 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes!
|
|
|
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 !! |
