Apostrophe crimes

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 10:49 Thu 27 Jun 2013

My claim that 'doll house' is American appears to have been substantiated. I do not believe it is commonly used here; and the question of whether dolls can own property is clearly spurious and perhaps intended as a ruse to distract us. Ibsen, of course, finds his play translated as "A Doll's House". On reflection I'm less concerned with number than I was last night; singular or plural are a matter of taste, I think, but 'dolls house' is something I cannot take.

RAYC · Post by **RAYC** » 10:59 Thu 27 Jun 2013

djewesbury wrote:but 'dolls house' is something I cannot take.

What is the rationale for distinguishing this from "glasses placemat"?

Post by **jdaw1** » 11:48 Thu 27 Jun 2013

djewesbury wrote:but 'dolls house' is something I cannot take.

Oh. That was my preference, the dolls being an adjective, to describe the house, rather than anything to do with ownership. It is Molly’s house, indeed, Molly’s dolls house.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 12:21 Thu 27 Jun 2013

RAYC wrote:
djewesbury wrote:but 'dolls house' is something I cannot take.
What is the rationale for distinguishing this from "glasses placemat"?

Would you advocate that all non-personal (EDIT: I mean, non-human] possessives be converted into adjectival nouns? 'A squirrels drey'? 'A badgers sett'? As with so many things in our wonderful language, I'm not sure that there is a hard and fast rationale. Dolls being invested, figuratively, with some pseudo-animate qualities, there is a fantasy that they are able to 'possess' the house in which they 'live'. I think that this is, essentially, a playful, evocative anomaly that is perpetuated in the language.

'Glasses placemat' features a simple adjectival noun. I would not attempt to suggest that the glasses own their placemat.

RAYC · Post by **RAYC** » 12:50 Thu 27 Jun 2013

djewesbury wrote:
RAYC wrote:
djewesbury wrote:but 'dolls house' is something I cannot take.
What is the rationale for distinguishing this from "glasses placemat"?
Would you advocate that all non-personal (EDIT: I mean, non-human] possessives be converted into adjectival nouns? 'A squirrels drey'? 'A badgers sett'? As with so many things in our wonderful language, I'm not sure that there is a hard and fast rationale. Dolls being invested, figuratively, with some pseudo-animate qualities, there is a fantasy that they are able to 'possess' the house in which they 'live'. I think that this is, essentially, a playful, evocative anomaly that is perpetuated in the language.

'Glasses placemat' features a simple adjectival noun. I would not attempt to suggest that the glasses own their placemat.

I'd agree there is not a hard and fast rationale - "Bird's nest" is one where a possessive apostrophe does seem to be used (but i don't think i've seen "birds' nest" or "bird's bath"). But i think "badger sett" (singular and non-possessive) is more common than "badger's sett", "badgers' sett" or 'badgers sett".

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 14:43 Thu 27 Jun 2013

I think we should resume this conversation only after we have emptied a dozen bottles of 1966. We're sure to find a solution that pleases everyone then!

Post by **jdaw1** » 15:32 Thu 27 Jun 2013

A message has been sent to Ladybird, inviting comment.

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 16:27 Thu 27 Jun 2013

jdaw1 wrote:Please could other posters state which possibility they most prefer, which are tolerable, and which intolerable?

There are two answers.

Generically, it is a doll house.

Specifically, it is Molly's dolls' house.

RAYC · Post by **RAYC** » 13:44 Fri 28 Jun 2013

Glenn E. wrote:Specifically, it is Molly's dolls' house.

Or Molly's dolls' doll house?!

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 20:08 Fri 28 Jun 2013

RAYC wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:Specifically, it is Molly's dolls' house.
Or Molly's dolls' doll house?!

Can we change Molly's name to Doll?

Because then it is Doll's dolls' doll house.

benread · Post by **benread** » 07:22 Sun 30 Jun 2013

Check out the picture of the butcher!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23086541

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 08:24 Sun 30 Jun 2013

benread wrote:Check out the picture of the butcher!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23086541

Mm yes... Were they indeed!

