How apostrophes work

Posted by: joe90 on 06 May 2005

Most of you (hopefully) have read the 'PRAT vs Pitch Accurate' thread in the hifi corner.
It is hilarious to watch the various posters slug it out.
Most of all was Adam Meredith's little dig at the beloved Central for putting apostrophes in every plural.

So in the interests of our Beloved Language I would like to be a uptight twat and explain how apostrophes actually work.


DON'Ts

Don't put an apostrophe in a plural!

E.G. (for example - not i.e. which stands for 'that is')

One dog, two dogs (not dog's)
One 250, two 250s (passively biamped not recommended)

quote:
DOs
(not to be confused with DOS - Disc Operating System)

DO put an apostrophe in a possessive!

e.g.

Adam's sense of humour (the sense of humour belonging to Adam)
the dog's bollocks (if you had two dogs, that would be the 'dogs' bollocks'

If the prpoer noun ends in an 'S' there is no need to dd a second 'S'

e.g. Jesus' cloak

Do put an apostrophe in a contraction!

Cannot - Can't
Do not - Don't

How's that fellas?
Posted on: 06 May 2005 by joe90
quote:
If the prpoer noun ends in an 'S' there is no need to dd a second 'S'


Yes the typo there is 'prpoer'.
OK it should read 'proper'

And the quote should be a bold.
Posted on: 06 May 2005 by joe90
quote:
I heard that the govmt have granted authority to use speed camera's on the 1st higway between earth and the moon....!


Who can spot the mistake????
Posted on: 06 May 2005 by matthewr
quote:
Don't put an apostrophe in a plural!


People who make that absolute claim need to mind their p's and q's.

Mattthew
Posted on: 06 May 2005 by Deane F
I've been around this forum for less than a year and already it's the third time at least that the apostrophe business has come up for discussion.

What is it with British hi fi enthusiasts? Is this grammar thing part of your class struggle or something?

Deane
Posted on: 06 May 2005 by Steve Toy
No it isn't a class struggle.

We communicate here by the written word, so it is just a case of if a job's* worth doing...



There is lazy punctuation - missing it out, and there is ignorant punctuation - putting it where it doesn't belong.

I'd rather be lazy than ignorant.

*The above apostrophe denoted a contraction - for anyone slightly confused. Razz
Posted on: 06 May 2005 by joe90
quote:
People who make that absolute claim need to mind their p's and q's.


See - another misguided punter!

Mind your Ps and Qs is correct.

In the above sentence, what belongs to the P?
So it has to be a plural - and you DON'T
put an apostrophe in a plural!!!
Posted on: 06 May 2005 by joe90
quote:
I'd rather be lazy than ignorant.


Is it ok to be ignorant of your laziness??
Posted on: 06 May 2005 by Steve Toy
How can anyone not know they are lazy?
Posted on: 06 May 2005 by Steve Toy
I've a collection of 500 CDs.

The Madonna CD's case is on the coffee table.
Posted on: 07 May 2005 by Deane F
Perhaps Adam should start a public school room?
Posted on: 07 May 2005 by Earwicker
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Toy:
I've a collection of 500 CDs.

The Madonna CD's case is on the coffee table.

Heh! Are you showing off or taking the piss? Winker
Posted on: 07 May 2005 by Adam Meredith
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Toy:
How can anyone not know they are lazy?


Sorry - didn't read the question.
Posted on: 07 May 2005 by matthewr
"Mind your Ps and Qs is correct"

What if I want to mind my lowercase p's and s's? Er ps and qs. This example is given in almost all books on English usage including my reliable old Fowler's.

Printers marks are to aid clarity and change over time and anyone who insists on a dogmatic applicaiton of rules are missing the point entirely.

Matthew
Posted on: 07 May 2005 by Gianluigi Mazzorana
quote:
One dog, two dogs (not dog's)

DO put an apostrophe in a possessive!

e.g.

