just ryan's intentions, but bob's intentions as well.. so it has to be bob's and ryan's intentions... that seems like the answer, but when you say it out loud it just doesn't sound right.. bob and ryan's intentions sounds better, but now i'm thinking #2 is correct

Number one seems to roll off the tongue better. Luncbox1

I agree entirely that #1 rolls off the tongue better. The only thing is that, at least from my point of view, #1 isn't actually saying the same thing as #2. And with that in mind, I still have to side with #2, because #2 seems to be more consistent with the point that the TC is actually trying to get across.

But again, like I said, I very well be wrong. I'm certainly no expert on the english language.

it should be ryans, not ryan's, correct?

ryan's is a contraction (ryan is). ryans is a possessive pronoun (of ryan, belongs to ryan).

example

my suggestion would be 'bob and ryans intentions.' i believe the plural falls on the last subject in examples like this. 'bobs and ryans' is just awkward and redundant.

correct me if you think i'm wrong.

I'd go with #2 for this reason: in 1 it can be taken that dave is going to warn management of bob and ryan's intentions, in other words dave will warn management of bob (whatever bob is going to do) and ryan's intentions. Bob is just a person here, he has no attatchment to the intentions. Bob's and Ryan's intentions though makes more sense, since they are the intentions of Bob and Ryan.

it should be ryans, not ryan's, correct?

ryan's is a contraction (ryan is). ryans is a possessive pronoun (of ryan, belongs to ryan).

example

my suggestion would be 'bob and ryans intentions.' i believe the plural falls on the last subject in examples like this. 'bobs and ryans' is just awkward and redundant.

correct me if you think i'm wrong.

3picuri3

it should be ryans, not ryan's, correct?

ryan's is a contraction (ryan is). ryans is a possessive pronoun (of ryan, belongs to ryan).

example

my suggestion would be 'bob and ryans intentions.' i believe the plural falls on the last subject in examples like this. 'bobs and ryans' is just awkward and redundant.

correct me if you think i'm wrong.

3picuri3

From wikipedia Joint and separate possession A distinction is made between joint possession (Jason and Sue's emails: the emails between Jason and Sue, or from them jointly) and separate possession (Jason's and Sue's emails: the emails of Jason and the emails of Sue). Style guides differ only in how much detail they provide concerning these.[3] Their consensus: in joint possession only the last possessor has possessive inflection; in separate possession all the possessors have possessive inflection. But if any of the possessors is indicated by a pronoun, then for both joint and separate possession all of the possessors have possessive inflection (His and her emails; His, her, and Anthea's emails; Jason's and her emails; His and Sue's emails; His and Sue's wedding; His and Sue's weddings). so it depends are the intentions the same or do they ahve different intentionsPoedon

Hmm, well, I guess it turns out that I was wrong (not necessarily as far as which one is correct, but either way it looks like my reasoning was just plain wrong).

So..."oops".