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 08:26 Sun 30 Jun 2013

NB also, "Dean Cooper's butcher's shop". I presume that should be "Dean Cooper's butcher shop"; or maybe "Dean Cooper's butchers shop", based on our previous discussion...?

No..?

I suppose it depends how many butchers Molly has...

Post by **PhilW** » 08:31 Sun 30 Jun 2013

Glenn E. wrote:Can we change Molly's name to Doll?

Or perhaps Dolly (as in Parton), who on purchasing a doll house would now own Dolly's doll house. She then purchases a doll, and when playing believes that the doll owns the house, so it becomes Dolly's doll's doll house. When she buys another doll, and the house is imagined to be under joint ownership by both dolls, it becomes Dolly's dolls' doll house, while at the same time still being Dolly's doll house in reality. In all the previous I would happily also substitute "dolls house" for "doll house" being a house for dolls (vs owned by them) rather than a house for a doll.

Is a thread intended for pedants the pedants thread or the pedant's thread, and does it become the pedant's pedants thread when they take ownership of it?

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 15:17 Sun 30 Jun 2013

benread wrote:Check out the picture of the butcher!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23086541

That is impressive. It takes effort to commit that crime.

Post by **PhilW** » 18:49 Sun 30 Jun 2013

benread wrote:Check out the picture of the butcher!

Haha - I did exactly as asked and thought "ok, Ben likes the look of her..." but that was as far as I got until I saw Glenn's reply, at which point I then went back and instead of checking out the photo of the butcher, realised I was supposed to be looking further down the page and checking out the signage in the photo of the Butcher's shop!

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 13:27 Tue 02 Jul 2013

Berry Bros & Rudd wrote:Dear Mr Jewesbury

2013 marks the 90th anniversary since we created the wine cellar for Queen Mary's Dolls' House and a duplicate of this special cellar can be seen on our stand at July's Coronation Festival.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 13:31 Tue 02 Jul 2013

[url=http://www.bbr.com/about/coronation-festival?utm_campaign=020713_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_source=BBR+News]Here[/url], however, Berry Bros & Rudd, quite spoiling my point, wrote:Simon Berry, Chairman of Berry Bros. & Rudd and current Clerk of the Royal Cellars, says of The Dolls House Collection, ‘It was a great honour for my grandfather to be asked to select and prepare the Queen Mary Dolls House cellar.'

(I note, in passing, that the only port the dolls get to drink is Scion. This seems quite unjust.)

Post by **jdaw1** » 09:43 Mon 08 Jul 2013

Sunday lunch, at the Half Moon pub:

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 15:35 Mon 08 Jul 2013

PhilW wrote:Is a thread intended for pedants the pedants thread or the pedant's thread, and does it become the pedant's pedants thread when they take ownership of it?

This use of "they" informs the choice of "pedants'" over "pedant's" since the thread's original pedant would be referred to as "he" and more recently there are at least three pedants participating in the subject.

Post by **PhilW** » 07:28 Tue 09 Jul 2013

Glenn E. wrote:
PhilW wrote:Is a thread intended for pedants the pedants thread or the pedant's thread, and does it become the pedant's pedants thread when they take ownership of it?
This use of "they" informs the choice of "pedants'" over "pedant's" since the thread's original pedant would be referred to as "he" and more recently there are at least three pedants participating in the subject.

The use of "they" in this context was intended as use of the singular "they" due to the indeterminate sex of the target; for example: "The chief pedant, once elected, will be asked whether they wish to name the celebration as the Pedant/Pedants/Pedant's/Pedants' Ball". However you are correct that I could have been clearer, and I should also have provided the option that the thread could have been the pedants' thread initially as well; of course if it were created as the pedants' thread, and was then taken ownership by a single pedant, would it then become the pedant's pedants' thread?

Post by **jdaw1** » 08:20 Tue 09 Jul 2013

I think this echoes an earlier comment about places for the expression of free speech.

