The Lemon Fool

eepee wrote:Proofing someone' elses work does not necessarily exclude changes to bad structures.

ep

Please tell me you intended to write "someone else's".


Alan

PS Apologies in advance if this post doesn't come out in the correct form!

garfsuncle wrote:
PS Apologies in advance if this post doesn't come out in the correct form!

Wow! I needn't have worried!


Alan

garfsuncle wrote:

eepee wrote:Proofing someone' elses work does not necessarily exclude changes to bad structures.

ep

Please tell me you intended to write "someone else's".


Alan

I was hoping you'd spot this thread, having seen your return elsewhere, and note you have been too polite to correct my mistake earlier in the thread. However, I'm certain epee posted what was posted deliberately.

Perhaps a smiley would have made it too obvious.

Sorry Pink Dalek. Basically I dont' see the point of question marks or apostrophes.

What is the point of them. Would the wlrod really miss them if they went. Now commas, I can see the point of them, probably. I like them.

Will.I.Am likes full stops but Im not so sure.

Actually, apostrophes are not just used for that purpose. Maybe I needed a question mark there. And there.

This isnt as easy as I thought. This isn't as easy as I thought?

Fun, though.

saechunu wrote:

didds wrote: Where do the apostrophe's go.

Lock him up.

Best laugh all day, thank's!

didds wrote:Two different scenarios... based on rugby training sessions for backs (ie not forwards)

1) Here is a session on backs moves

2) This is a backs moves session.

Where do the apostrophe's go. I'm happy with here I think they should go ( on the word backs in both sentences) but I have met with some disagreement. So what do you clever people think?

didds

I'm surprised nobody so far has picked up not only on the missing question mark but also on the completely unnecessary apostrophe in "apostrophe's"!! As a plural it doesn't require one. As someone who had grammar hammered into them at school the apostrophe on both of the "backs" should go at the end of the word as it is a possessive plural. The excellent book "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" by Lynne Truss is compulsive reading for grammar freaks! Here it is like wot I was taught!

The apostrophe is a punctuation mark in languages that use the Latin alphabet and some other alphabets. In English it is used for several purposes:
1. The marking of the omission of one or more letters (as in the contraction of do not to don't).
2. The marking of possessive case (as in the eagle's feathers, or in one month's time).
3. The marking of plurals of individual characters (e.g. p's and q's, three a's, four i's).
4. Plural nouns already ending in s take only an apostrophe after the pre-existing s when the possessive is formed: e.g., three eagles’ feathers.

Simples/Simple's/Simples'

rottidog wrote: 3. The marking of plurals of individual characters (e.g. p's and q's, three a's, four i's).

There is also widespread use of an apostrophe to indicate the plural of initialisms and acronyms. Technically improper, and frowned upon by all self-respecting pedants, but there is something about doing it that looks better. And it reflects the same idea as when used with individual letters. Example:

"Do I have too many ETF's in my ISA's?"

Words can change their meaning over time, with common usage, and dictionaries reflect those changes. But there is no equivalent master source of the rules of grammar, so the rules tend not to officially change, even when common usage does.

rottidog wrote:I'm surprised nobody so far has picked up ... on the completely unnecessary apostrophe in "apostrophe's"!!

Other than in the reply here https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.p ... 485#p69624 and mentioned in the reply immediately preceding yours https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/viewtopic.p ... =20#p70092.

I'd assumed, given the subject matter, that didds deliberately place the apostrophe there, for the purposes of humour.

Lootman wrote:

rottidog wrote: 3. The marking of plurals of individual characters (e.g. p's and q's, three a's, four i's).

There is also widespread use of an apostrophe to indicate the plural of initialisms and acronyms. Technically improper, and frowned upon by all self-respecting pedants, but there is something about doing it that looks better. And it reflects the same idea as when used with individual letters. Example:

"Do I have too many ETF's in my ISA's?"

I disagree. "Do I have too many ETFs in my ISAs?" is not only correct, but also looks better (in the latter case imo, of course).


Alan

garfsuncle wrote: "Do I have too many ETFs in my ISAs?" is not only correct, but also looks better (in the latter case imo, of course).

Which of these looks better to you?

1) All my students scored straight A's, or

2) All my students scored straight As?

If the former, then why does "I have two ISAs" look better than "I have two ISA's"? The apostrophe serves to delimit the acronym or initialisation, from the pluralisation, just as it does with single letters. There really is no material difference.

The use of acronyms and initialisations is relatively modern, whilst the rules of grammar are almost archaic. Isn't it possible that the rules of grammar have not kept up with contemporary usage? References to TV's, VP's, GP's etc. are routine in modern vernacular.

didds wrote:Two different scenarios... based on rugby training sessions for backs (ie not forwards)

1) Here is a session on backs moves

2) This is a backs moves session.

Where do the apostrophe's go. I'm happy with here I think they should go ( on the word backs in both sentences) but I have met with some disagreement. So what do you clever people think?

didds

Backs' in both.

