h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

If I take my dog to the vets, am I really taking them to the vet's? Or even the vets'?

There is usually more than one vet there.

I suppose what I'm really asking is that 'the vets' really should have the apostraphe on it, as we are going to the vet's surgery, but has it dropped into such common use we can dispense with the ' or really is it not possible to drop an ' just cos most people don't bother with it? Or... is it about what a place becomes called, rather than the grammar of how we spell what we say?

I hope someone understands what I mean. It just comes up a lot in forums I visit, and I see it written all sorts of ways. Including vets's, which I'm pretty sure is completely wrong.

I learned that you need the apostrophe, but you are right, hardly anybody bothers nowadays which has made me wonder if I remebered it wrong in the first place. And I think that vets's is as correct as vets' - there is a website somewhere where it's explained, but I deleted the link when I left the sub-eds last year, and can't find the website anymore.

Oh well, it looks silly when written down.

if 'vet' doesn't carry an apostrophe to denote a contraction i can't see why 'vets' should.

That's what I'm asking, but it's not the contraction I was thinking of, but people say 'going to the vets' rather than 'going to the vet' so I was wondering if it was a possessive thing.

You are going to the vet's.

There is no apostrophe in the contraction "vet" because contractive apostrophes do not appear after the final letter.

B

It should be either vet's (singular) or vets' (plural), I think, but if in doubt use vet's. Never vets's. You wouldn't say veterinarians's would you?

Unless two vets own the surgery, in which case you are going to the vets'.

B

so all those incidences of goin' , sayin' and such are heterodox?

where did that rule come from?

really, i think it is fair to say that 'vet' is not simply a contraction but is a well established word in its own right now.

putting an apostrophe after vet or vets is an affectation.

It's a standard possessive 's, like baker's, grocer's etc. No affectation involved - just standard punctuation.

Noggin

i do hope you're joking

Do I take it that last apostrophe was an affectation ?

Noggin

*chuckle*

But seriously, it is indeed vet's, baker's etc. The place I go to isn't the baker, it's the baker's (shop).

Noggin

And does your dog get good treatment at the baker's?

Oh, sure, they get the and pretzel treatment.

I still think it must be 'Vet'. You'd go there, even if he wasn't at the surgery. You could wriggle by saying 'I'm taking him to see the vet'....perhaps.

Analogous (I just *love* that word. Is it the right one?) with 'shopping at Tesco's' This really riles me. They even have 'TESCO' in lights over the door, for goodness' (note the apostrophe!) sake. It's a place, not a person. (I used to know how the word developed, but, age being what it is, alas..) But Sainbury's on the other hand, bears the name of Lord S. and therefore 'at Sainsbury's'.

I really enjoyed that. Thanks for your indulgence. .

I hope the dog feels better? Multivits? Antibiots?

LadyDig
'venerable' as per one of the definitions in Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary:

Ok, thanks for that. Silly question perhaps, but I was in the mood to ask!

Noggin, isn't it common enough to say "I have to go to the doctor"? I hear it often enough; or, "I'm going out to the car". The car (like the vet) moves, but the important idea in the sentence is what you're going to see, not something it possesses - so it's "going out to the car" rather than "going out to the car's [location]" .