Adam's sense of humour (the sense of humour belonging to Adam)
the dog's bollocks (if you had two dogs, that would be the 'dogs' bollocks'

If the prpoer noun ends in an 'S' there is no need to dd a second 'S'

e.g. Jesus' cloak

Do put an apostrophe in a contraction!

Cannot - Can't
Do not - Don't



Fiuuuuuuuuuuuu!
T h a n k y o u P r o f !
I was loosing good manners!
hehehehhehehe
Posted on: 07 May 2005 by BigH47
Cant we stort a thred abart smelling insteed?

PS whereis the "smell Chocker"?
Most other fora seem to have one.

Howard Big Grin
Posted on: 07 May 2005 by Berlin Fritz
This is not most other fora, this is the place Champagne Drinking Middle Aged Yuppies Post their wares JOhn, innit. Big Grin
Posted on: 07 May 2005 by Mike Hanson
quote:
Originally posted by joe90:
Mind your Ps and Qs is correct. .... You DON'T put an apostrophe in a plural!!!

As Matthew already stated, not only is P's and Q's considered to be correct in most respected usage guides, you also use apostrophes with years (1980's). In addition, acronyms can use apostrophes in plural situations (RSVP's), although you have to consider whether that acronym has become an entity in and of itself (CD's vs. CDs).

Finally, if there is some concern that the "s" will be misconstrued as part of the entity, then adding an apostrophe is acceptable for clarity. For example, if there is a part number 92v-dfj, and I want two of them, then I would probably use 92v-dfj's.

-=> Mike Hanson <=-
Posted on: 07 May 2005 by garyi
Bang on Fritz.

Grammar is not so important on forums where people don't own mortgage valued HIFI.

Snobbery basically.
Posted on: 07 May 2005 by Derek Wright
Disagree Gary - Grammar is important as it helps to avoid misunderstanding - correct use of the language is not snobbery - whereas proud usage of incorrect language is inverted snobbery - incorrect use through innocence/ignorance is tolerated as long the perpetrator can accept criticsm

These comments are a bit rich as they are from a person who failed English Language 'O' Level twice <g>
Posted on: 07 May 2005 by Berlin Fritz
Bit ov both I feel, It is impotent to be understood as far as is possible, and the collect use of grandma can be invaluabubble, though unlike many on here, I unfortunately don't have debt or a mortgage, but understand very well wot it's all abaat from past experience in a big way, innit.

Fritz Von Inverted snobbery is Horribillis though I must admit, Littlejohn & Parry come to mind Eek
Posted on: 07 May 2005 by JeremyD
Exception:
"it's" = "it is" rather than "belonging to it"
"its" = "belonging to it"

Also, "belonging to her" is not "her's" - etc.

quote:
Originally posted by Mike Hanson:
...you also use apostrophes with years (1980's)...

...acronyms can use apostrophes in plural situations (RSVP's), although you have to consider whether that acronym has become an entity in and of itself (CD's vs. CDs).
I cannot think of a justification for using apostrophes in such cases. I must admit I find such usage almost as irritating as the use of apostrophes in plurals.
Posted on: 07 May 2005 by Berlin Fritz
Deane, I think it's a case of loving to bring up a subject that a few are masters at, and the rest of the world ain't !

Fritz Von A bit like Our Arye bring Israel into every thread under the sun, disguised initially as an interest in music for example, good lad that he is who's obviously very busy in his new job, just like our Mick hopefully soon will be too, so he'll only put in quality comments, and not off of the cuff ramblings like his mate Our Mat ? Big Grin
Posted on: 07 May 2005 by TomK
quote:
anyone who insists on a dogmatic application of rules ARE missing the point entirely.


Tut tut.

We pedants must stick together.


Big Grin
Posted on: 07 May 2005 by Joe Petrik
Jeremy,

quote:
I cannot think of a justification for using apostrophes in such cases.


Superfluous apostrophes tend to be used by those who surround their name with superfluous arrows. ;-)

Joe
Posted on: 07 May 2005 by BigH47
quote:
We pedants must stick together


Us pedants must stick together. Winker

Howard