Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 46 to 52 of 52

Thread: Winn's Mill picture

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,122
    Rep Power
    0
    That makes sense. So, the picture is much later than the boats racing "hey day" then.

    Is there any way to find out what happened to this boat? Does it still survive?
    Sean Conroy,
    1964 Formula Jr. (hull #2) project

    1972 Greavette Sunflash III
    1981 Kavalk Mistral project

    "A man can accomplish anything... as long as he doesn't care who gets the credit."

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    807
    Rep Power
    16

    In 1966 not a 1966

    That was a 1966 registration not the boat
    I didn't catch the year or vin. Going to check that
    QUOTE=woobs;660582]Okay Howard Abbey.... but, 1966?Attachment 83224[/QUOTE]
    I have far too many boats, just ask my Wife.
    If you have something of great quality, and you take care of it, it will last forever.
    Never Economise on Luxuries


  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    466
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Guimond View Post
    Why is it plural? Wyn's? Also, that deck fairing looks a little different.
    It's possessive.
    DUNESMAN

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,122
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by pipnit View Post
    It's possessive.
    see post #28
    Sean Conroy,
    1964 Formula Jr. (hull #2) project

    1972 Greavette Sunflash III
    1981 Kavalk Mistral project

    "A man can accomplish anything... as long as he doesn't care who gets the credit."

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    466
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by woobs View Post
    see post #28

    Yup, I read that. I'm not sure what you're trying to point out. It's not really a subjective matter, it's rules of grammar. If it was Plural, it would be: Wyns. The 's shows possession.
    DUNESMAN

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,279
    Rep Power
    21
    Agreed entirely, there's not much ambiguity in the grammar unless the apostrophe was intended to represent one or more missing letters, as in a contraction like: you're (meaning 'you are') where the apostrophe replaces the 'a' that is missing. (My speculation is that in #28, Woobs was pointing out the same thing but perhaps just treading a bit lightly.)

    Given the context here, the substitution usage of the apostrophe doesn't appear to make any sense no matter how creative one gets with what it might be replacing. It all but certainly is possessive. Essentially, it meant it was Jim's boat. And absolutely nothing to do with plural at all. That's right out.

    <aside: It's amazing how polluted apostrophe usage has become over the last 10-15 years. When the day comes that some clown lobs out the idea that because language evolves, now we can properly use apostrophes to represent plurals as well as possessives... ...can we all agree to beat him to death with a sock full of pennies?" >
    "I don't have time to get into it, but he went through a lot." -Pulp Fiction

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    466
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
    Agreed entirely, there's not much ambiguity in the grammar unless the apostrophe was intended to represent one or more missing letters, as in a contraction like: you're (meaning 'you are') where the apostrophe replaces the 'a' that is missing. (My speculation is that in #28, Woobs was pointing out the same thing but perhaps just treading a bit lightly.)

    Given the context here, the substitution usage of the apostrophe doesn't appear to make any sense no matter how creative one gets with what it might be replacing. It all but certainly is possessive. Essentially, it meant it was Jim's boat. And absolutely nothing to do with plural at all. That's right out.

    <aside: It's amazing how polluted apostrophe usage has become over the last 10-15 years. When the day comes that some clown lobs out the idea that because language evolves, now we can properly use apostrophes to represent plurals as well as possessives... ...can we all agree to beat him to death with a sock full of pennies?" >


    Yes, the misuse of the language has sky rocketed since the internet and more recently texting.

    Wynn's can't be a contraction of anything.

    I simply saw it as this is "Wynn's Mill" I refer to a motor as a Mill sometimes.
    DUNESMAN

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •