Apostrophe crimes

[RonnieRoots]

Berry's Own Crusted Port (bottled 2004)

Though, interestingly, not a mistake if Ronnie had instead stumbled across one of the ≤1983 BBR own-label ports, which were indeed labelled "Berry's Own Selection".

For some reason the apostrophe seems to have changed location between 1985 and 1987, since the 1985 labels (and subsequent labels) are "Berrys' Own Selection". (perhaps both Berrys started to select....!)

[apologies Ronnie - this was posted merely as a segue into a bit of trivia i noticed whilst re-arranging my cellar recently!]

I should note that officially I am exempt from this thread since I'm not a native speaker of English.

Quite interesting though. I had simply assumed it would be Berry's. I wonder why they changed it, perhaps because they found Berrys would be a better abbreviation of Berry Bros? (The Bros implying multiple Berrys etc etc?)

[RAYC]

thoughts?

[jdaw1]

➊ “Waterstones”? It is natural enough for names of corporate entities to shorten and simplify over time. No objection. Think of it as the simplest phonetic spelling of the traditional name of this shop.

➋ Every time email arrives announcing a new post in the Apostrophe crimes thread, I dread that I’ve made an error. My errors get no mercy — and deserve none.

[RAYC]

➊ “Waterstones”? It is natural enough for names of corporate entities to shorten and simplify over time. No objection. Think of it as the simplest phonetic spelling of the traditional name of this shop.

perhaps, but - as noted in the press - the possessive apostrophe reflects the origins of the brand, and Sainsbury's and McDonald's can quite happily manage to keep it in their trading names without harming their online/digital presence. Still, a bit of free publicity at a good time...

[jdaw1]

A sign outside the Tooting Methodist Church

And if the apostrophe crime isn’t enough, the sign probably meant to refer to the Rights of Way Act 1932. Oh dear.

[Glenn E.]

A sign outside the Tooting Methodist Church

And if the apostrophe crime isn’t enough, the sign probably meant to refer to the Rights of Way Act 1932. Oh dear.

Is the period after Act not also an error? Or is Act an abbreviation that I don't understand?

[jdaw1]

Is the period after Act not also an error?

Probably another error.

The Cambridge Winter Ale Festival had a brief outing in 1986, before starting it's current run in 1997.

[RAYC]

The one's in the lodge were in individual sealed sterile pouches,

[JacobH]

Is the period after Act not also an error?

Probably another error.

I’m not even sure that that sign would have any effect in preventing some sort of easement being established by prescription (which is its presumed intention)...

[jdaw1]

Is this an apostrophe crime?

[RAYC]

so disappointed with myself that i am self-declaring....

assuming that there's at least one person whose judgment you trust at every tasting!!

[DRT]

so disappointed with myself that i am self-declaring....

assuming that there's at least one person whose judgment you trust at every tasting!!

I'm missing the problem.

[RAYC]

so disappointed with myself that i am self-declaring....

assuming that there's at least one person whose judgment you trust at every tasting!!

I'm missing the problem.

Go directly to gaol. Do not pass Go. Do not collect £200. hint hint

[DRT]

Is this an apostrophe crime?

No. If written in a different context, yes, but this is a brand. For whatever reason, the owners of Sandeman have decided to give up the English language and drop the possessive. That is their choice, and is perfectly valid.

[DRT]

so disappointed with myself that i am self-declaring....

assuming that there's at least one person whose judgment you trust at every tasting!!

I'm missing the problem.

Go directly to gaol. Do not pass Go. Do not collect £200. hint hint

I'm in Jail. I don't have a Get Out of Jail Free card and haven't thrown a double. Stumped.

[RAYC]

so disappointed with myself that i am self-declaring....

assuming that there's at least one person whose judgment you trust at every tasting!!

I'm missing the problem.

Go directly to gaol. Do not pass Go. Do not collect £200. hint hint

I'm in Jail. I don't have a Get Out of Jail Free card and haven't thrown a double. Stumped.

In which case the judgment of the Judge who sent you there was correct!

[DRT]

so disappointed with myself that i am self-declaring....

assuming that there's at least one person whose judgment you trust at every tasting!!

I'm missing the problem.

Go directly to gaol. Do not pass Go. Do not collect £200. hint hint

I'm in Jail. I don't have a Get Out of Jail Free card and haven't thrown a double. Stumped.

In which case the judgment of the Judge who sent you there was correct!

Is it too late to plead diminished responsibility due to Dow Trademark Reserve?

[RAYC]

so disappointed with myself that i am self-declaring....

assuming that there's at least one person whose judgment you trust at every tasting!!

I'm missing the problem.

Go directly to gaol. Do not pass Go. Do not collect £200. hint hint

I'm in Jail. I don't have a Get Out of Jail Free card and haven't thrown a double. Stumped.

In which case the judgment of the Judge who sent you there was correct!

Is it too late to plead diminished responsibility due to Dow Trademark Reserve?

On checking, OED actually seems to be rather non-committal on the point, so maybe i will wait to see if anyone considers that i did actually err before saying any more!

[PhilW]

so disappointed with myself that i am self-declaring....

assuming that there's at least one person whose judgment you trust at every tasting!!

I'm missing the problem.

Go directly to gaol. Do not pass Go. Do not collect £200. hint hint

I'm in Jail. I don't have a Get Out of Jail Free card and haven't thrown a double. Stumped.

Can't see anything wrong with your sentence, contraction of "there is" to "there's" seems valid with singular target; I guess I may have to head to jail too; though fortunately not in the US or victorian gaol with Derek

[RAYC]

I had always thought that proper usage dictates the use of "judgment" (with no "e") in a legal context when referring to a legal decision whereas "judgement" (with an "e") should be used in expressions of personal opinion.

The Americans, naturally, did not like this and as far as i am aware tend to use "judgment" in all circumstances. However, I was able to get comfortable that the title of one of my favourite childhood films, "Terminator 2: Judgment Day", was not incorrect on the basis that "judgment" in a religious context also tends to be without the "e".

[AHB]

I had always thought that proper usage dictates the use of "judgment" (with no "e") in a legal context when referring to a legal decision whereas "judgement" (with an "e") should be used in expressions of personal opinion.

The Americans, naturally, did not like this and as far as i am aware tend to use "judgment" in all circumstances. However, I was able to get comfortable that the title of one of my favourite childhood films, "Terminator 2: Judgment Day", was not incorrect on the basis that "judgment" in a religious context also tends to be without the "e".

If thats why you self-posted then youre guilty of an e-crime and not one of this threads crimes* Start another thread for e-cimes.



* taking full advantage of a comment JDAW made some years ago that missing or erroneous apostrophe's in this thread we're considered to be attempts at humor and not reportable crime's

[jdaw1]

This thread is also used for reports of crimes of similar import. Carry on.

[jdaw1]

is slightly anarchic.

Derek might even have meant this.

So I am in the awkward, even embarrassing, situation, of having accused DRT of mis-quoting Fowler, when he hadn’t. Ooops. Sorry. Sackcloth-and-ashes.

Not an AC, but plenty crime enough.

[DRT]

is slightly anarchic.

Derek might even have meant this.

So I am in the awkward, even embarrassing, situation, of having accused DRT of mis-quoting Fowler, when he hadn’t. Ooops. Sorry. Sackcloth-and-ashes.

Not an AC, but plenty crime enough.

{smugness}

[JacobH]

Is this an apostrophe crime?

No. If written in a different context, yes, but this is a brand. For whatever reason, the owners of Sandeman have decided to give up the English language and drop the possessive. That is their choice, and is perfectly valid.

I would be more likely to accept this were Sandeman to have had more than one founder. Their Partners Port is, perhaps, therefore, less objectionable.