Apostrophe crimes

[flash_uk]

This and some subsequent posts moved here from 2014 pre-Harvest Tour tasting, London, 9/23 by jdaw1.

Roberson's

Rage has clouded your grammar chip

[djewesbury]

Roberson's

Rage has clouded your grammar chip

No. You are thinking of jam perhaps?
I am thinking of these people, and I am using a possessive apostrophe after a singular name. If I have committed some other crime, please specify.

[flash_uk]

I am using a possessive apostrophe after a singular name. If I have committed some other crime, please specify.

No other crime, just that one Still think the phrase is grammatically invalid. What would be wrong with "Email sent to Roberson", Roberson being the shortened version of the business which is fully Roberson Wine.

[djewesbury]

I am using a possessive apostrophe after a singular name. If I have committed some other crime, please specify.

No other crime, just that one Still don't see how that is not grammatically meaningless. What would be wrong with "Email sent to Roberson", Roberson being the shortened version of the business which is fully Roberson Wine.

Mr Smith is a butcher. His shop is called J Smith, not J Smith's. However, we say, when popping out for a chop, "I'm just going to Smith's, back in ten minutes".
Mr Roberson is a wine merchant (albeit a rather inefficient one). His shop is called Roberson Wine. However, we say, when complaining that he sent us the wrong bottle of 1985, "Email sent to Roberson's".
I would use this form in both the singular and the plural.

[flash_uk]

I am using a possessive apostrophe after a singular name. If I have committed some other crime, please specify.

No other crime, just that one Still don't see how that is not grammatically meaningless. What would be wrong with "Email sent to Roberson", Roberson being the shortened version of the business which is fully Roberson Wine.

Mr Smith is a butcher. His shop is called J Smith, not J Smith's. However, we say, when popping out for a chop, "I'm just going to Smith's, back in ten minutes".
Mr Roberson is a wine merchant (albeit a rather inefficient one). His shop is called Roberson Wine. However, we say, when complaining that he sent us the wrong bottle of 1985, "Email sent to Roberson's".
I would use this form in both the singular and the plural.

Mmm. I still require convincing that this is not also grammatically incorrect. I agree the phrase "I'm just going to Smith's" may be used often but that doesn't make it correct. How about Primark, Tesco or Ryman. "I'm just going to Primark's to buy some socks." Doesn't work for me.

Edit: ...perhaps an admin could kindly shift our little grammar spat into the appropriate thread, I really shouldn't have started it here

[djewesbury]

Primark is not someone's name. The examples I used are. Smith's = the shop of Smith. Roberson's = the shop of Roberson. Used thus since time immemorial, and correctly moreover. Simples.
(And yes. Ryman's. The shop of Ryman.)

EDIT: I had a lovely pot of Earl Grey and a tarte aux framboise in Valerie's today!

[flash_uk]

Primark is not someone's name. The examples I used are. Smith's = the shop of Smith. Roberson's = the shop of Roberson. Used thus since time immemorial, and correctly moreover. Simples.
(And yes. Ryman's. The shop of Ryman.)

EDIT: I had a lovely pot of Earl Grey and a tarte aux framboise in Valerie's today!

Now I'm more convinced
But why then do we see Ryman on those shops rather than Ryman's, yet Sainsbury's above all those grocery stores?

[djewesbury]

Primark is not someone's name. The examples I used are. Smith's = the shop of Smith. Roberson's = the shop of Roberson. Used thus since time immemorial, and correctly moreover. Simples.
(And yes. Ryman's. The shop of Ryman.)

EDIT: I had a lovely pot of Earl Grey and a tarte aux framboise in Valerie's today!

Now I'm more convinced
But why then do we see Ryman on those shops rather than Ryman's, yet Sainsbury's above all those grocery stores?

Because different companies choose to do things differently. Personal preference at a particular point in time. Some choose a more colloquial brand ("Sainsbury's" - even though, when I was a child in the 1970s, the brand in big illuminated orange letters above the shop was "J Sainsbury"), some a more perfunctory and literal one ("Ryman").
Because there is no rule stating that we all have to do things one way.

[flash_uk]

I'm off to bed!

