 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes!
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: GUEST,Pedant Alert Date: 12 Jan 06 - 06:57 PM Save yourself one keystroke and do it right! Like this: CDs banjos umbrellas cats LPs WMDs guitars folks animals steaks chops An apostrophe is generally only needed to indicate possessives or it is used to contract a verb form. Examples: I own 850 CDs. I love CDs. You can never have too many CDs. The CD's greatest charm is its lack of background noise. (Aha! A possessive of "CD".) It's the best package, in my opinion. (note the contraction of "it is"...it's) In a very rare exception to possessives, however, the possessive word "its" does NOT have an apostrophe. Its charm is that it's one of the few possessives that doesn't. Got it? Now go and sell your banjos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: artbrooks Date: 12 Jan 06 - 07:00 PM Not to mention the 1990s and any number of lucky 7s. Haven't we had this discussion before? And agreed that there are various pundents, pedants and pissants on either side of the ocean that disagree with each other? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 12 Jan 06 - 07:01 PM Incidentally, there is an order in which one can check to see if the apostrophe has been used correctly. It's mean two things in English and only two things: IT IS or IT HAS. 'It's nice out' or 'It's been a nice day'. I wanted to be pedantic, too. (I hope that's a good thing.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 12 Jan 06 - 07:03 PM The use of the apostrophe is gradually going away in things like 'Mind your Ps and Qs.' But it ain't gone yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Rapparee Date: 12 Jan 06 - 07:05 PM And don't words that end in a vowel other than "e" usually require an "es" for a plural form? Shouldn't it be "banjoes"? Or have all of the rules of spelling and grammar been thrown to the winds?? (I quite agree about the possessives. Now if something could only be done to stop the decline of the comparative: "clearer" and not "more clear" etc.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 12 Jan 06 - 07:06 PM You couldn't have said it any more clearly than that, Rapaire. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: GUEST,B;omd FRunk in Blind River Date: 12 Jan 06 - 07:13 PM Flip. I am wasted. What is this about, eh? There aint' not antelopes in the Ural's. None. Nor possums neether. Trust me on this. The Ural's are in Switzerland and they ain't got anthelopes there. They do got goats though. And cows. Not that it flippin' matters. - Sjahne |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: michaelr Date: 12 Jan 06 - 07:48 PM And to any number of Mudcat posters: This is how you spell H Y P O C R I S Y You're welcome. Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 12 Jan 06 - 07:52 PM Example of misplaced apostrophe: "Hi Bill, how have you--yes, O log floating down the river, I shall attend to that immediately--uh, how have you been?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Bill D Date: 12 Jan 06 - 08:01 PM you're not going to get by with some of your other mistakes either....there's no excuse for typing their , when they're is meant. etcetera....(not eXcetera) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 12 Jan 06 - 08:18 PM However, all that aside, I don't really give a rat's ass if people misplace the occasional piece of punctuation or misspell the odd word. Do it myself on occasion, and I'd get seriously pissed if someone took me to task about it. A few years back on another site someone called my grammar into question. I read his post, did the corrections and necessary rewording and reposted what he'd written. Even excellent posts can contain errors of style. 'In a very rare exception to possessives, however, the possessive word "its" does NOT have an apostrophe. Its charm is that it's one of the few possessives that doesn't.' It is not an exception, however. Possessive pronouns (which then become adjectival in nature) have never used apostrophes to indicate possession. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Bobert Date: 12 Jan 06 - 08:25 PM Up yer's.... Awww, jus' funnin'... Heck, I knew this day would come seein' as me an Al Gore invented the "'"... We sho nutt di... Heck, it was right after that night when we invented the innernet and we still ahd a couple cold 'uns in the 'frig and so I looked at Al and he at me and, wow, it was like one o' them moments, like de ja vu and love at first sight, we both yeeled out "apostrope!!!"... Hey, neither of had ever heard of the word but there we were... So whadda' gonna do??? So we run down to the allnight copywright joint/pawn broker and signed it up... We sho nuff id it jus' like I jus' tolt it.... Now, as fir you pedestrian writer's please don't make me have to start billin' you all fir royalties... Hey, think honer sytem and paypal... I'll be sho that Al gets his cut... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Amos Date: 12 Jan 06 - 08:47 PM Just for the record, Al Gore never made any claim to have invented the Internet. It's just another of those witless, mindless, heartless, senseless canards that the rightie-tighties are so good at. I guess stuff like that is easy once you decide truth no longer matters. Anyway, here's the Snopes page. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Arne Date: 12 Jan 06 - 08:59 PM Got the title wrong. That would be: BS: Plural's dont require apostrophes!" HTH. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Bobert Date: 12 Jan 06 - 09:02 PM Youi mean that me and Al din't invet the inernet, Amos??? Awwwwww, you just ruined a perfectly good day.... Hey, do you think we can get a refund fir the 7 bucks that Al and I paid the guy at the all night copywrite/pwanbroker??? B |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: CarolC Date: 12 Jan 06 - 09:17 PM Pedant alert! It's WMD... ...not, WMDs |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Jan 06 - 09:21 PM Oh, good one. ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Amos Date: 12 Jan 06 - 09:29 PM From one web site on grammar: "Plural forms and the apostrophe (Bedford 36/Hodges') A common error is to form the plural of a noun by adding "'s" to the singular form. Try to get out the habit of doing this. A trick for remembering that the apostrophe signifies the plural is that possessive means "having," and so the posessive form of the word "has" an apostrophe. How do you tell the difference in between plural and possessive? Check the meaning of the sentence. Does the noun simply refer to more than one thing? Or does the sentence mention something that belongs to the noun? Although usage has changed in recent years, some handbooks call for an apostrophe in the plural forms of numbers, letters, and words used as words: How many 1's do we have in the line? We put x's on the incorrect answers. The no's resounded loudly throughout the chamber." http://www.meredith.edu/grammar/plural.htm From another website on grammar: "An apostrophe is used in plurals in the following very special cases: in the plurals of single letters: There are only three s's in `Christmases'. Mind your p's and q's. (Even here, the capital letter would not need the apostrophe.) in the plurals of abbreviations: We have several pg's [paying guests]. We have received four cheques and two IOU's. (But IOUs is common and accepted, and the usual plural of CD is CDs). Most symbols for units such as lb (pounds) and cm (centimetres) do not strictly have plural forms. in the plurals of numerals: This house was built in the 1930's. (But 1930s is preferable). As an alternative spelling, for clarity, of the plurals of a very few short words: We went to several society do's last year. While out with his third wife he met both of his ex's. I've had yes's for coffee from four people. But in each case, dos, exes, yesses would be acceptable. The usual plural of no is noes." http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutspelling/pizza Even the experts do not agree on the issue; thus, as Peace pointed out, both forms ("noes" and "np's", "1960s" and "1960's") are acceptable. A. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Bill D Date: 12 Jan 06 - 10:32 PM yep...even us (we) pedants can get our heads ahead of our fingers when typing in a hurry here, so I don't fret too much about simple spelling, grammar and punctuation mistakes. I have tendency to reverse some letters, like 'y' and 't' and 'b' and 'n' because of keyboard placement, and others because my head just IS ahead of my fingers.... I use a 'real time' spell checker, but it can't tell whether I mean 'form' or 'from'....many's the time I have seen the mistaek *grin* JUST as I hit 'send'... But, boy, some types of mistakes just cause my jaws to clench! Those extra apostrophes tossed in at random are in that category. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Ebbie Date: 13 Jan 06 - 12:11 AM The odd thing is that there are people who are fairly consistent in their use of apostrophes- and get each of them wrong. I have a sister in law who somehow internalized it backward- she'll write about there new house and the two dog's that both love the back yard, and that she and her daughter both have cold's and then tell me about how they are painting their new house and the houses color will be blue. After 45 years, I have decided she ain't gonna change. I just don't understand how she has never noticed the rules. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: open mike Date: 13 Jan 06 - 12:31 AM also there is no plural or possessive of anyway (anyways or anyway's) and there is no such place as somewheres as sometimes sung in Long Black Veil ("if you were somewheres else, you won't have to die") |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Genie Date: 13 Jan 06 - 12:46 AM One source of confusion when writing things like "the 1920s" v. "the '20s" is that in one case the apostrophe replaces an omitted part. While I can see that it might be acceptable to write "the 1920's," (though the apostrophe seems unnecessary) or "the 1920s" or "the '20s," I often see "the 20's" -- which seems clearly wrong, since that form omits the apostrophe that would actually convey a meaning, but uses one that adds none. LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Ebbie Date: 13 Jan 06 - 01:00 AM You'll find somewheres close to howscome. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Amos Date: 13 Jan 06 - 01:01 AM Thar's LOTS of somewheres, Laurel. Thet's why it's confusing. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Paco Rabanne Date: 13 Jan 06 - 03:57 AM A ver'y wise' and usefu'l thr'ea'd ind'eed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Paul Burke Date: 13 Jan 06 - 04:06 AM ABOLI'SH THE PO'S'SE'S'SIVE APO'STROPHE! ITS PA'ST IT'S 'SELL BY DATE. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: jonm Date: 13 Jan 06 - 04:36 AM Fowler's Common English Usage gives both IOUs and IOU's as acceptable, although the former is preferred. Applies to all plural of abbreviations in common usage. Similarly, if the abbreviation is recognised in its own right, WMDs (or WMD's) is perfectly acceptable, even where it makes a nonsense of the words when expanded. Who led the pedants' revolt? Which Tyler! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: John MacKenzie Date: 13 Jan 06 - 04:37 AM The plural of Court Martial is Courts Martial; another common mistake. G |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: GUEST,CrazyEddie Date: 13 Jan 06 - 04:42 AM Exception: One plural, of course, does take an apostrophe: Greengrocer's |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: gnu Date: 13 Jan 06 - 05:18 AM "The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe." Frank Zappa. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Hrothgar Date: 13 Jan 06 - 05:22 AM Greengrocer's ... or Greengrocers' if there are more than one. I believe it goes bach to the days when people would say "John his horse" where we would say "John's horse" - the apostrophe indicates that letters have been left out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: s&r Date: 13 Jan 06 - 07:22 AM Old English would say 'Johnes horse' - the apostrophe indicates the loss of the 'e'. Stu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Paul Burke Date: 13 Jan 06 - 07:26 AM "I believe it goes bach to the days when people would say "John his horse"" THEY NEVER SAID THAT!!!! They said "Johnnes blonk" certainly, that's just the Middle English possessive, and the bloody grammarians THOUGHT they were saying "his". Then people trying to write formally followed the grammarians. The whole apo'strophe cata'strophe is a mi'stake. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Big Al Whittle Date: 13 Jan 06 - 07:53 AM I'm a plural - I demand my own apostrophe! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: kendall Date: 13 Jan 06 - 08:31 AM It's also, Brothers in law, not brother in laws Attorneys general, not attorneys generals. We have here a group of weather forcasters who consistently use poor grammar. They say,...Portland got a half an inch of rain. It is either a half inch or half an inch. Never both. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Rapparee Date: 13 Jan 06 - 08:36 AM I find myself agreeing about so many things with Winston Churchill, who, after being chided for ending a sentence with a preposition, "This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: GUEST,TIA Date: 13 Jan 06 - 08:53 AM Here's what really bugs me. Many people in the news business do not understand the "carrot and stick" analogy. They correctly think that the carrot is a lure or reward, but mistakenly think that the stick is for hitting. WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The stick is used to hold the carrot out in front of the donkey. It is not to be used as a weapon. The next time I hear a reporter say something stoopid like "the ambassador has decided to try less carrot, and more stick", I will find them and expectorate in their general direction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 13 Jan 06 - 09:25 AM Guest Pedant Alert: "his" is a possessive pronoun without apostrophe. For that matter, "her" is another. If you're going to be a pedant, you really must take care to be right as well. CrazyEddie, "greengrocer's" is NOT a plural. weelittledrummer, it's because you're a plural that you can't have an apostrophe. (You could think about giving yourself an initial cap though.) Giok and Kendall, I expect you're remembering that "Lords Justices" is correct, though encountered only in the judiciary of England and Wales. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: GUEST,Bainbo Date: 13 Jan 06 - 09:36 AM "Then people trying to write formally followed the grammarians" Similar confusion over split infinitives. The folk lying down the laws on English grammar tried to make it follow the rules of Latin. Which it can't - English is, I suppose, essentially a Germanic language. Latin infinitives are only one word - eg ire - and can't be split. English infinitives are two words - eg to go. So, despite what some will try to tell you, there's nothing wrong with "To boldly go". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Mr Red Date: 13 Jan 06 - 09:37 AM now can someone tell me the plurals of gymnasia referenda opera data bacteria octopussies (or octopodes - your choice) vortices apices dice indices (yea yea find it in the index) and before I can be arsed to look it up - does (do?) cafeteria follow the same syntax (or should that be syntaces?) Language is what we use to convey meaning it is either a fluid or a dead like latin (or should that be Latin?). It annoys the hell out of me but I live in the real world and have to get a few things first - like a life. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Amos Date: 13 Jan 06 - 09:45 AM Well, there could be TWO sticks, don't you think? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: CarolC Date: 13 Jan 06 - 10:17 AM Which letters have been ommitted from greengrocer's? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: GUEST,DB Date: 13 Jan 06 - 10:32 AM My English teacher, Mr Baines (of blessed memory), taught me a simple rule: In the sentence, 'the dog's collar' the position of the apostrophe is determined by switching the sentence round such that the possessor of the collar (ie. the dog) comes last, ie. 'the collar of the dog'. The apostrophe then comes after the 'g' in 'dog'. There are other rules, of course, like the distinction between 'it's' and 'its' as so ably described above. I quite like rules for such things - as long as they are regarded as aids to communication and comprehension and not just as rules for their own sake. Nevertheless, one of my heroes, the English poet John Clare, rarely used punctuation and saw it as tyrannous (some of his poems, can be quite difficult to read and to make sense of, though). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Ebbie Date: 13 Jan 06 - 10:52 AM Perhaps one contributing factor to the confusion is our habit of shortening a phrase on an implied use. For instance, greengrocer's. I agree, of course, that it's not plural. However, it does require the apostrophe because of the unuttered, 'shop'. Same as when I say that I stopped by (at) my parents'. I actually mean, my parents' home Maybe that kind of thing causes confusion? I suspect that it's usually a case of never having paid actual attention. It doesn't bother me as it used to. Over the years I've gotten mellower about misusage. For instance, I was taught that Bainbo's use of 'lying' is incorrect. One 'lays' something, therefore one would say 'laying down the rules'. On the other hand, one is 'lying down'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: artbrooks Date: 13 Jan 06 - 10:55 AM Mr. Red, most of those are already plurals. gymnasia: proper (Latin) plural of gymnasia referenda: proper (Latin) plural of referandum opera: plura is operas data: proper (Latin) plural of datum, but now often considered to be a word with the same form in both numbers bacteria: proper (Latin) plural of bacterium octopussies: improper plural of octopus; proper plural is either octopuses or octopi vortices: plural of vortex apices: plural of apex dice: plural of die indices: plural of index And the plural of cafeteria is cafeterias. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: artbrooks Date: 13 Jan 06 - 10:58 AM Sorry...first should be "gymnasia: proper (Latin) plural of gymnasium" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Amos Date: 13 Jan 06 - 11:05 AM "Greengrocer's" is a possessive singular noun referring to the place of business belonging to the greengrocer. Same construct as "the cobbler's", or, "stopped by at Bill's". A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Paul Burke Date: 13 Jan 06 - 11:07 AM Mr Red: all your wordses are already pluralses except for octopustuleseses's, of which the plural is squid. I don't like foreign plurals creeping into the language; it's already complicated enough, and words should be naturalised as soon as possible. So the plural of stadium is stadiums, not stadia, which are ancient Greek kilometres. The Greeks trained in gymnasia, but we (you I should say) go to gymnasiums, unless you do it in the nude. And as for data- in 30 years in electronics, I've never heard the word 'datum' except to mean a fixed reference point for measurements. Even one bit of data is data. Anyone: Write me a sentence in which the omission of the possessive apostrophe causes ambiguity. I bet it's a badly framed sentence that would be difficult to construe anyway. The boys trousers pockets holes were caused by the girls frolicking. Any problem? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: GUEST Date: 13 Jan 06 - 11:23 AM CrazyEddie, I do believe they all missed the "greengrocer's apostrophe" gag, although it is probably meaningless to the Transatlantic contingent from the colonies..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: GUEST,bbc at work Date: 13 Jan 06 - 11:33 AM My guess is that most of the people who make these kinds of errors could not care less & will not even open this thread. I, on the other hand, enjoyed it. Best to all, bbc |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Folkiedave Date: 13 Jan 06 - 11:56 AM Great thread but IMHO mis-guided. Language changes sometimes over short spaces of time sometimes over a long period of time. But it always evolves and it always will. If two people are a long way apart (the Atlantic for example) they could easily be at different points in that change, or the language is changing differently anyway. Either way they will tend to wrongly argue. And it is OK to plit an infinitive for the reasons mentioned earlier. Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 13 Jan 06 - 12:17 PM Let me throw in the oft-ignored concept of decriptive. If the greengrocer owns the shop, it's the greengrocer's shop. If the baker owns the shop, it's the baker's greengrocer shop (or greengrocery) Although these days, more likely, it's the produce aisle at Safeway ;o) So where does that leave us with Mothers Day? And should you be doing something to promote world peace instead of fretting over apostrophes? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Leadfingers Date: 13 Jan 06 - 12:58 PM One Mouse , several Mice , One House , several Hice ????? and I still like Octopi as a plural of octopus ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: CarolC Date: 13 Jan 06 - 01:18 PM Except for the plural for computer mouse, which is "mouses". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Ebbie Date: 13 Jan 06 - 01:35 PM "The boys trousers pockets holes were caused by the girls frolicking. " Paul Burke Yeh. I got a problem. What on earth was that girl doing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Bill D Date: 13 Jan 06 - 01:35 PM "Dear Sirs, please send me a pair of please send me a Mongoose-- p.s., please send me another one." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: CarolC Date: 13 Jan 06 - 01:40 PM I think plural for mongoose is mongoose. Just like the plural of moose is moose and deer/deer and elk/elk, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 13 Jan 06 - 02:00 PM Punctuation can be important, but usually making a mistake or two does not herald the fall of civilizattion as we know it. We all know damned well that the double negative 'went out' centuries ago, but many of us use it still. I do on occasion even if only for effect. Pedantry is just that. It's pedantry. Witness these two sentences--which I posit say exactly the same thing: "I don't want any potatoes!" "I don't want no potatoes!" Some pedantic dolt will then plop potatoes on the plate of the 250-pound heavily-armed biker who said the second sentence. I don't think so. There are times when the language has to be treated with great respect and formality. Then, there's other times. I am quite aware, thank you, that the use of "there's" in the last sentence is not correct. It should be "there are". Do I give a rat's ass? Not in this case. Besides, I thing the construction as given works just as well. So, to you punctuation pedants: george where henry had had had had had had had had had had had the tecchers approval Take care of that sonuvabitch and I'll go out and getcha another (thank you Will Geer). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 13 Jan 06 - 02:07 PM PS I imagine someone will google the above and find one like it, so to that person--Yes, you are right. For those who wish to try it without Mr Google's help, I will post it punctuated in a day or two. Here's another: that that is is that that is not is not is that it it is |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: gnu Date: 13 Jan 06 - 02:25 PM "The boys trousers pockets holes were caused by the girls frolicking." Clearly, it's either "boy's" or "boys'". Mother's Day, obviously. Nobody has more than one mother. (And don't get weeny about Step-Mothers.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Les from Hull Date: 13 Jan 06 - 02:30 PM I'm sorry, I know punctuation doesn't matter that much as long as we're correctly understood, but I was taught to do it correctly, and that's what I'll try to do. I also got plenty of work out of proof-reading, correcting and teaching people how to write effective English. So if I see something badly written, badly punctuated or wrongly spelled it just points out to me that whoever wrote it doesn't really care enough. But I do enjoy people's writing here, bringing in slang, dialect and colloquialisms and wild punctuation. George, where Henry had had 'had', had had 'had had'. 'Had had' had had the teacher's approval. