Is it 'Maple Leafs' or 'Maple Leaves'? (I'm talking bullion coins here, not hockey.) One of the perils a coin dealer faces is buying counterfeit coins. Luckily this dealer recognized these Maple Leafs as counterfeits and the scumbags are behind bars. Two men arrested in alleged phony gold coin scheme in Vineland I wonder if the grandmother also had a roll of 1916-D Mercs. :kewl:
Ziggy , with my luck I would of won it , glad they were caught , hope they get a few years , not a slap on the wrist . rzage
One of these showed up here a couple of months ago. Could have fooled someone on details of strike, except it was made of highly shined gold tinted brass. They never thought the dealer would notice the weight difference. They said they had more, so the dealer said to bring them in the afternoon as he needed to go to the bank to get more money. They happily came back and the officer was waiting for them. Jim
It's Maple Leaf's or possibly Maple Leafs. It wouldn't be Maple Leaves because in this case Maple Leaf is the equivalent of a proper name.
In line with counterfitting, yesterday I was sdecond in line to see the teller. She, the teller, told the woman at the window that one of her fifty dollar bills was counterfit and had to confiscate it and turn it into the police who would/might contact the FBI. The teller gave tyhe woman a signed receipt. The poor young lady said she'll be short on her rent this month. Never saw this happen before.
Sad , it's bad when anyone get a counterfeit bill , but when the poor get stuck with one it really hurts , hope the catch the cockroach who made this stuff . rzage
Let's go with Maple Leafs then because Maple Leafs would be the plural form of Maple Leaf and Maple Leaf's is the possessive form of Maple Leaf. Edit In case you're wondering, "let's" is short for "let us".
Which always drove me crazy in English class because a Maple Leak is an inanimate object and they always insisted that inanimate objects could not have a possessive form. But some times it just makes so much sense to give them possessive voice.
Inanimate objects certainly are capable of possessing things. A car has wheels. It is perfectly fine to say, "That car's wheels don't match." A house has a roof. There is nothing wrong in saying, "The wind blew off that house's roof." Coins have a date. You would be grammatically correct in saying, "This coin's date is repunched." You would not be grammatically correct in saying, "These coin's have repunched dates." You should say, "These coins have repunched dates." (In this example "coins" is the plural form of "coin", not the possessive form.)
I agree, but my English teachers always insisted it was wrong. (I'm a high school dropout because I kept flunking out in English. Which is amazing because on my college entrance exams I scored in the 98th percentile, my lowest score.)
Teachers are not always right. But when you are in school teachers are bigger and older than the students and are usually their knowledge is not to be questioned. Sounds like you got a raw deal with your English teacher.
Unfortunately, with regards to the Maple Leaf gold coin, the term "Maple Leaf" is an adjective describing the coin. Thus, it would have neither a possessive nor a plural form as that would be reserved for the noun, which is coin.
Come on guy's the Maple Leafs are not inanimate objects they can play quite fast hockey at times :whistle:
Maple leaves grow on maple trees. Maple Leafs grow on money trees in Toronto, Canada where there are lots of them.
Hobo How is this one to drive people crazy the car's wheel's valve stem's cover is different from the rest.
Looks grammatically correct to me but, like you say, sure to drive you crazy. I think this is why they don't use possessive forms in the Spanish language. In Spanish the above sentence would be written, "The cover of the valve stem of the wheel of the car is different from the rest." Come to think of it, that would drive you crazy too.
