Apostrophe crimes

[djewesbury]

Very interesting. I hadn't seen that before. Letraset was a favourite of mine as a boy for some reason. Friends of my mother's were graphic designers. I spent hours poring over the entire catalogue.

[djewesbury]

I hear my grandfather’s voice insisting on P’s and Q’s.

[jdaw1]

I hear my grandfather’s voice insisting on P’s and Q’s.

I can find an online source that claims I would have been correct with lower-case ‟p’s and q’s”, but not with upper case (Grammar Book, rule 11). The Chicago Manual of Style doesn’t seem to give guidance, and other guidance it gives about apostrophes is little better than painful rubbish (¶6.77 in the 14th Ed., being about the plurals of italicised words). Fowler also fails to pronounce.

[djewesbury]

I hear my grandfather’s voice insisting on P’s and Q’s.

I can find an online source that claims I would have been correct with lower-case ‟p’s and q’s”, but not with upper case. The Chicago Manual of Style doesn’t seem to give guidance, and other guidance it gives about apostrophes is little better than painful rubbish (¶6.77 in the 14th Ed., being about the plurals of italicised words). Fowler also fails to pronounce.

Do you claim, therefore, that you should be absolved?

[jdaw1]

Do you claim, therefore, that you should be absolved?

It isn’t yet clear. Fowler surely speaks on this but where?

(Also, I edited as you posted.)

[jdaw1]

There are one or two cases in which it is acceptable to use an apostrophe to form a plural, purely for the sake of clarity:
you can use an apostrophe to show the plurals of single letters:

• I've dotted the i's and crossed the t's.
  Find all the p's in appear.

you can use an apostrophe to show the plurals of single numbers:

• Find all the number 7’s.

[djewesbury]

There are one or two cases in which it is acceptable to use an apostrophe to form a plural, purely for the sake of clarity:
you can use an apostrophe to show the plurals of single letters:

• I've dotted the i's and crossed the t's.
  Find all the p's in appear.

you can use an apostrophe to show the plurals of single numbers:

• Find all the number 7’s.

I'm surprised.

[DRT]

I'm surprised.

Is that the same as "I'm wrong"?

[djewesbury]

I'm surprised.

Is that the same as "I'm wrong"?

Of course not. As JDAW himself has amply demonstrated there seems to be a lack of clarity in the matter. I'm merely surprised that a source such as the Oxford Dictionaries would recommend such a slack approach to the language.

[jdaw1]

In a conversation about upper-case vowels, would it be better to mention ‟As, Es, Is, Os and Us”, or ‟A’s, E’s, I’s, O’s and U’s”? Clearly the latter. So for at least some upper-case letters the apostrophe is mandatory in this context. What about the letters which cannot readily be thought to form a word in such manner, including P and Q? The apostrophe being optional rather than prohibited seems more sensible, as that allows the likes of ‟in that typeface the kerning of the A’s and P’s was sometimes wonky”, with matching punctuation for the two letters.

So I think I’m right and djewesbury is wrong.

Will you sustain the complaint, or retract it?

[DRT]

I think I’m right and djewesbury is wrong.

So do I.

[djewesbury]

In a conversation about upper-case vowels, would it be better to mention ‟As, Es, Is, Os and Us”, or ‟A’s, E’s, I’s, O’s and U’s”? Clearly the latter. So for at least some upper-case letters the apostrophe is mandatory in this context. What about the letters which cannot be readily thought to form a word in such manner, including P and Q? The apostrophe being optional rather than prohibited seems more sensible, as that allows the likes of ‟in that typeface the kerning of the A’s and P’s was sometimes wonky”, with matching punctuation for the two letters.

So I think I’m right and djewesbury is wrong.

Will you sustain the complaint, or retract it?

I was taught very strict use of apostrophes. I understand that sometimes, rules are nonsense. I understand that sometimes one must exercise discretion. I suppose it just looks ugly to me. Are you happy to agree to a compromise? Each of us has our own preference; I am not saying that I could not be persuaded of your case, but that instinctively, I do not at first agree with you.

That seems a suitably face-saving formulation. Neither of us need be 'right' or 'wrong'.

[jdaw1]

That seems a suitably face-saving formulation. Neither of us need be 'right' or 'wrong'.

Soft friendly prizes-for-everyone nonsense. There can be right and wrong denying it is the route to autotheistic self-delusion. Some children do fail some exams if everybody graduates, graduation is worth nothing. No. No. No.

And if I am wrong, then I am wrong. I must swallow it, whether pleasant medicine or nay.

I was taught very strict use of apostrophes.

I do like the ‟very strict use”. Commendation. Thorough approval. But please reassure the readers that you were taught all the rules, including those concerning plurals of letters.

[djewesbury]

That seems a suitably face-saving formulation. Neither of us need be 'right' or 'wrong'.

Soft friendly prizes-for-everyone nonsense. There can be right and wrong denying it is the route to autotheistic self-delusion. Some children do fail some exams if everybody graduates, graduation is worth nothing. No. No. No.

And if I am wrong, then I am wrong. I must swallow it, whether pleasant medicine or nay.

