Apostrophe crimes

[PhilW]

which is remarkable given it's current age...

argh.. that'll teach me to modify my sentence mid-flow; I think it was going to be "which is remarkable given it's over 30years old". Bugger.

[RAYC]

A shocking double apostrophe error from, of all places, the website of the newly formed Oxford & Cambridge Alumni Wine Society:

The Society leverages off it's director's extensive contacts in the wine industry but is always keen to hear from producer who wish to introduce their wines to our members.

Not sure about the second half of the sentence either!

[Alex Bridgeman]

A shocking double apostrophe error from, of all places, the website of the newly formed Oxford & Cambridge Alumni Wine Society:

The Society leverages off it's director's extensive contacts in the wine industry but is always keen to hear from producer who wish to introduce their wines to our members.

Not sure about the second half of the sentence either!

Or perhaps simply proof of the theory that one shouldn't compose one's website after a meeting of the Oxford & Cambridge Alumni Wine Society.

[JacobH]

A shocking double apostrophe error from, of all places, the website of the newly formed Oxford & Cambridge Alumni Wine Society:

The Society leverages off it's director's extensive contacts in the wine industry but is always keen to hear from producer who wish to introduce their wines to our members.

Not sure about the second half of the sentence either!

Or the first. I would be interested to have the metaphor in the verb to ‟leverage off” explained. Assuming they mean ‟lever off”, the image in my mind is that rather like using a chisel to open a can of paint and I am not sure the director[s’/’s] contact details really need to be treated this way.

Or perhaps simply proof of the theory that one shouldn't compose one's website after a meeting of the Oxford & Cambridge Alumni Wine Society.

I hope that’s the explanation, rather than snobbery, though considering membership prices are only available ‟on application” (like Whites but not the National Liberal) and potential members are invited to name others they already know, I fear the latter is more likely.

[jdaw1]

How old is this Society? Does it possess ancient cellar books?

[JacobH]

How old is this Society? Does it possess ancient cellar books?

OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ALUMNI WINE SOCIETY LTD
c/o WILLIAM PEARCE
[...]
LONDON
UNITED KINGDOM
[...]
Company No. 07011615

Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 07/09/2009
Previous Names:
No previous name information has been recorded over the last 20 years.

Though I would not be surprised if it has not previously been active.

[jdaw1]

In an unprecedented triumph of tolerance, I have decided not to name and shame authors who have used a masculine ordinal (‟º”) in place of a degree sign (‟°”).

(The difference is very obvious in a serif typeface; less so in a typeface resembling Arial.)

[JacobH]

I sometimes wonder why unicode decided to encode some of those letters separately. Anyway, I am very impressed with anyone managing to find those; on my keyboard, I need Alt Gr + Shift + 0 for °; and Alt Gr + Shift + m for º...

[jdaw1]

I sometimes wonder why unicode decided to encode some of those letters separately.

One is a circle; one is a small raised lower-case ‘o’, slightly re-weighted. Not quite the same.

Anyway, I am very impressed with anyone managing to find those

Easy: Characters for copy-pasting.

[RAYC]

Question: is it one or many angels that receive the share?

(if only one, this should act as a pre-emptive rebuttal of a further post in this thread by evidencing that my error emanated from the concept behind the phrase and not the positioning of the apostrophe)

[jdaw1]

I would not have criticised either way, but for myself would have chosen a plurality of angels, as you did.

[jdaw1]

too early to tell if it will win any Oscar’s

[jdaw1]

A pint is almost exactly 56.8cl.

No, not an apostrophe crime. But ‟almost exactly” unacceptable.

[DRT]

A pint is almost exactly 56.8cl.

No, not an apostrophe crime. But ‟almost exactly” unacceptable.

{hanging-head-in-shame}

[RAYC]

A pint is almost exactly 56.8cl.

No, not an apostrophe crime. But ‟almost exactly” unacceptable.

{hanging-head-in-shame}

I personally find this an acceptable way to express a degree of exactness and have no difficulty with the phrase.

"Almost exactly" is not the same as "exactly" and not the same as "approximately". I think it is an accurate way to emphasize a particularly near result: something that is not "exactly", but an extremely close approximation - as close as can be without being "exact". It has the same sort of precision as "near miss" or "near certainty".

This is a good description for a (proper) pint, which in metric units is the merest smidgen over 568ml.

[jdaw1]

[An Imperial pint] is the merest smidgen over 568ml.

I like this phrasing. Equally acceptable would be ‟close to”, ‟fairly precisely”, ‟almost”, or ‟about”. Also ‟very close to” would have passed unremarked, as would have ‟exactly 568.26125 ml”. I would even have tolerated a repetition of Wikipedia’s small error.

But exact is an absolute.

[JacobH]

But exact is an absolute.

