# data[].attributes.body
1.https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/business-english/business-magazine

2.https://www.bbc.com/news/world

3. https://www.newscientist.com/

4. https://www.economist.com/

5.https://www.nationalgeographic.com/

6.https://socialnewsdaily.com/

7.https://www.the-scientist.com/

8.http://historynewsnetwork.org/

9.https://www.bbc.com/

10.https://www.inspirational-short-stories.com/funny-short-stories.html

# data[].attributes.headline
Supplementary Lesson 1 : Posessive Pronouns

# data[].attributes.subject
Supplementary Lesson 1 : Posessive Pronouns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS | English grammar lesson and exercise

# data[].attributes.headline
Supplementary Lesson 2 : History of Quotation Marks

# data[].attributes.subject
Supplementary Lesson 2 : History of Quotation Marks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Andrew Heisel's Lexicon Valley article last year on single versus double quotation marks piqued the interest of Keith Houston, author of Shady Characters: The Secret Life of Punctuation, Symbols, and Other Typographical Marks. What follows is a condensed and updated extract from his book on the origins of the quotation mark and the confusion between its single and double variants.
* * *

The punctuation mark is a storied character. Its family tree extends all the way back to the second century B.C., when its earliest ancestor sprang into being at the ancient Library of Alexandria. The so-called diple, or "double," was an arrow-shaped character (>) named for the two strokes of the pen required to draw it, and it was just one of a clutch of proofreading marks devised by a librarian named Aristarchus to help edit and clarify the library's holdings. Aristarchus drew inspiration from his predecessor Zenodotus, who had created the first such mark a century earlier: by marking superfluous lines of text with marginal dashes, or lines (-), Zenodotus had invented the field of literary criticism quite literally at a stroke. Named for the Greek obelos, or "roasting spit," the image of a dash transfixing erroneous text was later said to be "like an arrow, [which] slays the superfluous and pierces the false."

Finding the obelos to be necessary but not sufficient to the task at hand, Aristarchus took Zenodotus's dash and created an array of additional symbols to aid his work. The obelos reprised its role of marking spurious lines, but Aristarchus allied it with a new symbol called the asteriskos, or "little star." Alone, the dotted, star-like glyph (※) called out material that had been mistakenly duplicated; together with an obelos, it marked a line that belonged elsewhere in the text at hand. Lastly, Aristarchus placed diples alongside lines that contained noteworthy text, while the diple's dolled-up sibling, the diple periestigmene (⸖), or "dotted diple," was used to mark passages where he differed with the reading of other critics.

The diple's pointed shape belied its use as a comparatively blunt instrument. Highlighting anything from an engaging turn of phrase to some notable historical incident, the cryptic diple bore mute witness to whatever lay in the text. There is something of interest here, the diple announced, but you must find it for yourself. Even handicapped by this vague remit, however, the diple stuck around. Some ancient scribes preferred to indent or outdent notable lines, but for many others the diple remained the pre-eminent means of calling out important text.

* * *

As valuable as Aristarchus' critical marks had been to the pagan Greeks, they were of even greater importance to the new Christian establishment. The "Fathers of the Church" sought to clarify and disseminate the words of God's Son and his greatest disciples, and so the asteriskos, obelos, and diple were all pressed into service in the name of the new religion. In the process, the diple's use as a jack-of-all-trades was honed to a fine point: under Christianity, Aristarchus' mark would gain a meaning worthy of its form.

The volume of literature produced by and for Christians exploded along with the spread of the Church. Roughly 1 in 50 of all known second-century Western manuscripts are of Christian origin, but by the eighth century the ratio had risen to a staggering 4 out of every 5. Authors praised, commented upon, and attacked each other's work, supporting their arguments with liberal quotations from the Bible-and what symbol could be more appropriate to the marking of this most noteworthy of texts than the familiar diple? By the time St. Isidore of Seville came to write about punctuation in his encyclopedic seventh-century book Etymologies, his description of the diple could be curt and unambiguous: "Our scribes place [the diple] in books of churchmen to separate or make clear the citations of Sacred Scriptures."

