Please tell me you intended to write "someone else's".eepee wrote:Proofing someone' elses work does not necessarily exclude changes to bad structures.
ep
Alan
PS Apologies in advance if this post doesn't come out in the correct form!
Please tell me you intended to write "someone else's".eepee wrote:Proofing someone' elses work does not necessarily exclude changes to bad structures.
ep
Wow! I needn't have worried!garfsuncle wrote:
PS Apologies in advance if this post doesn't come out in the correct form!
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.garfsuncle wrote:Please tell me you intended to write "someone else's".eepee wrote:Proofing someone' elses work does not necessarily exclude changes to bad structures.
ep
Alan
Best laugh all day, thank's!saechunu wrote:Lock him up.didds wrote: Where do the apostrophe's go.
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!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
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:rottidog wrote: 3. The marking of plurals of individual characters (e.g. p's and q's, three a's, four i'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.rottidog wrote:I'm surprised nobody so far has picked up ... on the completely unnecessary apostrophe in "apostrophe'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).Lootman wrote: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:rottidog wrote: 3. The marking of plurals of individual characters (e.g. p's and q's, three a's, four i's).
"Do I have too many ETF's in my ISA's?"
Which of these looks better to you?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).
Backs' in both.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
It reduces the mental effort required to decode the sentence, which benefits the reader, and any writer interested in actually getting their point across.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.
Neither. It shows yet again that the currency of A grades is hopelessly debased.Lootman wrote:Which of these looks better to you?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).
1) All my students scored straight A's, or
2) All my students scored straight As?
They might be but they look wrong and ugly to me.Lootman wrote:References to TV's, VP's, GP's etc. are routine in modern vernacular.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_StylebookPunctuation 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.
Actually I am not at all consistent. I sometimes use ETFs and sometimes use ETF's. Probably even in the same paragraph.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.
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.
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.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.
Your "1800's" was pure stubbornness, wasn't it?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.