• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

OT: How to use a *spoon* apostrophe

Started by seank,

135 posts in this topic

rjpb

rjpb

Posted
Posted
I do n't really worry about my typing online and know I make a lot of mistakes. An apostrophe is something I probably usually gloss over when I'm typing online. However, the one thing that drives me nuts on this board is when people say something is "for sell" or "not for sell." It is either for SALE or not for SALE! http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/forsell.html

 

I find this odd as well, as I've never heard someone actually say it that way when speaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dover

dover

Posted
Posted
Dover's personal freedoms and liberties will not be removed!

 

:popcorn:

 

:wishluck:

 

Unfortunately, however, your liberties no longer end at the tip of your nose, they end at the tip of a legislators pen. :cry:

 

 

man, could this thread take on a new direction......... :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheetah

cheetah

Posted
Posted

That's because it is correct to use an apostrophe when pluralizing years.

 

doh!

 

No. It. Isn't.

 

Using an apostrophe for pluralization is always wrong.

 

You just need to check the various 'authorities" on the issue. Both usages are considered acceptable. There are plenty of cases when English allows multiple ways of doing the same thing.

 

Even that bastion of good grammar, Wikipedia, notes examples of when it is acceptable to use an apostrophe for a plural. And they even have citations.

 

Use in forming certain plurals

 

An apostrophe is used by some writers to form a plural for abbreviations, acronyms, and symbols where adding just s rather than 's may leave things ambiguous or inelegant. Some specific cases:

 

* It is generally acceptable to use apostrophes to show plurals of single lower-case letters, such as be sure to dot your i's and cross your t's. Some style guides would prefer to use a change of font: dot your is and cross your ts.[citation needed] Upper case letters need no apostrophe (I got three As in my exams[39]) except when there is a risk of misreading, such as at the start of a sentence: A's are the highest marks achievable in these exams.

* For groups of years, the apostrophe at the end cannot be regarded as necessary, since there is no possibility of misreading. For this reason, most authorities prefer 1960s to 1960's[39] (although the latter is noted by at least one source as acceptable in American usage),[40] and 90s or '90s to 90's or '90's.

* The apostrophe is sometimes used in forming the plural of numbers (for example, 1000's of years); however, as with groups of years, it is unnecessary: there is no possibility of misreading. Most sources are against this usage.

* The apostrophe is often used in plurals of symbols. Again, since there can be no misreading, this is often regarded as incorrect.[39] That page has too many &s and #s on it.

* Finally, a few sources accept its use in an alternative spelling of the plurals of a very few short words, such as do, ex, yes, no, which become do's, ex's, etc.[41] In each case, dos, exes, yeses (or yesses) and noes would be preferred by most authorities. Nevertheless, many writers are still inclined to use such an apostrophe when the word is thought to look awkward or unusual without one.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
homerwannabee

homerwannabee

Posted
Posted
You know what the ironic thing about these grammar naggers is? Most of them are horrible with basic math. Ask any of these naggers what 12 times 17 is. Either they will stand there dumbfounded, or they will have to get a pencil and paper to answer the question.

 

 

Please site examples and explain exactly how this constitutes irony. :baiting:

 

It's ironic because the Grammar Naggers always equate this as a lack of intelligence. Well I could equate their lack of math skills as a lack of intelligence as well. Grammar Naggers maybe able to write a book, but they can't even hold a job at McDonald's because they can't even give out correct change.

 

And there is a the rub. Bad grammar is still functional. The person may have bad grammar, but you get the gist of what they are saying. The person with bad math skills is not functional in our society. If I give you a fifty dollar bill for a 32 dollar purchase, and that person turns around and gives me 28 dollars back, than we have a problem. So the irony is that the Grammar Naggar quite often has an I.Q. lower than the person they are chastising. If you can't understand how that is ironic, than I feel bad for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
homerwannabee

homerwannabee

Posted
Posted

Also, as far as annoying. Try always freaking having to be the person to figure out a 15 percent or 20 percent tip on a 35 dollar food bill. Grammar Nagger will probably give a $10 bill just to be safe because they can't do a simple math problem in their freaking head. So when Grammar Nagger learns how to give a proper tip without asking for my help than come, and criticize the way I write.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bronze_rules

bronze_rules

Posted
Posted

Nice retort, Homer. (thumbs u

 

It is similar to how Professors and the media collectively gripe

that the generation 50 years ago performed much better on a comprehensive

history exam. Well of course they did! Try going back in time and giving them an exam on stochastic calculus with convex optimization. I doubt they'd fare as well as the modern generation. The modern generation is drowning in a sea of information.

That wasn't the case 50 yrs ago.

 

However, if you can be astute in both areas (language and math), the world is your oyster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
seank

seank

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Dover's personal freedoms and liberties will not be removed!

 

:popcorn:

 

:wishluck:

 

Unfortunately, however, your liberties no longer end at the tip of your nose, they end at the tip of a legislators pen. :cry:

 

Until the Supreme Court says otherwise. But that's OT in an OT thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TupennyConan

TupennyConan

Posted
Posted
stochastic calculus with convex optimization

 

Tupenny enjoyed this. He offers you his thanks & gratitude.

 

Now Tupenny takes his leave. He must go distill loose knowledge & fugitive facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr.Diggler

Mr.Diggler

Posted
Posted

Who gives a mess? Really? Over the last couple of years there have been many "Grammar Nazi" threads started and not one, that I remember,have actually called out the offending party/parties. If you want to put yourself on a pedestal at least have the balls to call out the simpleton, insufficiently_thoughtful_person, !diot or less than human pieces of excrement that can't properly spell or use a apostrophe. It's not that big of a deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
drewincanada

drewincanada

Posted
Posted
Even that bastion of good grammar, Wikipedia, notes examples of when it is acceptable to use an apostrophe for a plural. And they even have citations.

 

Use in forming certain plurals

 

An apostrophe is used by some writers to form a plural for abbreviations, acronyms, and symbols where adding just s rather than 's may leave things ambiguous or inelegant. Some specific cases:

 

* It is generally acceptable to use apostrophes to show plurals of single lower-case letters, such as be sure to dot your i's and cross your t's. Some style guides would prefer to use a change of font: dot your is and cross your ts.[citation needed] Upper case letters need no apostrophe (I got three As in my exams[39]) except when there is a risk of misreading, such as at the start of a sentence: A's are the highest marks achievable in these exams.

* For groups of years, the apostrophe at the end cannot be regarded as necessary, since there is no possibility of misreading. For this reason, most authorities prefer 1960s to 1960's[39] (although the latter is noted by at least one source as acceptable in American usage),[40] and 90s or '90s to 90's or '90's.

* The apostrophe is sometimes used in forming the plural of numbers (for example, 1000's of years); however, as with groups of years, it is unnecessary: there is no possibility of misreading. Most sources are against this usage.

* The apostrophe is often used in plurals of symbols. Again, since there can be no misreading, this is often regarded as incorrect.[39] That page has too many &s and #s on it.

* Finally, a few sources accept its use in an alternative spelling of the plurals of a very few short words, such as do, ex, yes, no, which become do's, ex's, etc.[41] In each case, dos, exes, yeses (or yesses) and noes would be preferred by most authorities. Nevertheless, many writers are still inclined to use such an apostrophe when the word is thought to look awkward or unusual without one.

 

 

The wiki entry doesn't mention my acronym/apostrophe pet peeve:

 

DVDs vs. DVD's

CDs vs. CD's

 

:frustrated:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing