Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word Talk:everybody's. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word Talk:everybody's, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say Talk:everybody's in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word Talk:everybody's you have here. The definition of the word Talk:everybody's will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofTalk:everybody's, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
how about genitive: everybody's concern
What about "everybody has"? Whether it's correct or not, I'd say more people say "everybody's" instead of "everybody has". — This comment was unsigned.
I want to actively delete them. (I might be more O.K. with them if they were more accurate, though. "Genitive singular form" is misleading on three counts: this isn't really a "genitive"; it's a "singular" only in that (deprecated template usage)everybody is a syntactically singular pronoun, which hardly seems relevant to (deprecated template usage)everybody's, since syntactically it doesn't have a number, and it's not like there's a genitive plural it needs to be distinguished from; and it's not really a "form". And our POS header, "noun", is flat-out wrong: (deprecated template usage)everybody is a pronoun, so there's no way (deprecated template usage)everybody's is a noun.) —RuakhTALK02:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't know what vote you're referring to, but the vote I rememberdid forbid entries like this. It explicitly made exception for "the irregularly-formed possessive forms of pronouns", and there seems to have been general agreement that the personal pronoun (deprecated template usage)one's would probably be O.K., or at least was a special case to be considered independently; but I see no suggestion that the vote only cover nouns. —RuakhTALK03:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Agree with Ruakh. The vote clearly only allows for irregular pronominal possessive forms, such as whose and its. While I don't know how I would have voted, had I been around for this vote, its mandate is fairly clear. Delete -Atelaesλάλει ἐμοί03:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
To quote Ruakh: "(I'd actually prefer that there also be an exception for one's, which is the only personal pronoun that we use the apostrophe in, but whatever. This way is quite fine.)". The only one, eh? Really? Not that it is my place to protest deletion: this is not my mother tongue. However, Dutch does have: ieder - ieders (everybody - everybody's) and imho ieders deserves a lemma. What translation should I give ]?
I believe that when there is enough reason to we should, even for entries like father/mother's brother which could be linked in place of a translation of uncle in certain languages. It would not surprise me if several languages necessitated this for all possessives of pronouns. Therefore weak keep as a phrasebook entry.DAVilla10:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
The only one, yes. (In Standard English, at least. Certainly "it's" is a very common misspelling of "its".) I don't speak Dutch, but on the face of it, yes, ] looks like quite a reasonable translation, as does ]] or, as Atelaes suggests, ]'s. (From what I gather, the genitive in Dutch is mostly archaic except with pronouns like (deprecated template usage)ieder. If this is correct, then I agree with your opinion that (deprecated template usage)ieders deserves a full entry.) —RuakhTALK04:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yes, genitives are mostly archaic and in fact less common than the English possessive. They are mostly limited to persons: Jan->Jans etc. Pronouns are a bit of an exception like wiens, wier, ieders, niemands, but then there is a whole bunch of adverbs that derive from genitives. I still don't understand your 'the only one' argument: i.e. I fail to see the difference between everybody's, one's, somebody's and anybody's.
Delete. The vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-07/exclusion of possessive case definitely disallows this entry (The proposed exclusion of entries for Modern English possessive case forms of words formed by the addition of the enclitic ’s or its postsibilant form). As for the translations, that's for the foreign-language Wiktionaries to discuss. --Jackofclubs18:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
That was a contentious vote at first, and there were at least three people in support of the vote who still had trouble with the wording, making exceptions specifically for prepositions. Keep on the this-ain't-a-slippery-slope-so-what's-the-big-deal-about-it-anyways-yous-guys principle I just made up. DAVilla05:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