[PhilW]

Edit: ...perhaps an admin could kindly shift our little grammar spat into the appropriate thread, I really shouldn't have started it here

+1 for the request to splice out the above chain of posts please

This and some previous posts moved here from 2014 pre-Harvest Tour tasting, London, 9/23 by jdaw1.

[flash_uk]

So perhaps the rule would appear to be something like: a possessive apostrophe after a singular name may be used in situations where the object is implicit. Even though the object may be ambiguous. In this instance, it could be "Email sent to":
Roberson's shop
Roberson's customer service department
Roberson's mother
Roberson's incompetent warehouse chap

[djewesbury]

So perhaps the rule would appear to be something like: a possessive apostrophe after a singular name may be used in situations where the object is implicit. Even though the object may be ambiguous. In this instance, it could be "Email sent to":
Roberson's shop
Roberson's customer service department
Roberson's mother
Roberson's incompetent warehouse chap

I think that the first would always be the obvious implicit meaning.

Please note that out of deference to you, I referred to your employer in earlier email with no possessive apostrophe. I thought about adding one, but I guess I'm just too good.

[flash_uk]

Please note that out of deference to you, I referred to your employer in earlier email with no possessive apostrophe.

Which to me looked grammatically perfect

[LGTrotter]

[over my head icon}

Sits back. In one corner, Derek, bemused and cowering. In the other, Owen and Daniel, daggers drawn — which poisoned? — and the show about to start. Bread and circuses.

Even the mis-matched brackets herald an unequal fight.

My poor grammar, spelling, punctuation, idiosyncratic/incomprehensible mangling of language hardly qualifies me as one to sit in judgement.

Charitably I can only suppose that Derek was trying to show the truth of 'there is no 'I' in team' by leaving out the i in waive. He did it for all of us.

And has we have seen from the exchange between Daniel and Flash these things rapidly degenerate into the kind of arguments which begin with the choice of cutlery and end in divorce. We have got to, in the words of Mr Kravitz, let love rule.

[jdaw1]

Sits back. In one corner, Owen, letting love rule. In the other, Derek and Daniel, daggers drawn — which poisoned? — and the show about to start. Bread and circuses.

[djewesbury]

Anything currently made by the Symington's would do.

[DRT]

My correction was too slow. Speedy Gonzalez beat me to the draw.

[djewesbury]

My correction was too slow. Speedy Gonzalez beat me to the draw.

Quickest poisoned dagger in the business.

[flash_uk]

...Billy McKay was the presenters name (I think).

Oops.

[DRT]

Alex Sammonds definition

[djewesbury]

Alex Sammonds definition

Not once but thrice. I was tempted to post it but thought it was too much like shooting fish in a barrel. Ben, Ben, Ben…

[djewesbury]

Sorry. I left this as long as I could.
But there it still is.
Here, Jacob created a thread entitled
"Oporto and the Duoro"

[benread]

Guilty as charged!

[djewesbury]

I have not yet seen a bottle that looks like a chicken. Are we sure The claims about the entomology of the name are not just urban myth?

What on earth has this got to do with the study of insects??

Honestly, come on team, I feel like the Head Prefect here. Let's sharpen it up.

[DRT]

Inspired by your zeal, I know have my bottle sitting on:

[djewesbury]

Inspired by your zeal, I know have my bottle sitting on:

Deflecting from your own crimes?

[DRT]

Inspired by your zeal, I know have my bottle sitting on:

Deflecting from your own crimes?

No. Just being an honest citizen and reporting crime to the authorities when I see it.

[djewesbury]

That's good. If everyone grasses everyone else the school will run just fine.

[jdaw1]

The BBC, in an article entitled Hiding currency in the Dark Wallet:

I suspect that it would not be productive to contact the original author.

[djewesbury]

the TRPF

Tautology

[JacobH]

Sorry. I left this as long as I could.
But there it still is.
Here, Jacob created a thread entitled
"Oporto and the Duoro"

Hmm...I missed this. I didn’t realise we were moving on from apostrophe crimes to typing errors!!