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=898#p898]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:
KillerB wrote:Likewise I could call it Antidisestablishmentarianists' Corner.
That’s always awkward. The corner could be used by one antidisestablishmentarianist (so ‟Antidisestablishmentarianist's”), but is intended for the use of many to discuss these things (‟Antidisestablishmentarianists'”, as you wrote, and with non-curly quotation mark for clarity). Either way would leave me slightly uncomfortable. Because it is for the individual use of antidisestablishmentarianists, rather than their collective use, I would have gone for ‟Antidisestablishmentarianist's”, but some authorial preference is allowed.

RAYC · Post by **RAYC** » 14:30 Tue 09 Jul 2013

jdaw1 wrote:Scot wins Wimbledon for first time since 1896.

Scot wins Wimbledon for first time since 2007 surely...?

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 17:09 Tue 09 Jul 2013

It seems there could be mileage in a themed tasting that celebrates the years in which a Scot won Wimbledon:
1896
1927
1938
1947
1964
1974
1984
2007

Post by **DRT** » 05:56 Sun 28 Jul 2013

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4642&start=50]Here[/url] Andy Velebil wrote:Niepoorts website and app are easy to use and have lots of tech info. By far one of the best.

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 02:25 Mon 29 Jul 2013

DRT wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4642&start=50]Here[/url] Andy Velebil wrote:Niepoorts website and app are easy to use and have lots of tech info. By far one of the best.

Damn iPhone :/

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 16:00 Mon 29 Jul 2013

Andy Velebil wrote:
DRT wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4642&start=50]Here[/url] Andy Velebil wrote:Niepoorts website and app are easy to use and have lots of tech info. By far one of the best.
Damn iPhone :/

You could always claim exemption under the "first language is not English" clause, seeing as we are Americans.

mpij · Post by **mpij** » 16:25 Mon 29 Jul 2013

Glenn E. wrote:
Andy Velebil wrote:
DRT wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4642&start=50]Here[/url] Andy Velebil wrote:Niepoorts website and app are easy to use and have lots of tech info. By far one of the best.
Damn iPhone :/
You could always claim exemption under the "first language is not English" clause, seeing as we are Americans.

Just wondering if, being Scottish, I could claim the same exemption?

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 17:06 Mon 29 Jul 2013

mpij wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:
Andy Velebil wrote:
DRT wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4642&start=50]Here[/url] Andy Velebil wrote:Niepoorts website and app are easy to use and have lots of tech info. By far one of the best.
Damn iPhone :/
You could always claim exemption under the "first language is not English" clause, seeing as we are Americans.
Just wondering if, being Scottish, I could claim the same exemption?

I think DRT should officiate on that..

Post by **DRT** » 17:26 Mon 29 Jul 2013

djewesbury wrote:
mpij wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:
Andy Velebil wrote:
DRT wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4642&start=50]Here[/url] Andy Velebil wrote:Niepoorts website and app are easy to use and have lots of tech info. By far one of the best.
Damn iPhone :/
You could always claim exemption under the "first language is not English" clause, seeing as we are Americans.
Just wondering if, being Scottish, I could claim the same exemption?
I think DRT should officiate on that..

Both motions rejected.

mpij · Post by **mpij** » 17:42 Mon 29 Jul 2013

DRT wrote:
djewesbury wrote:
mpij wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:
Andy Velebil wrote:
DRT wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4642&start=50]Here[/url] Andy Velebil wrote:Niepoorts website and app are easy to use and have lots of tech info. By far one of the best.
Damn iPhone :/
You could always claim exemption under the "first language is not English" clause, seeing as we are Americans.
Just wondering if, being Scottish, I could claim the same exemption?
I think DRT should officiate on that..
Both motions rejected.

Damn!

Andy Velebil · Post by **Andy Velebil** » 23:08 Mon 29 Jul 2013

mpij wrote:
DRT wrote:
djewesbury wrote:
mpij wrote:
Glenn E. wrote:
Andy Velebil wrote:
DRT wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4642&start=50]Here[/url] Andy Velebil wrote:Niepoorts website and app are easy to use and have lots of tech info. By far one of the best.
Damn iPhone :/
You could always claim exemption under the "first language is not English" clause, seeing as we are Americans.
Just wondering if, being Scottish, I could claim the same exemption?
I think DRT should officiate on that..
Both motions rejected.
Damn!