Within the growing corpus of Christian writing, the diple branched out into roles beyond that of a marker of Biblical quotations. In a fifth-century manuscript titled Apology Against Jerome, a scholar named Rufinus of Aquileia berated his one-time friend and ally St. Jerome for subscribing to and later repudiating certain controversial beliefs. Then, as now, flip-flopping was not admired, and Rufinus was incensed by Jerome's self-serving changes of heart. Taking care to distinguish his own words from those of his craven opponent, Rufinus wrote in his introduction that

In order that the insertions I am now making in this work from elsewhere may cause no confusion to the reader, they have single marks at the beginnings of the lines if they are mine and double ones if they are my opponent's.

The "marks" Rufinus spoke of were diples, deployed singly or doubled up (>>) to distinguish between extracts from his own, earlier works, and those of Jerome. Readers who recall the early days of the Internet may find Rufinus' doubled diple familiar: denizens of early online bulletin boards often used right-pointing angle brackets at the start of quoted lines to indicate the level of the reply. For instance:

>> Hello, how are you?

> I'm fine. How are you?

I'm also fine.

Though the diple kept its special place in Christian writing (and hence, in writing in general), it was buffeted over the centuries by successive leaps in scribal practices. Latin succeeded Greek as the language of record in the West; papyrus scrolls gave way to paged parchment books; and lowercase "minuscule" letters muscled in on traditional uppercase "majuscule" scripts. Amongst all this upheaval, the diple spawned an increasing variety of successors: by degrees, a series of "corrupt" or "debased" diples (to use the sniffy terminology of Patrick McGurk, a learned twentieth century chronicler of early citation marks) began to appear in its stead. Some writers decorated the traditional ">" with a dot in the wedge between their pen strokes, while other manuscripts of French origin rotated this form to yield a V-shaped mark that cradled the dot in upraised arms. Other writers played with the arrow-like form of the diple itself, creating alternative symbols that resembling the letters s or r, along with curved marks reminiscent of the modern comma. Curiously, Britain alone used a distinctively Anglo-Saxon variant consisting of two dots and a comma-like mark (..,).

By the close of the eighth century the plain old ">" was nowhere to be seen, and for the next seven centuries manuscripts hosted a messy riot of imposters acting in its place. Only the arrival of printing could deliver the defibrillating jolt necessary to bring this ragtag army of "debased" diples into line.

* * *

Writing and punctuation were fundamentally and permanently changed by the invention of movable type. Time-consuming luxuries such as hand-painted illustrations and elaborate, decorative marks of punctuation fell victim to the economies of scale enabled by this new means of production. The marking of quotations was affected too, and deeply so: For some reason that has never been fully understood, early printers were reluctant to cut punches for the diple or its divergent ranks of descendants and so the earliest printed books relied on a battery of temporary measures for marking quoted text. Quotations were rendered in alternative typefaces, enclosed in parentheses, or called out by means of nontypographic methods such as verbs of speaking. Some books, such as Gutenberg's own Bible, did not bother to distinguish quotations at all.

But then, at the start of the 16 th century, the diple was rebooted. The army of divergent handwritten diples was replaced, en masse and overnight, by simple double commas (,,). Derived from the slanted virgule (/), used to indicate a brief pause, the comma in its modern form was a relative newcomer in the world of punctuation, and its adoption by printers in lieu of the diple seems to be entirely without precedent. It was as though some anonymous printer had one day reached into a type case and pulled out the first mark that resembled a softened, curved diple-and that every printer afterward had slavishly mimicked them.

Tentatively at first, but with increasing assertiveness, the double comma made itself known in the new body of printed work. Published in 1525, Bishop John Fisher's Defensio Regie Assertionis contra Babylonicam Capituitatem (roughly, Defense of the King's Assertion against the Babylonian Captivity)-a short book with a long title, and one written in the finest traditions of internecine theological squabbling-provides a snapshot of the comma's early usage as a quotation mark. In Fisher's screed, doubled commas hung in the margin indicated lines containing quoted text, though not precisely where on those lines the quotation began or ended. Unlike the inward-pointing diple, Fisher's commas were oriented so that they "opened" toward the text: Commas in the outer margin of right-hand pages were set as normal (,,), but those on left-hand pages were rotated by 180 degrees ( "). Though the name would not be coined for another 250 years, the "inverted comma" had been born.

Despite the mostly familiar appearance of the quotation marks in Defensio, their usage was still in flux. Fisher used these double commas to indicate statements made by his opponent Martin Luther, but quotations from other sources (notably England's King Henry VIII, in whose defense the book had been written in the first place) received no special treatment other than a parenthesized ( inquit), or "he said." Most tellingly, the scriptural quotations that were once the diple's bread and butter were equally undistinguished. In the new humanist world, religion was beginning to lose its grip.

* * *

As the 16 th century wore on, printers experimented with other methods of setting quoted material. The 1549 edition of a French book entitled Champ Fleury, for instance, set Latin quotations in italics, creating a precedent for later books to employ quotation marks or italics to call out text that their authors felt was worthy of note. The marking of such "gnomic utterances or sententiae"-weighty, proverbial or otherwise notable aphorisms-was immensely popular among readers and writers of the time: Writers had sententiae rendered in italic type or called out by quotation marks, while readers annotated them with symbols like the manicule (☞) or copied them into "commonplace books" for later reference. When a modern writer italicizes a word or words that they consider to be of particular importance, they are echoing a very old practice indeed.

There was, at the same time, a growing awareness of the distinction between the different kinds of quotations a writer might employ. John Whitgift's deliriously titled 1574 book The defense of the answere to the admonition against the reply by T[homas] C[artwright] was stuffed with sententiae, general quotations, and points to be refuted, and he gave each one a different typographic treatment-yet somehow managed to do without quotations marks altogether. The author's words were set in gothic script, while those of his opponents appeared in smaller letters in the same style; Latin quotations were rendered in italic and their translations in roman, as were references to scripture. Whitgift's pathological avoidance of the quotation mark was not unique: The first printed editions of Shakespeare's plays, published a few decades later, also made do without quotation marks. Where one character repeated the words of another, either the Bard or his printers had seen fit to use a simple colon or comma to introduce the quotation.

Then, around the end of the 16 th century, quotation marks took two significant steps toward their modern form. First, inverted commas moved from their splendid isolation in the margin into the main body of the text itself, taking up station at the leftmost edge of each line in a quotation. The second breakthrough came in 1574, when a book of cautionary poems called The Mirour for Magistrates first used quotation marks to indicate direct speech:

" O queane (quoth shee) that cause of warres hast beene,
" And deadly ate, the like was neuer seen.
" Come on, for these my handes shall ridde thy life,
" And take reuengement of our mortall strife

Perhaps skeptical of the average reader's critical faculties, and unable to use the inverted comma in its diple-esque role of inviting especial attention to a line, the printers of the later 1587 edition took the precautionary measure of prefixing pithy nuggets of wisdom with five-pointed stars. On occasion, these typographic stars were in alignment with quotations of direct speech:

" Bee faithfull all: as brethren ought agree :
" For ★ concord keeps a Realme in stable stay:
" But discord brings all kingdomes to decay.

Unfortunately, the Mirour 's use of quotation marks in this way was a false dawn. The dizzying array of quotation marks, italics, and other typographic distinctions remained, with little sign of agreement on standard conventions of use. Handwritten documents, too, mirrored the indecision displayed by printed works: Direct and reported speech could be signaled by any one of a number of competing techniques such as virgules, underlining, or verbs of speaking, with inverted commas largely reserved for sententious remarks. The confused jungle of quotation methods had grown unruly once again.