But anyway, I plead not guilty on the basis that Duoro, whilst unconventional, is a legitimate alternative spelling:

By the law of the general company of the Alto Duoro it is expressly provided that if the sambucus fructus in umbella nigro, C. B. P. or the alder tree is found in or about a vineyard the penalty of forty shillings shall be incurred:--and if any of the berries or expressed juice (which they term baga) is found or discovered in any lodge or repository of wine besides the confiscation of all the wines of the said lodge to the company the owner or proprietor is liable to be imprisoned at the mercy of the king

[AW77]

Here is an interesting BBC article that might be relevant to this thread:
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/201409 ... ammar-nazi

[PhilW]

Here is an interesting BBC article that might be relevant to this thread:
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/201409 ... ammar-nazi

"BBC Worldwide (International Site)
We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee"

[jdaw1]

"BBC Worldwide (International Site)
We're sorry but this site is not accessible from the UK as it is part of our international service and is not funded by the licence fee"

Same for me. So, obviously, it applies only to foreigners.

[AW77]

That's quite strange. While the international programme may not be funded by the licence fee, it will certainly be funded by the taxes you pay. So I think you as tax payers should be entitled to it.

Shall I post the whole article here on the forum or would the moderators advise against that due to copyright difficulties this might ensue?

[djewesbury]

That's quite strange. While the international programme may not be funded by the licence fee, it will certainly be funded by the taxes you pay. So I think you as tax payers should be entitled to it.

Shall I post the whole article here on the forum or would the moderators advise against that due to copyright difficulties this might ensue?

BBC Worldwide is an entirely commercial enterprise and therefore not funded through the licence fee...

[AW77]

BBC Worldwide is an entirely commercial enterprise and therefore not funded through the licence fee...

Old Reith would not have liked that at all...

[djewesbury]

BBC Worldwide is an entirely commercial enterprise and therefore not funded through the licence fee...

Old Reith would not have liked that at all...

Well, the letters BBC originally stood for British Broadcasting Company. It was a private enterprise, running the radio station 2LO from a building on the Strand (Marconi House I think). The Managing Director was John Reith. It wasn't until 1927 that it was nationalised. So Reith would have been fairly comfortable with the current arrangement!

[Glenn E.]

ponto grande.jpg (148.52 KiB) Viewed 5803 times

[jdaw1]

Re previous post, it’s the Residencial Ponto Grande in Pinhão, a different error having been corrected since Google’s car visited.

[PhilW]

Re previous post, it’s the Residencial Ponto Grande in Pinhão, a different error having been corrected since Google’s car visited.

I can't tell at this resolution, but is there an additional error in the diagonal arms of the Union Jack?

[Glenn E.]

Re previous post, it’s the Residencial Ponto Grande in Pinhão, a different error having been corrected since Google’s car visited.

I can't tell at this resolution, but is there an additional error in the diagonal arms of the Union Jack?

As I recall, yes, but it looks to me like that particular error exists in both pictures. I have not found the corrected error to which he refers.

[DRT]

This wasn't the most annoying thing that O2 did to me today but it is all the physical evidence I have:

Screen Shot 2014-10-25 at 15.54.31.png (16.69 KiB) Viewed 5750 times

[PhilW]

the

[DRT]

the

Not again.

I must not repeat my thes.
I must not repeat my thes.
I must not…

[DRT]

the

Not again.

I must not repeat my thes.
I must not repeat my thes.
I must not…

Actually, I disagree that this was a crime. Discuss.

[djewesbury]

the

Not again.

I must not repeat my thes.
I must not repeat my thes.
I must not…

Actually, I disagree that this was a crime. Discuss.

PIN number?

[jdaw1]

There is genuine ambiguity. TPF is a contraction of a definite-article-adjective-noun, but is also a standalone compound noun. It is both. So there is definitely ugliness, but not a crime.

Derek: are you willing to plead to being ugly but not criminal?

[DRT]

Derek: are you willing to plead to being ugly but not criminal?

I could, but wouldn't that seem implausible to women reading this thread?

[Glenn E.]

the

Not again.

I must not repeat my thes.
I must not repeat my thes.
I must not…

Actually, I disagree that this was a crime. Discuss.

I agree with your disagreement. In this case, "TPF" is an adjective describing the equivalent. Even if not abbreviated I would include both thes.