The lack of an apostrophe is the least of the problems with that second sentence. It's just bad. and no number of apostrophes is going to change that. The decent thing to do would to be point this out, and back up your point by supplying an alternative suggestion for comparison.

Lootman wrote:
If the former, then why does "I have two ISAs" look better than "I have two ISA's"? The apostrophe serves to delimit the acronym or initialisation, from the pluralisation, just as it does with single letters. There really is no material difference.

The use of acronyms and initialisations is relatively modern, whilst the rules of grammar are almost archaic. Isn't it possible that the rules of grammar have not kept up with contemporary usage? References to TV's, VP's, GP's etc. are routine in modern vernacular.

It reduces the mental effort required to decode the sentence, which benefits the reader, and any writer interested in actually getting their point across.

Some of the benefit is lost by using very familiar abreviations, and to a lesser extent by doing so in type where the difference between an uppercase S which is part of the acronym and a lower case s indicating the plural is reasonably clear on a second pass...

Lootman wrote:

garfsuncle wrote: "Do I have too many ETFs in my ISAs?" is not only correct, but also looks better (in the latter case imo, of course).

Which of these looks better to you?

1) All my students scored straight A's, or

2) All my students scored straight As?

Neither. It shows yet again that the currency of A grades is hopelessly debased.

On a purely grammatical level, I find that one so problematic as to call for a workaround. All my students scored straight A grades.

Lootman wrote:References to TV's, VP's, GP's etc. are routine in modern vernacular.

They might be but they look wrong and ugly to me.

Maybe it is an age thing or from having read too much of Pedants Corner in the old place. I far prefer now to us TVs, ISAs etc but I have seen your previous mention of ISA's and ETF's, both in this thread and elsewhere, and it must by up to you as to what you prefer.

Merely as an example, Vanguard use ETFs here:

https://www.vanguardinvestor.co.uk/inve ... gKMEvD_BwE

Gov.uk use ISAs here:

https://www.gov.uk/individual-savings-accounts/overview

I've so far failed to find any provider that uses ISA's (except in the search results but when you get to the websites it is not there).

I have found a few that use ETF's, such as this random one https://www.statetrust.com/page/en/Prod ... es-ETFs/46, but even there it is only used in the header but not in the body of the text.

Few if any professional writers or editors would intentionally pluralise ISA as ISA's. Any who do should really be flogged: publicly and heavily.

Per rottidog above, and the AP Stylebook*:

http://www.thepierceprogressive.org/sit ... 011-12.pdf

Punctuation Uses Continued
# Apostrophe
* For plural nouns ending in s, add only an apostrophe: the students' grades, states' rights.
* For singular common nouns ending in s, add 's: the hostess's invitation, the witness's answer.
* For singular proper names ending in s, use only an apostrophe: Brandeis’ mission.
* For singular proper names ending in s sounds such as x, ce, and z, use 's: Marx's theories.
* For plurals of a single letter, add 's: She received all A's this semester.
* Do not use 's for plurals of numbers or multiple letter combinations: the 1960s, USEMs.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Stylebook

PinkDalek wrote:Maybe it is an age thing or from having read too much of Pedants Corner in the old place. I far prefer now to us TVs, ISAs etc but I have seen your previous mention of ISA's and ETF's, both in this thread and elsewhere, and it must by up to you as to what you prefer.

Actually I am not at all consistent. I sometimes use ETFs and sometimes use ETF's. Probably even in the same paragraph.

I happen to think using the apostrophe in these cases looks better, for the same reason it does with a single individual character, but that is an entirely subjective thing of course.

saechunu wrote:Few if any professional writers or editors would intentionally pluralise ISA as ISA's. Any who do should really be flogged: publicly and heavily.

Yes, a professional writer is held to a higher standard. I'm talking more about everyday use. If the "wrong" use continues to spread in everyday writing then, at some point, the rule may have to adapt, or at least state that both versions can be used. But that raises the question about whether common usage should drive the rules or the other way around.

The word "acronym" was only coined in 1943, and the widespread use of acronyms has been related to the development of the telegraph, which required brevity in much the same way as text messages do now. So before the late 1800's (ha) they are not regularly seen or used. This issue really only arises with the modern growth of acronyms and initialisms.

Lootman wrote:

saechunu wrote:Few if any professional writers or editors would intentionally pluralise ISA as ISA's. Any who do should really be flogged: publicly and heavily.

Yes, a professional writer is held to a higher standard. I'm talking more about everyday use. If the "wrong" use continues to spread in everyday writing then, at some point, the rule may have to adapt, or at least state that both versions can be used. But that raises the question about whether common usage should drive the rules or the other way around.

Saechunu also wrote: For plurals of a single letter, add 's: She received all A's this semester. This answers perfectly your point about Grade A's.

The word "acronym" was only coined in 1943, and the widespread use of acronyms has been related to the development of the telegraph, which required brevity in much the same way as text messages do now. So before the late 1800's (ha) they are not regularly seen or used. This issue really only arises with the modern growth of acronyms and initialisms.

Your "1800's" was pure stubbornness, wasn't it?


Alan