[Eug Wanker]

Contrary to popular myth, an apostrophe CAN be use to indicate plurals.

From the guys who publish the Oxford Dictionaries:

An apostrophe is used in plurals in the following very special cases:

1. in the plurals of single letters:
There are only three s's in `Christmases'.
Mind your p's and q's.
(Even here, the capital letter would not need the apostrophe.)

2. in the plurals of abbreviations:
We have several pg's [paying guests].
We have received four cheques and two IOU's.
(But IOUs is common and accepted, and the usual plural of CD is CDs).
Most symbols for units such as lb (pounds) and cm (centimetres) do not strictly have plural forms.

3. in the plurals of numerals:
This house was built in the 1930's.
(But 1930s is preferable).

4. As an alternative spelling, for clarity, of the plurals of a very few short words:
We went to several society do's last year.
While out with his third wife he met both of his ex's.
I've had yes's for coffee from four people.
But in each case, dos, exes, yesses would be acceptable. The usual plural of no is noes.

[Landos Mustache]

Ive never care'd that much but you guy's obviously do judging by you're sillyness

This is so 90's.

[Eug Wanker]

l'o'l

Nah, I just hate it when people repeatedly correct something that isn't wrong.

It's sort of like the usage of "Landos and I".

"He gave the tickets to Landos and me" is correct, but some people will try to correct it to "He gave the tickets to Landos and I".

P.S. I learned this stuff in the 80s.

[Tomchu]

Eug: Those are the people who don't understand basic English to start with.

You say "He gave the tickets to me", not "He gave the tickets to I". Throw in Landos, and a few others, and it still stays "me".

[Eug Wanker]

Well, to be fair, I definitely don't claim to be an expert in English grammar either. (English class was my worst grade in high school.) These are just some of my pet peeves.

[greenamp]

wha't?

[Eug Wanker]

Don't you mean "Wha'?"

P.S. The hardest thing I find about this stuff is where to put punctuation marks when using quotation marks.

[greenamp]

I'guess.

[Landos Mustache]

I can't stand it when I see people say "alot" or "you're a looser".

you'd be surprised how many semi-pro writers say alot.

[Eug Wanker]

"irregardless"

And yeah, I use "It's me" cuz "It is I" sounds obnoxious.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

P.S. The hardest thing I find about this stuff is where to put punctuation marks when using quotation marks.

From http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handou...r/g_quote.html

Punctuation with Quotation Marks

Put commas and periods within closing quotation marks, except when a parenthetical reference follows the quotation.

He said, "I may forget your name, but I never remember a face."
History is stained with blood spilled in the name of "civilization."
Mullen, criticizing the apparent inaction, writes, "Donahue's policy was to do nothing" (27).

Put colons and semicolons outside closing quotation marks.

Williams described the experiment as "a definitive step forward"; other scientists disagreed.
Benedetto emphasizes three elements of what she calls her "Olympic journey": family support, personal commitment, and great coaching.

Put a dash, question mark, or exclamation point within closing quotation marks when the punctuation applies to the quotation itself and outside when it applies to the whole sentence.

Philip asked, "Do you need this book?"
Does Dr. Lim always say to her students, "You must work harder"?
Sharon shouted enthusiastically, "We won! We won!"
I can't believe you actually like that song, "If You Wanna Be My Lover"!

[Chuckit]

He says that not using an apostrophe is preferable in all but one of the cases.

[darth-vader000]

Must be a slow forum day when people start complaining about punctuation and start a thread on it

[olePigeon]

My Grammar & Punctuation guide for Writing differs from Oxford. However, it does say that in rare instances it may be used with lowercase letters, but not with dates. So it depends on the book and what you're writing; I guess I was wrong. Big apology to everyone.

Every English teacher I've had since high school has told me to never use it for plural, period.

[Kevin]

I think it's funny when people make fun of other people's grammar mistakes, when the same people make many themselves.

I guess when it happens, it should be humbling.

[darth-vader000]

I'd never complain about someone's grammar because mine is sooo piss poor.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

"Landos and I".

For some reason the word "Landos" made me think of "Santos L. Halper."








Simpsons. If you didn't know that, you should.

[loki74]

I find that often b!tching about grammar is what people do when they don't have an argument, or have to attack another person, but have no solid merits on which to do so. It's a friggin internet forum, not a poetry contest!

However, if their grammar is overtly bad, or thier mistake happens to be a pet peeve of mine, I may mention it. Usually the more annoying mistakes are either conjugation (rare) or spelling.