* * *

When the inevitable pruning came, it originated in the 18 th century's newest form of literature, the novel. Eschewing the paraphrased, reported speech favored in earlier romances, the new breed of novelists presented readers with their characters' unvarnished words, and with this new directness came a need to separate speech from narration.

Experimentation with new methods of setting dialogue accelerated. The 1765 edition of Defoe's Moll Flanders indicated changes in speaker with paragraph breaks, though marginal inverted commas were retained for the occasional sententious quotation, which were also indented to further distinguish them from the body of the text. The 1748 edition of Samuel Richardson's epistolary novel Clarissa also clung to traditional, per-line quotation marks when quoting from letters, though it made intermittent use of a new innovation: a single opening quotation mark (') was sometimes placed at the exact point at which a quotation began, with a pioneering "mark of silence," or closing quotation mark ('), bookending quotations where they ended. For spoken dialogue, however, Richardson preferred to separate speakers with dashes or new lines. The early part of the eighteenth century also saw the words of alternate speakers set in roman and italic typefaces, while some works took the brute-force approach of presenting dialogue as stage play-like scripts, with each spoken line introduced by its speaker's name.

Gradually, the wayward scrum of previous centuries began to converge on a recognizably modern style. Samuel Richardson's practice of explicitly opening and closing quotations was imitated in other works, and by the end of the eighteenth century marginal quotation marks had largely disappeared in favor of economical opening and closing marks. Verbs of speaking retreated first to parentheses within the dialogue itself and were later ejected from quoted speech entirely to lie between separate quotations, as demonstrated in The history of Eliza Warwick, an anonymous novel published in 1778:

'Yes,' answered I, 'but I will soon follow you-your Huntley shall protect you in the unknown world you are launching into-he shall be your safeguard, your attendant, ever.' "No," cried she, with a firm voice, "no, I charge thee [...]"

Not everything was settled yet. This quotation from Eliza Warwick highlights the problem that Andrew Heisel broached in the pages of this esteemed organ back in October: what were printers to do when both single and double quotes were available? Double commas had become so prevalent by the time Eliza Warwick was printed that type foundries usually cast them on single blocks of lead, making it easier to typeset a quotation than with pairs of individual commas, but precisely how these newly minted marks should interact with their singular siblings was still up for grabs. Eliza Warwick alternated between single and double quotes to differentiate between speakers in a dialogue; The Sorrows of the Heart, a contemporary work, used them instead to distinguish between direct and reported speech.
Excerpted and updated from Follow @lexiconvalley on Twitter and on Facebook. Shady Characters: The Secret Life of Punctuation, Symbols, and Other Typographical Marks. Copyright © 2013 by Keith Houston. With permission of the publisher, W. W. Norton & Co. Inc. All rights reserved.
Finally, as the 18 th century rolled over into the nineteenth, the growing pains of the double comma began to subside. Printers on both sides of the Atlantic had largely agreed on a practice of enclosing quoted text with matching pairs of opening and closing marks (" "), while the marginal marks that once followed quotations onto new lines were increasingly considered anachronistic. Direct speech, too, was now enclosed by double marks, with reported speech set off by their singular equivalents (' '). Lastly, technical terms, ironic statements, and words as themselves-almost anything worthy of being quarantined from regular text, really-were most often set in exculpatory double quotes. Mr. Heisel's favored pattern had been set: For everything bar reported speech, it was double quotes or nothing.

But trouble was brewing across the pond. For much of the past century, British writers and printers have set speech in precisely the opposite way to their American counterparts: direct speech in books published in the United Kingdom is most often enclosed by single inverted commas, with double quotes relegated to reported speech. It may have been that "Scotch" printers were responsible for introducing this deviation from the norm, as the English printer Henry Beadnell surmised in his 1859 Guide to Typography, but wherever this reversal of polarities had originated it went on to become standard practice in almost all British writing. Perhaps not unrelatedly, British writers have also historically tended to set technical terms, ironic statements, and the like in single quotes. All in all, the current confusion in American writing, as lamented by Mr. Heisel, bears more than a passing resemblance to established British practice.