I think I am with RAYC on this. If something cannot be ‟almost” an absolute, then it would not be possible to say something is ‟almost zero”, ‟almost equal to”, ‟almost half” or even ‟almost three”. Unless, of course, these concepts are not to be regarded as absolute.

[jdaw1]

‟almost zero”, ‟almost equal to”, ‟almost half” or even ‟almost three”. Unless, of course, these concepts are not to be regarded as absolute.

As elements of ℝ, these are just fine. As elements of â„• or ℤ (or, less passionately, of â„š), the ‟almost” rankles. Over what set does the ‟almost” apply?

[RAYC]

Despite a promising start (growers', shippers'), the pamphlet for The Wine and Food Society's Tours For 1950 proceeds to note that Oporto is "about 5 hour's flight" from London...

[PhilW]

‟almost zero”, ‟almost equal to”, ‟almost half” or even ‟almost three”. Unless, of course, these concepts are not to be regarded as absolute.

As elements of ℝ, these are just fine. As elements of â„• or ℤ (or, less passionately, of â„š), the ‟almost” rankles. Over what set does the ‟almost” apply?

Perhaps the set could be considered as being defined by the limit of specified precision, in this case tenths?

[jdaw1]

tenths

Which is ⊃ℤ and ⊂ℚ: that works.

[RAYC]

As elements of ℝ, these are just fine. As elements of â„• or ℤ (or, less passionately, of â„š), the ‟almost” rankles. Over what set does the ‟almost” apply?

What are these funny symbols? Is it just my eyesight and/or screen are bad?

[jdaw1]

Wikipedia: ℕ, ℤ, ℚ, ℝ.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Wikipedia: ℕ, ℤ, ℚ, ℝ.

This truly is meaningless drivel. My screen displays each of these symbols as small squares, making the last few posts almost totally incomprehensible to me.

[jdaw1]

Assume non-facetious usage.

• ‟I bought almost 6 bottles of port”: do you mean that you bought five? In which case say so.
• ‟He drank almost 3 bottles of port”: very reasonable. One might drink about 2.8 bottles of port, and then say that the morning’s work is done.

The first naturally varies over the set of non-negative whole numbers (written ‟â„•”), so the ‟almost” is weird for small values. (‟Almost six million” is different, as the six is a not-necessarily-whole number of millions.)

The second various continuously: one might have drunk x bottles, or x+ε. This value varies over the set of real numbers (‟ℝ”), so usage of ‟almost” is very natural.

[RAYC]

I think that use of language can be more flexible than this.

For example, pregnancy is a binary state - a woman either is or is not pregnant. But you presumably would understand what was meant by a woman being "very pregnant", despite the fact that such phrasing does not fit literally alongside the binary concept.

[jdaw1]

The extent to which a pregnancy is showing, to which the phrase refers, is continuous.

[DRT]

A pint is almost exactly 56.8cl.

No, not an apostrophe crime. But ‟almost exactly” unacceptable.

{hanging-head-in-shame}

I seem to have some support on this one so I have removed my sack-cloth coat, torn the cow bell from my necklace and am holding my head up high.

RAYC and I seem to be just about precisely on the same page on this issue.

[jdaw1]

I have removed my sack-cloth coat, torn the cow bell from my necklace and am holding my head up high.

Writing in my capacity as your co-author, rather than contributor, don’t wash off the ashes.

[RAYC]

If we run short of port, we are only a moments walk away from Uncorked.

[PhilW]

One might drink about 2.8 bottles of port, and then say that the morning’s work is done.

Hmm. I'd agree that usage of "almost" is natural over any discrete range i.e. with a known limited precision such as integers or (as per previous suggestion) tenths; but if "almost" is not acceptable for non-continuous, then why is "about" any better? (consider if you had said "about 2.7362527" - would that vary your answer?).

I would argue that you had implicitly assumed a discrete series based on the stated precision (and that Derek was doing this same thing in his original "almost exactly 56.8cl").

[jdaw1]

Because ‟about” is perfectly acceptable when dealing with something continuous. I.e., if not arbitrarily assuming tenths.

[PhilW]

Would "about 2.736252776554776967667645540096" therefore also be acceptable?
I would have expected most people to argue that as being grim.

[jdaw1]

In the context of mathematically defined numbers like e^(π√163), where the ‟about” is actually important, I don’t mind that.

Obviously for numbers resulting from real-world measurement, 30 significant figures is unrealistic (roughly equivalent to quoting the width of the universe to the nearest millimetre).

[PhilW]

In that case would "Almost 2.736252776" not also be acceptable in the same context, meaning a number slightly less than 2.736252776 within a 'reasonable' range (whatever 'reasonable' means in the particular context, but in the same manner as whatever range 'about' would mean in the same context) ?

[jdaw1]

If the context suggests a ‘measurement error’, then ‟about” would remind the reader of that. No objection.

