BS: Plurals don't require apostrophes!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 Except Accept Checks." ;-D

SRS

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: 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: 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: 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—

banjo

Plural—

banji

Back to singular again—

banjum

Get it?
Got it!
Good!

Don Firth
(Another slow day at the skunk works)

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: Peace
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 02:47 PM

Good one, Les.

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: 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: 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 - 02:36 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Bill D
Date: 13 Jan 06 - 01:35 PM

"Dear Sirs, please send me a pair of Mongooses....Mongeese...Mongice....

please send me a Mongoose--

p.s., please send me another one."

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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.