There may yet be hope of reconciliation. Of late, Britain's contrarian speech marks seem to be reverting to the once and future norm, and perhaps its 'technical' terms will one day do the same. Until that day arrives, take heart that whether you prefer single or double quotation marks, someone, somewhere, will be in agreement with you. The quotation mark, in both its guises, is still in rude health.

* * *

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Long and Fascinating History of Quotation Marks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Andrew Heisel's Lexicon Valley article last year on single versus double quotation marks piqued the interest of Keith Houston, author of Shady Characters: The Secret Life of Punctuation, Symbols, and Other Typographical Marks . What follows is a condensed and updated extract from his book on the origins of the quotation mark and the confusion between its single and double variants.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Due to COVID19 pandemic, all IEP classes will be conducted online.
2. There will be NO FINAL EXAMINATION for this intake.
3. The course is 100% COURSEWORK.
4. Students will be accessed via their weekly tasks starting Week 3 (please refer to the Outline)

# data[].attributes.headline
Supplementary Lesson 3 : Quotation Marks

# data[].attributes.subject
Supplementary Lesson 3 : Quotation Marks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Grammar & Punctuation : Teaching Quotation Marks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When teaching quotation marks, explains that quotations are most frequently used around quoted material, certain types of titles and words when the subject is discussing a specific word. Put commas and periods inside of quotations, but keep colons and semicolons outside of the quotes with information from a writer and English tutor in this free video on grammar and punctuation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supplementary Lesson 4 : Possessive Nouns

# data[].attributes.subject
Supplementary Lesson 4 : Possessive Nouns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Forming Possessives

Showing possession in English is a relatively easy matter (believe it or not). By adding an apostrophe and an s we can manage to transform most singular nouns into their possessive form:

the car's front seat

Charles's car

Bartkowski's book

a hard day's work

Some writers will say that the -s after Charles' is not necessary and that adding only the apostrophe (Charles' car) will suffice to show possession. Consistency is the key here: if you choose not to add the -s after a noun that already ends in s, do so consistently throughout your text. William Strunk's Elements of Style recommends adding the 's. (In fact, oddly enough, it's Rule Number One in Strunk's "Elementary Rules of Usage.") You will find that some nouns, especially proper nouns, especially when there are other -s and -z sounds involved, turn into clumsy beasts when you add another s: "That's old Mrs. Chambers's estate." In that case, you're better off with "Mrs. Chambers' estate."

There is another way around this problem of klunky possessives: using the "of phrase" to show possession. For instance, we would probably say the "constitution of Illinois," as opposed to "Illinois' (or Illinois's ??) constitution."

To answer that question about Illinois, you should know that most words that end in an unpronounced "s" form their possessive by adding an apostrophe + s. So we would write about "Illinois's next governor" and "Arkansas's former governor" and "the Marine Corps's policy." However, many non-English words that end with a silent "s" or "x" will form their possessives with only an apostrophe. So we would write "Alexander Dumas' first novel" and "this bordeaux' bouquet." According to the New York Public Library's Guide to Style and Usage, there are "certain expressions that end in s or the s sound that traditionally require an apostrophe only: for appearance' sake, for conscience' sake, for goodness' sake" (268). Incidentally, the NYPL Guide also suggests that when a word ends in a double s, we're better off writing its possessive with only an apostrophe: the boss' memo, the witness' statement. Many writers insist, however, that we actually hear an "es" sound attached to the possessive forms of these words, so an apostrophe -s is appropriate: boss's memo, witness's statement. If the look of the three s's in a row doesn't bother you, use that construction.

When we want the possessive of a pluralized family name, we pluralize first and then simply make the name possessive with the use of an apostrophe. Thus, we might travel in the Smiths' car when we visit the Joneses (members of the Jones family) at the Joneses' home. When the last name ends in a hard "z" sound, we usually don't add an "s" or the "-es" and simply add the apostrophe: "the Chambers' new baby."