Few real-world measurements are more accurate than one part in a billion; but e^(π√163) is interesting only if computed to at least 32 significant figures.

[Glenn E.]

Hmm. I'd agree that usage of "almost" is natural over any discrete range i.e. with a known limited precision such as integers or (as per previous suggestion) tenths; but if "almost" is not acceptable for non-continuous, then why is "about" any better? (consider if you had said "about 2.7362527" - would that vary your answer?)

For me, it is the combination of "almost" and "exactly" that makes the phrase strange. "Almost" says this is not precise. "Exactly" says that it is.

I'd be fine with "almost 56.9 cl" or "just over 56.8 cl".

To reinforce Julian's point, if you bought 11 bottles of Port then "almost a case" works while "almost 12 bottles" does not. 11 bottles is a fraction of a case which is a proper measurement in its own right. If you're going to refer to a bottle count, then why say "almost 12" when you could have just said "11"?

[jdaw1]

For me, it is the combination of "almost" and "exactly" that makes the phrase strange. "Almost" says this is not precise. "Exactly" says that it is.

I'd be fine with "almost 56.9 cl" or "just over 56.8 cl".

To reinforce Julian's point, if you bought 11 bottles of Port then "almost a case" works while "almost 12 bottles" does not. 11 bottles is a fraction of a case which is a proper measurement in its own right. If you're going to refer to a bottle count, then why say "almost 12" when you could have just said "11"?

Thank you Glenn: I am not alone.

[PhilW]

For me, it is the combination of "almost" and "exactly" that makes the phrase strange. "Almost" says this is not precise. "Exactly" says that it is.

I'd be fine with "almost 56.9 cl" or "just over 56.8 cl".

To reinforce Julian's point, if you bought 11 bottles of Port then "almost a case" works while "almost 12 bottles" does not. 11 bottles is a fraction of a case which is a proper measurement in its own right. If you're going to refer to a bottle count, then why say "almost 12" when you could have just said "11"?

Thank you Glenn: I am not alone.

You're not really totally alone - "almost exactly" kind of grates on me too if I default to a mathematic and engineering context ("which is it, almost or exactly?"), but for colloquial use I don't mind it so much; any use of "almost" or "about" seems to be to be approximating from one degree of accuracy (whether continuous or discrete) to a less accurate representation (by definition discrete).

In scientfic or mathematic terms, any use of "almost" would likely need qualification itself anyway, i.e. what do you mean by almost (degree of accuracy, even if assumed to be to the number of significant figures quoted). I was therefore surprised that Julian was happy with "almost 25.7634" but unhappy with "almost exactly 25.7634" - I'd either be unhappy with both (scientifically) or ok with both colloquially.

Regarding Glenn's example, it does seem impracticable to use the 'almost' in the context of a discrete count; if you are only able to buy/consider for whatever reason in units of 'a bottle' then "almost X bottles" makes no sense. If a continuous unit were valid, e.g. you took a random container full of fluid and used it to fill as many bottles as possible, then being able to fill "almost 12 bottles" could make perfect sense, provided you are happy with the colloquial use in the first place?

[jdaw1]

Sloppy writing rather than an apostrophe crime:

! when the licence per hectare permitted for Port production, or beneficio, was cut dramatically to 85,000 pipes from its 2010 level of 110,000 pipes.

Only 85,000 pipes per hectare?

[RAYC]

Yes - I was rather thrown by that - caused me to google first "hectare" then "beneficio" to double check!

[RAYC]

Give yourself an extra few minutes to visit the (very) small square behind Berry's where the Embassy of Texas was based during their brief period of independance.

There's been a large number left to slide recently, but this was just one too many (albeit spelling rather than apostrophe crime). Perhaps AHB was just setting a trap to lure jdaw1 out of TPF retirement!

[jdaw1]

AHB often contributes by iPhone, for which reason I have been generous with him. Nonetheless, I’m happy to have a more assiduous new Deputy Sheriff.

[jdaw1]

JDAWs bottle

[jdaw1]

one of our countries great heros, King Alexander I of Scotland.

[Alex Bridgeman]

one of our countries great heros, King Alexander I of Scotland.

You were quicker off the mark than I was able to be.

[RAYC]

There are exceptions, such as some Colheita's which can improve with bottle age,

What are the rules here? Is there an amnesty for errors on FTLOP...?

[DRT]

There are exceptions, such as some Colheita's which can improve with bottle age,

What are the rules here? Is there an amnesty for errors on FTLOP...?

As there is no extradition treaty in place I cannot be convicted of a crime in another jurisdiction.

And I appear to have been accused of a crime I did not commit

[Glenn E.]

I cannot be convicted of a crime in another jurisdiction.

Multiple examples in this thread, including on this page, indicate otherwise.

[RAYC]

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!]