I was taught very strict use of apostrophes.

I do like the ‟very strict use”. Commendation. Thorough approval. But please reassure the readers that you were taught all the rules, including those concerning plurals of letters.

Oh sir, I see we are throwing our gauntlets onto the ground!

In this case I must be allowed to muster a proof of my own. I will be back, with my citation. (But it may not be until later tonight as we're going out now, I have another duel to fight...)

[jdaw1]

In this case I must be allowed to muster a proof of my own. I will be back, with my citation. (But it may not be until later tonight as we're going out now, I have another duel to fight...)

A splendid attitude. Enjoy your other duel.

[DRT]

In this case I must be allowed to muster a proof of my own. I will be back, with my citation. (But it may not be until later tonight as we're going out now, I have another duel to fight...)

A splendid attitude. Enjoy your other duel.

I encourage all other forumites to gather in the playground after school to form a circle around the duellists and cry "Fight! Fight! Fight!..".

The winner gets a kiss from the Head Girl.

[SCP-DFF]

The winner gets a kiss from the Head Girl.

My husband will indeed get a kiss from the Head Girl.

[djewesbury]

Please, could we clear our seconds from the field of play?

I have returned (clearly victorious) from my other duel and bring you this.

The Chicago Style Guide says that capital letters used as words form a plural by adding an s (sorry, no link, paywall).

Too American? Most British newspapers today prefer to eliminate superfluous apostrophes. The Guardian Style Guide is silent on this specific matter but I bring you this headline to make my point. The Telegraph style guide mentions using apostrophes "in plural forms of lower case letters standing alone".

I do not think one would write GCSE's. Therefore, it is Ps. And, for that matter, Qs.

I offer you a chance to withdraw, with honour.

[jdaw1]

The Chicago Style Guide says that capital letters used as words form a plural by adding an s (sorry, no link, paywall).

Please reveal ¶ number.

Also, a reminder:

The Chicago Manual of Style doesn’t seem to give guidance, and other guidance it gives about apostrophes is little better than painful rubbish (¶6.77 in the 14th Ed., being about the plurals of italicised words).

I do not think one would write GCSE's. Therefore, it is Ps. And, for that matter, Qs.

How would you write the plural of the first letter of the alphabet?

[DRT]

How would you write the plural of the first letter of the alphabet?

Easy! Easy! Easy! Easy! Get him JDAW. Steel his shoes!

[djewesbury]

Please reveal ¶ number.

¶7.14. "Capital letters used as words, numerals used as nouns, and abbreviations usually form the plural by adding s."

The Chicago Manual of Style doesn’t seem to give guidance, and other guidance it gives about apostrophes is little better than painful rubbish (¶6.77 in the 14th Ed., being about the plurals of italicised words).

But then, I'm using the 16th edition.. not one published 20 years ago.. If you can wait until Monday I can get the full reference using my University staff login details, or I can photocopy a paper edition from the University library..

How would you write the plural of the first letter of the alphabet?

I would write As. As in the sentence, "I got three As and one D for my A-levels, but it's OK, the D was for Geography".

And DRT: that's 'steal'. Please, make way.

[DRT]

And DRT: that's 'steal'. Please, make way.

My dad's bigger than yours!

[djewesbury]

My dad's going to melt your dad's rubber bands.

[Glenn E.]

I do not think one would write GCSE's. Therefore, it is Ps. And, for that matter, Qs.

How would you write the plural of the first letter of the alphabet?

"More than one A."

I get the feeling that this situation is similar to prepositions, with which one should not end a sentence. The correct usage is at times awkward, so technically incorrect usage is occasionally accepted.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[djewesbury]

I do not think one would write GCSE's. Therefore, it is Ps. And, for that matter, Qs.

How would you write the plural of the first letter of the alphabet?

"More than one A."

I get the feeling that this situation is similar to prepositions, with which one should not end a sentence. The correct usage is at times awkward, so technically incorrect usage is occasionally accepted.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Who are you cheering on here? Stop sitting on the fence.

[DRT]

My dad's going to melt your dad's rubber bands.

I'm telling my mum on you.

[jdaw1]

In a conversation about upper-case vowels, would it be better to mention ‟As, Es, Is, Os and Us”, or ‟A’s, E’s, I’s, O’s and U’s”? Clearly the latter.

Clearly we disagree about this hypothetical.

But consider the different nature of our claims. You are saying that, in this context, use of the apostrophe is a crime. I am saying that an apostrophe is permitted, but not compulsory, unless needed for dis-ambiguity (‟As are most frequent GCSE grade”, versus ‟A’s are most frequent GCSE grade”).

[jdaw1]

Individual letters and combinations of letters of the Latin (English) alphabet are italicized:

• the letter q                [!]

In some proverbial expressions the distinction is ignored, and in that case the plural is formed by adding an apostrophe and s (see also 6.16):

• Mind your p’s and q’s.

No upper-case lower-case distinction; and the example given has apostrophes.

