Re: CHAT: which's

Nik Taylor wrote:

>David Barrow wrote:
>>
>> My watch's broken
>> Rich's standing over there
>>
>> Which doesn't make which's any more grammatical
>
>Does your dialect really permit those constructions?  I'd say "My watch
>is broken", "Rich is standing over there".  "Is" cannot contract to -'s
>after "ch", "j", "s" or "z", essentially the same environment that
>requires -es as the plural instead of -s.
I've used both of these before, written just as David wrote them, but still
pronounce them [wAtS@z], [r\ItS@z], which is also how I'd usually
pronounce "watch is", "Rich is" in quick speech.
Think of it the same as the posessive of "Rich", which is "Rich's" [r\ItS@z]

M