I dont think apostrophes are a huge problem, as many times in chats and forums they're excluded entirely, for the sake of typing faster... there is one thing, however, that really bugs me--that is when people use the grave symbol, `, instead of the apostrophe symbol, '.

[tooki]

Interesting thing about that (though I've seen it FAR more with the ´): in every single case I've seen that (it bugs me, too), it's been someone typing on a German keyboard. Why? Because a German keyboard has a key for the ´ (shift makes `), whereas a real apostrophe is shift-#. So a lot of users of the German layout have gotten into the bad habit of using the ´ in place of ' because it's easier to type.

tooki

[starman]

T'Pau

[greenamp]

T'Pol

[loki74]

Originally Posted by tooki

Interesting thing about that (though I've seen it FAR more with the ´): in every single case I've seen that (it bugs me, too), it's been someone typing on a German keyboard. Why? Because a German keyboard has a key for the ´ (shift makes `), whereas a real apostrophe is shift-#. So a lot of users of the German layout have gotten into the bad habit of using the ´ in place of ' because it's easier to type.

tooki

interesting... interesting. I wonder if the normal ' key bugs them, lol

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by loki74

However, if their grammar is overtly bad, or thier mistake happens to be a pet peeve of mine, I may mention it.

Are you baiting us?

Originally Posted by starman

T'Pau

Originally Posted by greenamp

T'Pol

Posted just now by Eug
T'Pring

[tooki]

Originally Posted by loki74

interesting... interesting. I wonder if the normal ' key bugs them, lol

As I said, typing a proper straight apostrophe requires using the shift key on a German keyboard, whereas an acute accent requires no modifier key, so they use that instead since it's easier.

tooki

[loki74]

no i know, I was just thinking it would be funny if us using the normal apostrophe annoys them the way them using the acute accent annoys us...

Eug--nice, lol
It is unfortunate they cut the new Star Trek off... I was a skeptic at first, but it really kinda grew on me... *sigh*

[tooki]

The standard apostrophe is seldom used in German, so the issue probably rarely comes up.

tooki

[CharlesS]

I dont get Y U R talking abot apostrophe's and grammer on a MAC bored.
__________________
Somebody set up you the .bom? What you say! For great justice, with Pacifist. In AD 2006, Version 2.0 was beginning![/color][/quote]Media Access Codes are way better than Political Correctness![quote][color= white]

[loki74]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

MAC

ya thats one of the aforementioned pet peeves. Its Mac!!! AAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!


....whew. Okay.

although the "bored" was pushing it; that was pretty good, lol

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Why is everyone in an evil mirror universe always sexier? Is being sexy evil?

[MindFad]

80's? It's supposed to be '80s, as the apostrophe denotes the 19, no?

And CD's instead of CDs? Stupid. The apostrophe S for plurals is just stupid, unless to prevent potential confusing abbreviations. And there you go.

[greenamp]

T'Panga

[tooki]

Originally Posted by MindFad

80's? It's supposed to be '80s, as the apostrophe denotes the 19, no?

Not necessarily. E.g. "Mr. Magoo is in his 80's." (Though I'd write "...his 80s.")

tooki

[MindFad]

But I'm talking about dates. As in, "The Ninja Turtles rocked back in the '80s." Which is how I would write it, anyway. "An old man in his 80s" is how I would also write that.

[tooki]

For abbreviated years, I agree with you, as does the Chicago Manual of Style: '80s.

tooki

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Why is everyone in an evil mirror universe always sexier? Is being sexy evil?

No, but sometimes some people associate the bad-boy/bad-girl mystique with sexiness.

Originally Posted by greenamp

T'Panga

Hmmm... Never heard of her so I looked up T'Panga... and got this:

A Night in the Life of a Vulcan Love Slave

[Stradlater]

Grammar is a living thing regulated only (and barely, at that) by communication's interpretability. People misinterpret rules and use them where they're not necessary, but if they're understood, it rarely matters. Oll korrect?

[tooki]

Correct. But punctuation is not grammar.

tooki

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Hmmm... Never heard of her so I looked up T'Panga... and got this:

That's Topanga, the girlfriend/wife of Cory Matthews on the TV show Boy Meets World.

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by tooki

Correct. But punctuation is not grammar.

tooki

But ay, it's a component all right.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by greenamp

T'Panga

Hee, I can't believe you actually thought of that.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

But ay, it's a component all right.

Absolutely not.