Many writers consider it bad form to use apostrophe -s possessives with pieces of furniture and buildings or inanimate objects in general. Instead of "the desk's edge" (according to many authorities), we should write "the edge of the desk" and instead of "the hotel's windows" we should write "the windows of the hotel." In fact, we would probably avoid the possessive altogether and use the noun as an attributive: "the hotel windows." This rule (if, in fact, it is one) is no longer universally endorsed. We would not say "the radio of that car" instead of "that car's radio" (or the "car radio") and we would not write "the desire of my heart" instead of "my heart's desire." Writing "the edge of the ski" would probably be an improvement over "the ski's edge," however.

For expressions of time and measurement, the possessive is shown with an apostrophe-s: "one dollar's worth," "two dollars' worth," "a hard day's night," "two years' experience," "an evening's entertainment," and "two weeks' notice" (the title of the Hollywood movie nothwithstanding).

Remember that personal pronouns create special problems in the formation of possessives. See the chart of Noun and Pronoun Cases.

Possessives & Gerunds

Possessive forms are frequently modifiers for verb forms used as nouns, or gerunds. Using the possessive will affect how we read the sentence. For instance, "I'm worried about Joe running in the park after dark" means that I'm worried about Joe and the fact that he runs in the park after dark (the word "running" is a present participle modifying Joe). On the other hand, "I'm worried about Joe's running in the park after dark" puts the emphasis on the running that Joe is doing ("running" is a gerund, and "Joe's" modifies that verbal). Usually, almost always in fact, we use the possessive form of a noun or pronoun to modify a gerund. More is involved, however. Click HERE for further information about using the possessive form with gerunds.

Possessives versus Adjectival Labels

Don't confuse an adjectival label (sometimes called an "attributive noun") ending in s with the need for a possessive. Sometimes it's not easy to tell which is which. Do you attend a writers' conference or a writers conference? If it's a group of writers attending a conference, you want the plural ending, writers. If the conference actually belongs to the writers, then you'd want the possessive form, writers'. If you can insert another modifer between the -s word and whatever it modifies, you're probably dealing with a possessive. Additional modifiers will also help determine which form to use.

Patriots quarterback Drew Bledsoe threw three touchdown passes. (plural as modifier)

The Patriots' [new] quarterback, Drew Bledsoe, threw three touchdown passes. (possessive as modifier]

Possessives of Plurals & Irregular Plurals

Most plural nouns already end in s. To create their possessive, simply add an apostrophe after the s:

The Pepins' house is the big blue one on the corner.

The lions' usual source of water has dried up.

The gases' odors mixed and became nauseating.

The witches' brooms were hidden in the corner.

The babies' beds were all in a row.

With nouns whose plurals are irregular (see Plurals), however, you will need to add an apostrophe followed by an s to create the possessive form.

She plans on opening a women's clothing boutique.

Children's programming is not a high priority.

The geese's food supply was endangered.

(But with words that do not change their form when pluralized, you will have to add an -s or -es.)

The seaweed was destroyed by the fishes' overfeeding.

Holidays Showing Possession

A number of American Holidays have possessive forms, and are peculiarly inconsistent. "Mother's Day" and "Father's Day" are easy enough, one parent at a time, and "Parents' Day" is nicely pluralized, as is "Presidents' Day" which celebrates the birthdays of both Washington and Lincoln. "All Souls' Day (Halloween)," of course, takes a plural possessive. "Veterans Day" is plural but not possessive, for historical reasons shrouded in mystery. Martin Luther King Jr. Day has no possessive. "New Year's Day," "St. Valentine's Day," St. Patrick's Day," and "April Fool's Day" all have their singular prossessive form, and so, while we're at it, does "Season's Greetings." Note that "Daylight Saving Time" is neither possessive nor plural.

Compound Possessives

When you are showing possession with compounded nouns, the apostrophe's placement depends on whether the nouns are acting separately or together.

Miguel's and Cecilia's new cars are in the parking lot.
This means that each of them has at least one new car and that their ownership is a separate matter.

Miguel and Cecilia's new cars are in the parking lot.
This construction tells us that Miguel and Cecilia share ownership of these cars. The possessive (indicated by's) belongs to the entire phrase, not just to Cecilia.

Another example:

Lewis and Clark's expectations were very much the same.
This construction tells us that the two gentlemen held one set of expectations in common.

Lewis's and Clark's expectations were altogether different.
This means that the expectations of the two men were different (rather obvious from what the sentence says, too). We signify separate ownership by writing both of the compounded proper nouns in the possessive form.

When one of the possessors in a compound possessive is a personal pronoun, we have to put both possessors in the possessive form or we end up with something silly: "Bill and my car had to be towed last night."

Bill's and my car had to be towed last night.

Giorgio's and her father was not around much during their childhood.

If this second sentence seems unsatisfactory, you might have to do some rewriting so you end up talking about their father, instead, or revert to using both names: "Giorgio and Isabel's father wasn't around much . . . ." (and then "Giorgio" will lose the apostrophe + s).

Possessives & Compound Constructions

This is different from the problem we confront when creating possessives with compound constructions such as daughter-in-law and friend of mine. Generally, the apostrophe -s is simply added to the end of the compound structure: my daughter-in-law's car, a friend of mine's car. If this sounds clumsy, use the "of" construction to avoid the apostrophe: the car of a friend of mine, etc. This is especially useful in pluralized compound structures: the daughters-in-law's car sounds quite strange, but it's correct. We're better off with the car of the daughters-in-law. See the section on Compound Nouns and Modifiers for additional help.

Possessives with Appositive Forms

When a possessive noun is followed by an appositive, a word that renames or explains that noun, the apostrophe +s is added to the appositive, not to the noun. When this happens, we drop the comma that would normally follow the appositive phrase.

We must get Joe Bidwell, the family attorney's signature.

Create such constructions with caution, however, as you might end up writing something that looks silly:

I wrecked my best friend, Bob's car.

You're frequently better off using the "of-genitive" form, writing something like "We must get the signature of Joe Bidwell, the family attorney" and "I wrecked the car of my best friend, Bob."

Double Possessives

Do we say "a friend of my uncle" or "a friend of my uncle's"? In spite of the fact that "a friend of my uncle's" seems to overwork the notion of possessiveness, that is usually what we say and write. The double possessive construction is sometimes called the "post-genitive" or " of followed by a possessive case or an absolute possessive pronoun" (from the Oxford English Dictionary, which likes to show off). The double possessive has been around since the fifteenth century, and is widely accepted. It's extremely helpful, for instance, in distinguishing between "a picture of my father" (in which we see the old man) and "a picture of my father's" (which he owns). Native speakers will note how much more natural it is to say "He's a fan of hers" than "he's a fan of her."

Generally, what follows the "of" in a double possessive will be definite and human, not otherwise, so we would say "a friend of my uncle's" but not "a friend of the museum's [ museum, instead]." What precedes the "of" is usually indefinite ( a friend, not the best friend), unless it's preceded by the demonstratives this or that, as in "this friend of my father's."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Showing possession in English is a relatively easy matter (believe it or not). By adding an apostrophe and an s we can manage to transform most singular nouns into their possessive form: the car's front seat Charles's car Bartkowski's book a hard day's work Some writers will say that the -s after Charles' is not necessary and that adding only the apostrophe (Charles' car) will suffice to show possession.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supplementary Lesson 5 : Possesive Pronouns

# data[].attributes.subject
Supplementary Lesson 5 : Possesive Pronouns

# data[].attributes.body
Notice how they use 's for Proper Nouns. Individual names like Charles can be added 's to show possession.

Example: It is Charles's shirt. However, the possessive of a pluralize family name, we pluralize first and then simply make the name possessive with the use of an apostrophe.