Double damn !!

Post by **DRT** » 06:51 Tue 30 Jul 2013

Perhaps this should be our official reference when determining who is subject to The Apostrophe Act (English Speaking) 2007?

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 14:59 Tue 30 Jul 2013

DRT wrote:Perhaps this should be our official reference when determining who is subject to The Apostrophe Act (English Speaking) 2007?

Perhaps not.

Wikipedia wrote:In many countries English is the dominant language, but does not have official status -- this includes three of the most important English-speaking countries: namely Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

Post by **DRT** » 15:37 Tue 30 Jul 2013

I decided to ignore that when I read the page. The lists provided by wiki are for countries where the official or "de-facto" language is English. Both are acceptable IMO.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 17:54 Wed 07 Aug 2013

jdaw1 wrote:Sunday lunch, at the Half Moon pub:

I suspect there will be no Sunday lunch at the Half Moon pub this Sunday, judging from BBC News...

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 10:57 Sun 18 Aug 2013

Post by **DRT** » 10:59 Sun 18 Aug 2013

Spectacular.

Post by **jdaw1** » 11:05 Sun 18 Aug 2013

boingboing.net wrote:
Alice spotted this coffee cart from the (above average) London coffee chain Apostrophe, which includes a superfluous apostrophe. It's either ironic or too clever by far.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 11:31 Sun 18 Aug 2013

I didn't say I'd taken it. I was just in a sharing mood.

Post by **jdaw1** » 07:46 Fri 23 Aug 2013

The BBC, in an article entitled [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-23806585]Apprentice star Luisa Zissman defends apostrophe move[/url], wrote:Star of the BBC's The Apprentice, Luisa Zissman, has defended her decision to ditch the apostrophe from the name of her new baking accessories business.

Zissman surprised her Twitter followers by asking: "Is it Bakers Toolkit or Baker's Toolkit with an apostrophe?"

In the end Zissman, who was runner-up in this year's show, plumped for doing without the punctuation mark because "I like the look of bakers".

She told BBC Radio 5 live she thought people had over-reacted to the move.

Post by **jdaw1** » 20:31 Mon 16 Sep 2013

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=60200#p60200]Here[/url] jdaw1 wrote:This photograph by AHB.

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 20:44 Mon 16 Sep 2013

Impressive. I'm no expert on the subject, but I believe they scored 11 out of a possible 14.

Post by **jdaw1** » 21:00 Mon 16 Sep 2013

Different typefaces?

Post by **DRT** » 21:01 Mon 16 Sep 2013

There are only 12 lines

I see one reason for it being here.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 21:58 Mon 16 Sep 2013

McCabes? In the logo? Surely a little pusillanimous to pick them up on that...

Glenn E. · Post by **Glenn E.** » 23:04 Mon 16 Sep 2013

DRT wrote:There are only 12 lines

True, but two of the lines each clearly contain two different typefaces.

It looks to me like they have used 10 different fonts. Line 11 right and line 12 appear to be the same font in two different sizes. The only duplication that I can see is lines 7, 9, and 11 left. And I'm not certain that those are all the same size. 7 and 9 appear to be the same, but 11 left might be slightly larger.

djewesbury wrote:McCabes? In the logo?

That too.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 09:01 Tue 17 Sep 2013

Interestingly the words Produce of Portugal are written in the same font (Univers) as was aberrantly used on that odd bottle of Constantino that came up lately.

Personally, I think that this looks pretty standard for a low-budget pre-DTP print job. Some elements are re-used - logos etc, which are separate - and some are set as type specifically for this. It's nothing unusual though.

djewesbury · Post by **djewesbury** » 09:02 Tue 17 Sep 2013

Looking again at the horizontal alignment I suspect some use of Letraset when making the original.

Post by **jdaw1** » 12:15 Tue 17 Sep 2013

djewesbury wrote:Looking again at the horizontal alignment I suspect some use of Letraset when making the original.

Did this recent BBC story remind you of Letraset? But it does seem that some of the label might have been made that way.