Grammar is the structure of the language. Punctuation is a component of spelling -- that is, writing rules. Grammar is independent of writing, as evidenced by the fact that human language is not dependent on writing: most languages have no written form, but all are spoken or signed, and all have a grammar.

Writing is, fundamentally, a way of recording language. But that language need not be written in order to have structure.

tooki

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by tooki

Absolutely not.

Grammar is the structure of the language. Punctuation is a component of spelling -- that is, writing rules. Grammar is independent of writing, as evidenced by the fact that human language is not dependent on writing: most languages have no written form, but all are spoken or signed, and all have a grammar.

Writing is, fundamentally, a way of recording language. But that language need not be written in order to have structure.

tooki

Writing and speaking both have structures and grammars that sometimes overlap. "Grammar" can be used with your narrow definition, my slightly-more-encompassing one, or even more freely.

[MindFad]

Originally Posted by tooki

For abbreviated years, I agree with you, as does the Chicago Manual of Style: '80s.

tooki

Damn straight. A key piece on my shelf.


[/nerd]

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Stradlater

Writing and speaking both have structures and grammars that sometimes overlap. "Grammar" can be used with your narrow definition, my slightly-more-encompassing one, or even more freely.

As a trained linguist, I respectfully disagree.

Grammar describes the structure of the language, which is in no way dependent on writing. As I said, the vast majority of world languages have no written form (and there is no human language that exists only in written form). All languages have grammar, regardless of whether they possess a writing system or not. Furthermore, some languages have multiple writing systems (for example, Korean and Vietnamese). The writing systems may be totally different, but the grammar belongs to the language and is consistent regardless of how the language was recorded.

There are names for the structure of the writing: spelling (orthography) and punctuation.

IMHO, considering punctuation to be part of grammar is -- how shall I put it delicately? -- misinformed.

tooki

[Stradlater]

Originally Posted by tooki

As a trained linguist, I respectfully disagree.

Grammar describes the structure of the language, which is in no way dependent on writing. As I said, the vast majority of world languages have no written form (and there is no human language that exists only in written form). All languages have grammar, regardless of whether they possess a writing system or not. Furthermore, some languages have multiple writing systems (for example, Korean and Vietnamese). The writing systems may be totally different, but the grammar belongs to the language and is consistent regardless of how the language was recorded.

There are names for the structure of the writing: spelling (orthography) and punctuation.

IMHO, considering punctuation to be part of grammar is -- how shall I put it delicately? -- misinformed.

tooki

As a man trained both in English and linguistics, I respectfully disagree, as well. I understand that linguistic terminology is stricter than the same terms inform in normal conversation; thus the disparity: your very specific use of "grammar" and my more lenient.

A quick Google search reveals the definition I was using:

"A normative or prescriptive set of rules setting forth the current standard of usage for pedagogical or reference purposes."

Of course, before that definition is one that might even have been more pertinent:

"The study of structural relationships in language or in a language, sometimes including pronunciation, meaning, and linguistic history."

The fact is, these are all human-prescribed rules, anyhow, including the definition for "grammar." You can disagree, but that doesn't make you any more "right."

[slugslugslug]

Stradlater needs to start reading Language Log regularly to stop himself spouting off the kind of stuff that makes the linguists fume... I totally wanted to jump in there about the punctuation-is-a-part-of-grammar idea, but I knew tooki would handle it eloquentlier.

Tooki, would it be fair to say that linguists tend to give prescriptivists a little more slack in making pronouncements about orthography, since it's always at least partly based on top-down rules, unlike grammar and syntax?

[edit: I posted that before seeing that Stradlater has training in linguistics, but I don't know if I agree that the diluted definitions for grammar really count as valid. I suppose it depends on how strongly they've taken hold among English speakers]

[Stradlater]

Again: I wasn't speaking from the linguist's vantage point; I wasn't using strict terminology. I was figuratively using "grammar" to explain how the rules and regulation governing language as a whole are not different than those governing punctuation.

[Sage]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Well, to be fair, I definitely don't claim to be an expert in English grammar either. (English class was my worst grade in high school.) These are just some of my pet peeves.

Incidentally, one cannot have pet peeves – you have peeves, and you have a pet peeve (your worst peeve), but you cannot have multiple pet peeves.

Sorry, it’s a grammar thread, so I felt obligated to nitpick.

[g/re/p]

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by tooki

Correct. But punctuation is not grammar.

Yes. It is.

Honestly though, you're the first person I've heard making this claim.