Example: We might travel in the Smiths' car when we visit the the Joneses' home.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Learn English with Valen - Basic English lessons by ValenESL

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
http://www.engvid.com/ This is a lesson on how to correctly use apostrophes to show possession. I cover common grammatical mistakes, as well as joint ownership.

# data[].attributes.headline
SUPPLEMENTARY LESSON  6- Graphs and Charts

# data[].attributes.subject
SUPPLEMENTARY LESSON  6- Graphs and Charts

# data[].attributes.body
Graphs & Charts
https://www.ieltsessentials.com/global/~/media/IELTS/Global/Files/PDFs/ieltsacademicwritingsamplescript.ashx

# data[].attributes.headline
SUPPLEMENTARY LESSON 7 - Listening Audio

# data[].attributes.subject
SUPPLEMENTARY LESSON 7 - Listening Audio

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.elllo.org/english/level-7-advanced.htm

# data[].attributes.headline
SUPPLEMENTARY LESSON 8 - Discourse Markers/ Linkers

# data[].attributes.subject
SUPPLEMENTARY LESSON 8 - Discourse Markers/ Linkers

# data[].attributes.headline
SUPPLEMENTARY LESSON 9 - Listening Audio

# data[].attributes.subject
SUPPLEMENTARY LESSON 9 - Listening Audio

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
© British Council
The United Kingdom's international organisation for cultural relations and educational opportunities.
A registered charity: 209131 (England and Wales) SC037733 (Scotland).

ICP#: 10044692

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
© British Council The United Kingdom's international organisation for cultural relations and educational opportunities. A registered charity: 209131 (England and Wales) SC037733 (Scotland). ICP#: 10044692

# data[].attributes.headline
SUPPLEMNTARY LESSON 10 - Listening Audio

# data[].attributes.subject
SUPPLEMNTARY LESSON 10 - Listening Audio

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.esl-lab.com/

# data[].attributes.headline
23.09 -  Exercise 1 Skimming and Scanning for Main Ideas

# data[].attributes.subject
23.09 -  Exercise 1 Skimming and Scanning for Main Ideas

# data[].attributes.headline
25.09 - Exercise 2 Prefixes and Suffixes

# data[].attributes.subject
25.09 - Exercise 2 Prefixes and Suffixes

# data[].attributes.body
Instructions:
1. Watch the Recording 1 and Recording 2.
2. Answer exercises on Prefixes and Suffixes.

# data[].attributes.headline
30.09 - #1 Class Coffee Talk : Endangered Animals

# data[].attributes.subject
30.09 - #1 Class Coffee Talk : Endangered Animals

# data[].attributes.body
Instructions:
Exercise 1.3
1. Read How the Vulture Became Victim.
2. Answer all questions.

Exercise 1.4
1. Watch this video
https://www.ted.com/talks/munir_virani_why_i_love_vultures?language=en#t-33369
2. Based on the video, answer Exercise 1.4 .

# data[].attributes.body
homework

# data[].attributes.headline
05.10 - #2 Class Coffee Talk: Unemployment

# data[].attributes.subject
05.10 - #2 Class Coffee Talk: Unemployment

# data[].attributes.body
Exercise 1

# data[].attributes.body
Exercise 2

# data[].attributes.body
Exercise 3

# data[].attributes.body
Listen to the video and answer the following questions.

1.  Why is Thanksgiving Fat Dave's favourite holiday?
2.  What is the name of the pie company that Dave visits?
3.  How many pumpkin pies does the company produce every year?
4.  Which ingredient is not added in the pie mix?
5. How long does it take to cook the pie?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
History of the Holidays: Pumpkin Pie On Thanksgiving | History

# data[].attributes.body
Instructions:
Exercise 2.4
1. Read A Passion for Genealogy
2. Answer all questions.

Exercise 1.4
1. Watch this video
Based on the video, answer Exercise 1.4 .

# data[].attributes.body
Vocabulary

# data[].attributes.body
Task 1

# data[].attributes.body
Task 2

# data[].attributes.body
task 2

# data[].attributes.body
task 1

# data[].attributes.body
Task 2