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 13 Jan 06 - 02:35 PM If you're in doubt as to whether plurals of abbreviations or acronyms take apostrophes, just don't use abbreviations or acronyms! If you're not sure whether it should be "CD's" or "CDs" just say "compact disks"! That's not to say that there aren't a few people out there who would say "compact disk's" but those people are hopeless cases and should be encouraged to forego reproduction. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 13 Jan 06 - 02:36 PM What if there are two boys? ;o) Mothers Day - It's the day set aside to honour all mothers (no apostrophe) and because no one can 'own' a day, it is descriptive, not possesive. Not so clear or obvious after all, eh? I love Fridays. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: gnu Date: 13 Jan 06 - 02:41 PM What if there are two boys? I answered that. All mothers? Then, for you, it would be Mothers' Day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 13 Jan 06 - 02:43 PM You did, gnu. It's Friday man ... ;o) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 13 Jan 06 - 02:46 PM I contend it's a contration of "Honour All Mothers Day" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 13 Jan 06 - 02:47 PM Good one, Les. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Folkiedave Date: 13 Jan 06 - 02:50 PM n my local shopping centre at Hillsborough Sheffield there is a furniture shop. Each week there is a special offer which the manager arranges. This is advertised (no apostrophes) as: "This weeks managers special offer". It does annoy me but I am not even sure where to start :-)> Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Don Firth Date: 13 Jan 06 - 03:13 PM Merriam-Webster gives either "banjo" or "banjoes" as correct for the plural of "banjo," although, as a general rule, the alternative with the fewest letters is preferable. Here's my take on it: Singular— banjoPlural— banjiBack to singular again— banjumGet it? Got it! Good! Don Firth (Another slow day at the skunk works) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Big Al Whittle Date: 13 Jan 06 - 03:14 PM I don't care, I want one! put it this way, if an attractive woman came up to you and discreetly handed you a note saying I want to fondle your bolloc'ks what I mean is, theres a time and a place for everything, and apostrophes and their correct usage - legal documents maybe, the dire buggering about that was a pretext for an education forty years ago, and er.....that's it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 13 Jan 06 - 03:42 PM Paul, I wish you'd make clear what you mean.... Are you talking about one boy or more than one? And one girl or more than one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 13 Jan 06 - 03:43 PM PS, here's one that sometimes gets missed - the one in "four years' time" etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Stilly River Sage Date: 13 Jan 06 - 03:53 PM We communicate by speaking and writing. The rules governing speech are, as a rule, less strict. We use words to communicate and our brains are deft enough that most people automatically KNOW if the meaning is possessive or plural. The meaning is taken from context. Grammar is in Dialog the verbal/written equivalent of Social Manners. It may be nice if people know which fork to use for what course in the meal, but eating your peas with your knife and with the edge of the tablecloth tucked into your collar to keep food out of your lap still gets the job done. In my youth I learned this the hard way, accidentally offending a friend by pointing out the grammatical errors in a letter he wrote--he never wrote to me again. You only make that mistake once. I'm an English major, but my brain is always ahead of my fingers when I type, so there can be some bizarre typos and marks in my work. I try to proof it myself, so usually let it "cool" and come back later to fix the mistakes. Corrections may be absolutely necessary to be sure a legal document conveys exactly what it is supposed to, and poetically it's important that your work says what you really mean to say, but in most contexts, it's ridiculous to get bent out of shape about punctuation and grammar if that obsession with correctness allows you to miss the point of the communication. That said, I have a Sharpie in my handbag and I have been known to edit signs when they are misspelled or poorly punctuated. Wendy's Hamburgers finally took down the little signs on their drive-through windows that read "We Don't SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Bill D Date: 13 Jan 06 - 06:07 PM ooohhh..good for you, SRS! That is one of my real peeves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Jim Dixon Date: 13 Jan 06 - 06:46 PM I think it's standard American practice to use apostrophes in plurals where the noun is a number or an abbreviation, for example, two ICBM's, the 1970's. My impression is that standard British practice is to omit the apostrophe. Although I'm American, I favor omitting the apostrophe. I don't see any reason to be dogmatic about such things, but it's nice to be consistent. Here's one for you to debate: If you put your family name on your house or cabin, should it read "The Johnsons" or "The Johnsons' "? I recall arguing this point with somebody once, and not making any headway, because we had different ways of construing what the sign meant. One of us thought it was short for "The Johnsons live here" and the other thought it meant "This is the Johnsons' house." One thing we can agree on: It shouldn't be "The Johnson's" –unless the occupant is one person known as "The Johnson." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: bobad Date: 13 Jan 06 - 07:09 PM SRS I was wondering if 'except' could be grammatically correct as the verb meaning to leave out or exclude, even though the meaning is probably the opposite of what is intended. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Stilly River Sage Date: 13 Jan 06 - 07:23 PM That's the point--grammatically they were saying that they take all checks, making an exception of none. But it was clear that they meant the opposite. Hence the editing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Amos Date: 13 Jan 06 - 07:41 PM Either one would be grammatically correct -- one as a label for the residents and the other as a label for the home they presumably own, "their place". You could argue that the house is what is being labeled, but on the other hand it is just a hulk without residents. After all, "it takes a heap o'livin' To make a house a home..."/ A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: dulcimer42 Date: 13 Jan 06 - 07:45 PM Too often, I've heard "It's a long ways there." Surely, this should be "a long way." Shouldn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: bobad Date: 13 Jan 06 - 07:46 PM "But it was clear that they meant the opposite." That's the presumption, of course, but I wonder how they would have reacted if one were to try making payment by check and insisted that the sign said that they were accepted ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 13 Jan 06 - 10:16 PM Found this and thought the folks here would like to give it a shot. daves teaser included the word sequence are and and and are are I noticed that are and and and are are the same except that are and and and and and are are swapped |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Amos Date: 14 Jan 06 - 12:58 AM Dave's teaser included the word sequence " ''are' and 'and' and 'are' are". I noticed that "are and and and are" are the same except that "are and and" and "and and are" are swapped. Makes about as much sense as anything posted by certain rabid nnon-thinkers I could mention. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Hrothgar Date: 14 Jan 06 - 02:25 AM The plural of banjo is "too many". The sopermarket sign that annoys me (and I suppose unreasonably, in this day and age) is the one that says "x items or less". Any pedant can tell them it should be "x items or fewer". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Stilly River Sage Date: 14 Jan 06 - 09:28 PM I'd been pointing out for ages to the window staff at Wendy's that the sign meant they accepted checks. They assured me that they didn't. I think the point has been made and argued to death now, considering the context. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Negatives don't require doubling! From: GUEST,brackenrigg Date: 15 Jan 06 - 01:47 PM "There aint' not antelopes in the Ural's" Shall we start another thread regarding double negatives? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 15 Jan 06 - 01:48 PM Since when don't they got no antelopes in the Urals! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 15 Jan 06 - 02:04 PM And, BTW, we don't got no antelopes in our urinals, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 15 Jan 06 - 02:12 PM . . . but we got mooses though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: artbrooks Date: 15 Jan 06 - 02:14 PM Or is that meese? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 15 Jan 06 - 02:20 PM Yeah. Meese. "Look at the antlers on them meese." Recall when they tried to get that political thing done about the largest member of the deer family? That's right: The Meese Lake Accord. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Ebbie Date: 15 Jan 06 - 03:06 PM Jus' ruminatin' here. Remember Edwin Meese? Considering that many surnames from antiquity have been given in response to exploits, hereditary discent, location, occupation or personal attributes, among others, how do you suppose the Meese family got its name? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Ebbie Date: 15 Jan 06 - 03:17 PM That, of course, should be DEscent... Hazarding an answer to my own question, my guess would be that the name is German in origin and originally sported an umlaut. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 15 Jan 06 - 03:26 PM The Att'y Gen likely took the name Meese when he married. Prior to that his name had been Edwin Moose. (I don't know if that is historically accurate--just guessin' here.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Ebbie Date: 15 Jan 06 - 04:00 PM Good guess, Peace. lol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Paul Burke Date: 16 Jan 06 - 04:11 AM PK(F): theat was one of the points I was making. If you needed to specify the number of boys, it would either be done by context, or you'd be better off with a different construction. Double negatives: the norm in English until the blasted grammarians got hold of it (again). Edi beo thu hevene quene folkes froure and engles blis. Moder unwemmed and maiden clene swich in world non other nis. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Jim Dixon Date: 16 Jan 06 - 12:45 PM Here's another curiosity for you: In England, in Corwall, at the extreme tip of the peninsula, there's a place called Land's End -- at least that's how the Ordnance Survey punctuates it. However, Cornwall 365, another "official"-looking site, omits the apostrophe, and so does the "official" signpost – see the photo at the bottom of the page. In America, there's a popular mail-order clothing company called Lands' End, with headquarters in Dodgeville, Wisconsin. According to Wikipedia, "Lands' End was started as a sailboat equipment company in 1963 in Chicago, Illinois.... The company is named from its sailboat heritage, after Land's End [Cornwall], but the misplaced apostrophe in the company name was a typographical error that the founders elected to keep, as promotional materials had already been printed." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: artbrooks Date: 16 Jan 06 - 04:14 PM According to the Lands' End website, I started making lists of possible company names and settled on Lands' End. It had a romantic ring to it, and conjured visions of a point to depart from on a perilous voyage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: HuwG Date: 17 Jan 06 - 05:09 AM For the American cousins: The phrase, "Greengrocer's apostrophe", derives from the hastily chalked boards or hand-written cards on tables of produce inside shops or on the pavement [sidewalk] outside, or at market stalls, advertising such things as, "Potatoe's - 15p / lb" and "Carrot's - 30p / lb" You could club them over the head with Chamber's "Modern English Usage", and they'd still do it. ... The "double negative". The best take on this I ever saw was in Alan Bleasdale's TV series, "Boys from the blackstuff". Yosser Hughes (played by Bernard Hill) is facing a tribunal from the Department of Employment. Hughes: I didn't do no work for him. Adjudicator: That's a double negative. Hughes: So ? There's two of you, aren't there ? ... The Lands End / Land's End debate; how about the other end of Britain. Is it "John o' Groats" or "John o' Groat's" ? I suspect the latter, but the two road atlases I possess each give a different version. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Leadfingers Date: 17 Jan 06 - 09:11 AM 99 Ted ?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Leadfingers Date: 17 Jan 06 - 09:12 AM And 100 !! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 17 Jan 06 - 10:03 AM I read somewhere many moons bach that the President (or CEO) of the Lands' End company said the apostrophe placement was a mistake (as was noted above also) and that the company had become quite established before it was brought to their attention. They decided to leave it as it was and still is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Mr Red Date: 17 Jan 06 - 01:39 PM artbrooks Yea I was being ironic but surely the words will inform you opera is a collection of compositions that would rightly in the singular be called "OPUS" - common usage allows us to refer to Operas because we treat an Opera as a single entity - indivisible. Datas will follow - in time. And criterions are close behind. It is a simplification of the language that is being complicated in other directions by the minute with fashion, commerce and mischief. I just wondered if cafeteria was similarly from the Latin or a portmanteau word from an era (is a singular word similarly to how data has become?) I know little about. The whole point about live languages is that no one has control. eg The word gay has over the years taken on a lascivious meaning in a heterosexual sense, and been so passe it has lost all oumph several times. Which is why is was adopted by the homosexual community. Who refers to assertive flirty widowed women as "brisk" these days? Yet brisk whad a very specific meaning when the song about the "brisk young widow and the sooty colier" was in vogue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: GUEST,Murray on Saltspring Date: 17 Jan 06 - 02:14 PM John o' Groats is the usual spelling I think [from the fellow who built a house there in the 16th century, a Dutchman called Jan de Groot]. As for cafeteria, it's an American Spanish word [accent on the i] in its own right, so plural = cafeterias. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 17 Jan 06 - 02:55 PM Shouldn't you be Murray on Salt Spring? ;o) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Burke Date: 17 Jan 06 - 08:36 PM Is The Bronx misspelled then? I understand it was named for the family who lived there and people would say, "We're going to the Bronx' [homestead]" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 17 Jan 06 - 08:41 PM "There are, apparently, two stories on the name of the county. The two may or may not be related. One story has it that the county is named for a Swedish sea captain, John (or Jonas) Bronck, who settled in the area in 1639 and established a farm. The other story has it that the area that encompasses Bronx County was a farm owned by the Bronck family. Many of the wealthy of Manhattan would come to visit their friends who owned the farm, and would simply say that they were going to the Broncks'. If that is true, then the name most certainly stuck." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Jim Dixon Date: 17 Jan 06 - 09:30 PM How apropos! This looks like an exciting read:
I say potatoes and you say potato's Should we care about aberrant apostrophes and other solecisms? Not according to one expert. But just wait for the outraged letters in green ink HOW LANGUAGE WORKS by David Crystal Penguin, £22; 512pp Reviewed by John Humphrys |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: autolycus Date: 18 Jan 06 - 05:59 AM Where punctuation should matter is over comprehensibility. In the boys trousers one, context might help, and so does correct,appropriate punctuation. There is a story I can't lay my hands on about someone whose (not 'who's), whose life was saved because a Queen moved or added a comma to an instruction from the king. These debates will ever go on because of the inevitable yin/yang tension between the need for some rules (to aid comprehensibility) on the one hand, and the stark fact that language changes (because people are creative, there are are new meanings discovered for which new forms are required). I'm fighting a marginally successful campaign to oppose the misuse of "that begs the question of.......", where the speaker actually MEANS "that raises the ques........". It's working, by showing that it is a misuse (If I say 'Parallel lines will never meet because they are parallel',THAT'S 'begging the question'),partly by pointing out better formulations e.g.'raises the question', and partly by sarcasm,"I thought you lot were hedgemecated". I mean working in that some of the offenders seem to have given up misusing "begs the ques....". Including some of BBC 5 Live. You can raise the hads sequence in the following context. The editor asks two apprentice printers to come up with alternative fonts for'had had'(which you'll have to imagine cos of my technophobia). One of the apprentices is Hadley , Had to his friends. "Jim, where Had had had 'had had',had had 'had had'. Had's 'had had' had had the editor's approval. I've used apostrophes and full stop - er - for -er- clarity. Amos, please forgive me for earlier signings-off as A. Auto. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: gnu Date: 18 Jan 06 - 07:24 AM Dittos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Mr Red Date: 18 Jan 06 - 08:00 AM now do you use ditto or "? and when. and when do you decide to use "etc" or "&co" and - never mind here comes the boss.............. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 18 Jan 06 - 11:57 AM I'm grateful few Catters employ phone-text here, r u 2? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 18 Jan 06 - 01:23 PM Me 2. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: leftydee Date: 18 Jan 06 - 02:34 PM Plural's don't get apostrophe's? Well, that's new's to me! Shuck's, I've been doing it wrong all these year's |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 18 Jan 06 - 04:49 PM Which phrase is more correct: "no, you're not" or "no, you aren't." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: autolycus Date: 18 Jan 06 - 04:54 PM Yes Auto |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: WFDU - Ron Olesko Date: 18 Jan 06 - 05:01 PM who really cares????? Punctuation and rules can be very boring |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Snuffy Date: 19 Jan 06 - 09:48 AM "no, yow'm ent" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 19 Jan 06 - 10:13 AM 'Which phrase is more correct: "no, you're not" or "no, you aren't."' NOT IN THIS LIFE! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Mr Happy Date: 19 Jan 06 - 09:30 PM mother in laws/mothers in law spoonfuls/spoonsfull but what about mouthfuls? 'mouthsfull'? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Mr Happy Date: 19 Jan 06 - 09:32 PM ps anagram of mother in law= woman hitler! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Seamus Kennedy Date: 19 Jan 06 - 11:03 PM The plural of "mongoose" is "mongooses". And for all the baseball fans, it's not RBI's, nor RBIs; it's simply RBI. And the only (Oh crap! I was doing so well until I started this sentence with a conjunction.) major league announcer who uses RBI correctly is Jon Miller. For the non-baseball literate, RBI is the abbreviation for Runs Batted In. Seamus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Mr Happy Date: 20 Jan 06 - 12:18 PM ........& when you've had a pint or too many of the wobbly juice, its a skinful. what would several be? skinfuls or skinsful? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: TheBigPinkLad Date: 20 Jan 06 - 02:19 PM How many skins do you have? ;o) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: GUEST Date: 21 Jan 06 - 01:18 AM BETTER GRAMMAR THAN GOD Bruce Nesmith (copyright 2000 Why Tuque? Music) I was driving in western Illinois On a warm but not too hot late summer day Beneath the electric wires I found A farmer's roadside stand along the way Fresh strawberries and melons Looked about as quaint as you might guess But wouldn't you know "melons" was spelled M-e-l-o-n apostrophe s And I said, plural nouns don't take an apostrophe, Plural nouns don't take an apostrophe Plural nouns don't take an apostrophe Take it out, take it out, take it out In the town a major store Enticing customers from far and wide A most eye-catching sign To welcome you and beckon you inside Year-end close-out deals Just about impossible to resist But they couldn't resist spelling D-e-a-l apostrophe s But I said, plural nouns don't take an apostrophe, Plural nouns don't take an apostrophe Plural nouns don't take an apostrophe Take it out, take it out, take it out The sisters of AO Pi Are generous and always doing good All of them love animals They treat them just like their mothers would And when they seek donations They seek them with a certain sort of grace But s-i-s-t-e-r-s Did not seek the apostrophe they placed And I said, plural nouns don't take an apostrophe, Plural nouns don't take an apostrophe Plural nouns don't take an apostrophe Take it out, take it out, take it out My earthly life was over I finally shuffled off this mortal coil I arrived in paradise To rest forever from my earthly toil At the entrance were directions To various celestial offices God's of course and Jesus' And the twelve disciple apostrophe s And I said - (spoken) I started to say my thing about plural nouns and then something popped into my head. I don't know why. Something about the famous Puritan preacher Jonathon Edwards' sermon about "sinners in the hands of an angry God". That's not really my theology. I'm more of a universalist myself but I'm enough of a universalist to think that possibly Jonathon Edwards had it right. And when I get to heaven God will dangle me like a loathsome spider over the flame and say, "Say it, Grammar Boy. Say it." So I decided not to say it. Discretion is the better part of valour. Oh what a beautiful city. Oh what a beautiful city Oh what a beautiful city Twelve gate apostrophe s to the city, my lord. From the CD "Mouth Full of Mustard" by Bruce Nesmith, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (bnesmith@coe.edu) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Mr Red Date: 21 Jan 06 - 06:21 AM Mr Happy - yer mother told you not to speak ....... if yer mouth'sfull and anyway (or should it be any way?) you may stuff many spoons full (I hope they were silver) and many spoonfulls (one spoon) but you only have one mouth unless you are talking out of the tops of your heads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Mr Red Date: 21 Jan 06 - 08:07 AM as my dear 'ole departed Gramma (put the apostrophe there if you dare) used to say now boy "is that grammar, spelling or syntax you are tying to teach yer little 'ole Granny? Don't try to teach yer Granny to suck her teeth!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 24 Jan 06 - 01:52 PM apostrophe's are rubbish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Liz the Squeak Date: 25 Jan 06 - 06:04 AM Walked past a shop selling curry's today.... kept walking. Whatever happened to the 'ies' rule? It's not helped by Tony *Education, education, education* Blair using the word "incentivise" in a speech yesterday about getting people off benefits and into work. LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: autolycus Date: 25 Jan 06 - 06:37 AM LTS, You could always try the techniques that Seem to be working that I mentioned before to do with stopping the misuse of "begging the question". Sometimes these situations benefit from some proactivity. Auto. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 26 Jan 06 - 06:09 PM GUEST Bainbo said, inter alia: Similar confusion over split infinitives. The folk lying down the laws on English grammar tried to make it follow the rules of Latin. One of my favorite peeves is those who try to speak authoritatively about English grammar but clearly don't understand "lie" and "lay" and their various shifting forms. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 26 Jan 06 - 09:34 PM A lie is what one says; a lay is what one gets. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes! From: Peace Date: 26 Jan 06 - 09:41 PM Lie, Lady, Lie Lie across my big brass bed (From an article by Diana Hacker) |
