# Bridget Jones' Diary / Diary of Bridge Jones



## bettygraf

Viendo la película El Diario de Bridget Jones, me fijé que al final Bridget tacha en su diario la frase “Bridget Jones Diary” y escribe en su lugar “Diary of Bridget Jones” ¿Cuál es la diferencia?
 
Gracias.


----------



## reganse

No hay ninguna diferencia.


----------



## mancunienne girl

Estoy de acuerdo con Reganse, pero en BE, "the diary of Bridget Jones" es la versión un poco más formal. En general la gente aquí diría "Bridget Jones' diary".


----------



## Södertjej

El libro se llama Bridget Jones*'s* Diary.


----------



## mancunienne girl

Sodertetj is correct, but to Jones's and Jones' are both equally correct grammatically, although I myself prefer the version with two "s".


----------



## Södertjej

Oh, I thought it was more of a BE vs AE thing.


----------



## mancunienne girl

No. They are interchangeable.


----------



## laurargentina

Tell me if I am mistaken. I thought you *must *add an *'s* when the final *s* of the previous word is not an *s* of a plural form:
Mr Jones's house.
The boys' house.


----------



## reganse

You can either say: Mr. Jones's house or Mr. Jones' house.
The boys' house means that the house belongs to the boys (more than 1 boy).
The boy's house means that the house belongs to the boy (only 1 boy).


----------



## laurargentina

Yes, but my question is about adding "'s" or not when the S of the word is not of the plural form. Is it optional?


----------



## reganse

Yes, it's optional. You can either say Mr. Jones' house or Mr. Jone's house.


----------



## laurargentina

You mean Mr. Jones' house or Mr. *Jones's *house, don't you? Thanks


----------



## Mirlo

La razón de que ella lo tacha es que para ella es un nuevo comienzo, pero se pueden usar de las dos formas.

Saludos,


----------



## reganse

Yes, sorry. Mr. Jones' house or Mr. Jones's house.  AGH!


----------



## honeyheart

Very interesting, indeed.



reganse said:


> Mr. Jones' house or Mr. Jones's house.


And what about the pronunciation? Do you pronounce a single "s" in the first version and two in the second one, or do you double the sound of the "s" in both cases?


----------



## reganse

You only double the sound in the second example (Joneses house).
The first one would be pronounced Jones house.


----------



## honeyheart

Oh, I see.  Thank you very much, reganse!!!


----------



## Masood

Södertjej said:


> El libro se llama Bridget Jones*'s* Diary.


That's correct.
Why? Ask this question:
Who owns this diary?...It belongs to *Bridget Jones*.

We use *-'s* after a person's name to show possession. The name of the person in question is *Bridget Jones*. Hence we have:

_Bridget Jones*'s* Diary._

Another example.
_*James *is having a party! [who is having a party? *James *is.]
Are you going to James*'s* party?_

Does all that help anyone?


----------



## honeyheart

Yes, it does, thanks. 

What you put in your post is what we are first taught when we start learning English.  The problem (or the confusion) comes up now, when we learn that, according to this thread, it is correct to say one same thing all these ways:

_Bridget Jones's diary.
Bridget Jones' diary.
The diary of Bridget Jones.

James's party.
James' party.
The party of James._

Is this right?


----------



## reganse

Yes, all of your sentences are correct and they all can be used interchangeably. I know it's confusing. The only reason to use the possessive (Bridget Jones's diary) is to make the sentence shorter. That's all. It's a quicker way to write and speak, I guess.


----------



## honeyheart

Thank you very much again, reganse, for your explanation.  It's all perfectly clear now!


----------



## spodulike

bettygraf said:


> Viendo la película El Diario de Bridget Jones, me fijé que al final Bridget tacha en su diario la frase “Bridget Jones Diary” y escribe en su lugar “Diary of Bridget Jones” ¿Cuál es la diferencia?
> 
> Gracias.


Erm ... yes everyone ... very interesting, but what about the question? Why did Bridget erase one phrase and substitute the other if they mean the same? 

mirlo - your answer is a possibility but I am not convinced. However I can´t think of a better idea!  Can anyone - or can you convince us mirlo?


----------



## gladnhart

Since we would usually say that possessive word in two syllables, I say that regardless of the grammaticality, "Jones's" is a better choice.


----------



## Masood

spodulike said:


> Erm ... yes everyone ... very interesting, but what about the question? *Why did Bridget erase one phrase and substitute the other if they mean the same? *
> mirlo - your answer is a possibility but I am not convinced. However I can´t think of a better idea!  Can anyone - or can you convince us mirlo?


I don't think that's the question.

The question is _¿Cuál es la diferencia? _, i.e. What is the difference, in this case, between “Bridget Jones Diary” and “Diary of Bridget Jones”?


----------



## BLT

I think they're not the same - there's a subtle difference.

"Bridget's Diary" is more like a descriptive phrase. This is Bridget's coat, this is Bridget's house, this is Bridget's sister, this is Bridget's diary.

On the other hand, "The Diary of Bridget Jones" sounds like the title of a book.

I haven't seen the movie. But it sounds to me like at that point, she's transforming her diary from a simple possession, her own record of what she's thinking, into something more permanent, more public. I don't know whether that fits with the theme of the movie, but not knowing anything else, that's what I'd guess.

And I don't think "Jim's party" and "the party of Jim" are interchangeable, either. Both forms occur, but in different contexts. "Jim's party" is much, much more common.

I remember that when I was in fifth or sixth grade, I saw a film about punctuation. It was explaining to us that "Bobby's food" meant "the food of Bobby." My eleven-year-old reaction was, "What? No, that doesn't mean the same thing at all! What does 'the food of Bobby' mean, anyway?" And I remember my reaction thirty-two years later.


----------



## Juan Nadie

BLT said:


> I think they're not the same - there's a subtle difference.
> 
> And I don't think "Jim's party" and "the party of Jim" are interchangeable, either. Both forms occur, but in different contexts. "Jim's party" is much, much more common.
> 
> I remember that when I was in fifth or sixth grade, I saw a film about punctuation. It was explaining to us that "Bobby's food" meant "the food of Bobby." My eleven-year-old reaction was, "What? No, that doesn't mean the same thing at all! What does 'the food of Bobby' mean, anyway?" And I remember my reaction thirty-two years later.




I am lost.I believe in what you wrote, but I would need an explanation, please.

"Jim's party" isn't the "party of Jim". "Bobby's food" isn't the "food of Bobby". Where is the _subtle_ difference?

Thank you to anyone who can answer.


----------



## danielfranco

reganse said:


> You only double the sound in the second example (Joneses house).
> The first one would be pronounced Jones house.


 
Wait, I'm not getting this: I thought that, regardless of spelling convention for the possessive, you had to pronounce the extra "s."

So, whether you choose to write "_Jones'_" or "_Jones's_," you must prounounce either one as "jones-es."

Right?

But going back to the original question, I think the formality of not using a possessive meant to signify that Bridget was going "on the straight and narrow" from then on.

So, there is no difference in actual meaning, but the emphasis is different.

Maybe…


----------



## Istriano

I've heard these three, are all of them okay?

1) Joshua's friend
2) a friend of Joshua's
3) a friend of Joshua


----------



## laurargentina

danielfranco said:


> Wait, I'm not getting this: I thought that, regardless of spelling convention for the possessive, you had to pronounce the extra "s."
> 
> So, whether you choose to write "_Jones'_" or "_Jones's_," you must prounounce either one as "jones-es."
> 
> Right?
> 
> But going back to the original question, I think the formality of not using a possessive meant to signify that Bridget was going "on the straight and narrow" from then on.
> 
> So, there is no difference in actual meaning, but the emphasis is different.
> 
> Maybe…



I've been trying really hard to see the difference. At times, it seems I do, then, I don't. . Maybe Bridget wanted to start in an apparently  different way. Or ...did she?


----------



## BLT

Juan Nadie said:


> "Jim's party" isn't the "party of Jim". "Bobby's food" isn't the "food of Bobby". Where is the _subtle_ difference?



I hope that someone else can shed more light, but I'll do my best. 

It just depends on context, unfortunately. Sometimes we use the "diary of Bridget" formula; sometimes we can't. Someone asked about "a friend of Joshua's," and yes, that phrase is used often.

Oh, oh - I think I see something. We often use the phrase, "a book of Bridget's." It's less often that we use the formula, "the book of Bridget's," and less often still that we use "the book of Bridget."

"He's a friend of Joshua (Joshua's)." - common
"The friend of Joshua/Joshua's came over last night." - sounds odd to me, as a stand-alone statement
But: He is the friend of Joshua that I was telling you about. - fine
That bicycle belongs to Joshua's friend. - common
That bicycle belongs to the friend of Joshua's. - less common, implies that the focus is on the friend, and that I was referring to him earlier.

However, for whatever reason, when we're giving a formal title to something, we use "The Book of Bridget" formula more often.



> But going back to the original question, I think the formality of not using a possessive meant to signify that Bridget was going "on the straight and narrow" from then on.
> 
> So, there is no difference in actual meaning, but the emphasis is different.



I agree, there's no difference in meaning, but the emphasis is different. However, I don't agree that the absence of 's means she's going "on the straight and narrow." The 's form seems to me the more straightforward one. "The Diary of Bridget Jones" seems more dramatic, actually.



> So, whether you choose to write "Jones'" or "Jones's," you must prounounce either one as "jones-es."



Well, I do. But I have some friends whose last name is "Butts," and most of our friends talk about "the Butts," rather than "the Buttses." I think I'm the only one who uses the clear plural. So, whatever the "rule" is, you'll find well-educated people doing both.


----------