So far as it can be done without confusion, single or multiple letters, hyphenated coinages, and numbers used as nouns (whether spelled out or in numerals) form the plural by adding s alone (see also 6.82):

• xs and ys                all SOSs

My dislike of US punctuation continues unabated. These mixed-font words are very 1980s TheGuardian. Further, an oblique H would collide with the following ‘s’: horrible typography, in addition to the other errors in US quotations.

[djewesbury]

That seems a suitably face-saving formulation. Neither of us need be 'right' or 'wrong'.

Soft friendly prizes-for-everyone nonsense. There can be right and wrong denying it is the route to autotheistic self-delusion. Some children do fail some exams if everybody graduates, graduation is worth nothing. No. No. No.

And if I am wrong, then I am wrong. I must swallow it, whether pleasant medicine or nay.

But consider the different nature of our claims. You are saying that, in this context, use of the apostrophe is a crime. I am saying that an apostrophe is permitted, but not compulsory, unless needed for dis-ambiguity (‟As are most frequent GCSE grade”, versus ‟A’s are most frequent GCSE grade”).

I am sensing grammatical relativism, of the kind that you earlier abhorred; or at the very least, very woolly rules. And not far behind, moral turpitude.

[DRT]

This fight is getting boring. It's a sunny day so I think I'll get my magnifying glass and go find some worms to cut in half.

[djewesbury]

This fight is getting boring. It's a sunny day so I think I'll get my magnifying glass and go find some worms to cut in half.

So you are conceding that I haven't been beaten?

[jdaw1]

I am sensing grammatical relativism, of the kind that you earlier abhorred; or at the very least, very woolly rules. And not far behind, moral turpitude.

You have said that I am guilty of an apostrophe crime. Either I am guilty, or I am not. The evidence acquits. But the earlier suggestion of both being right guilty and innocent was unacceptable. If you still believe that ‟P’s and Q’s” is an AC, say so clearly.

My suspicion, unprovable, is that you now recognise as acceptable all of ‟P’s and Q’s”, ‟Ps and Qs” and ‟ps and qs”. (Which isn’t ‟grammatical relativism”: it is merely a multiplicity of permitted ways to write the same thing.) Further, I suspect that your preferred style is not the one I chose.

If these suspicions are correct, then please retract the original accusation, and perhaps comment on the merits of your preferred style.

[DRT]

So you are conceding that I haven't been beaten?

No. I am still convinced by JDAW's argument more than I am by yours. From what I can see there is sufficient authoritative support for the use of the apostrophe in this context to defeat your claim that it is a crime.

[djewesbury]

You have said that I am guilty of an apostrophe crime. Either I am guilty, or I am not. The evidence acquits. But the earlier suggestion of both being right guilty and innocent was unacceptable. If you still believe that ‟P’s and Q’s” is an AC, say so clearly.

I still believe that it is wrong, and I believe I have demonstrated that other authorities believe so too. You have dismissed these authorities, but not by dealing directly with them. You have quoted the 14th ed. of the CMS, rather than referring to the quotation that I gave you from the latest edition. I have substantiated my accusation of apostrophe criminality. I have yet to see my argument refuted.

My suspicion, unprovable, is that you now recognise as acceptable all of ‟P’s and Q’s”, ‟Ps and Qs” and ‟ps and qs”. (Which isn’t ‟grammatical relativism”: it is merely a multiplicity of permitted ways to write the same thing.)

No. I believe that the only two acceptable ways of doing this are as follows: "Ps and Qs"; or, if one insists on lower case letters, "p's and q's". I believe that the difference in case in the first instance obviates the need for an apostrophe; but furthermore I believe that the use of an apostrophe in the second instance is an error, but one that must be committed to maintain sense. I do not comment on the hideousness of ‟ps and qs”. If there are people who write like this, I have not met them. I do not believe in a multiplicity of permitted ways about this; although I offered you the UN-sponsored approach, I still believe that there is one usage that is right, and substantiated, and which moreover is just more aesthetically pleasing: surplus bits of punctuation which in one instance are wrong because they are neither contracting nor possessing, do not become right in another instance simply because of the vagaries of authorial clarity / typesetting.

Further, I suspect that your preferred style is not the one I chose.

Indeed.

If these suspicions are correct, then please retract the original accusation, and perhaps comment on the merits of your preferred style.

I refer the Hon. Gent. to the answers I gave a moment ago.

[djewesbury]

Actually I think the only way to solve this is for all your surplus apostrophes to be handed over to Sergei Lavrov, in a process monitored and overseen by DRT, over the period of, say, a year.

[djewesbury]

All very quiet.. What are they up to...? It's like that scene in the Holy Grail where they're all off making the Wooden Rabbit...

[jdaw1]

You have quoted the 14th ed. of the CMS, rather than referring to the quotation that I gave you from the latest edition.

Because the fourteenth is the only edition to which I have access.

I still believe that there is one usage that is right, and substantiated

The only thing in the transcript which you might be interpreting as ‘substantiation’ is:

The Chicago Style Guide says that capital letters used as words form a plural by adding an s (sorry, no link, paywall).

Too American? Most British newspapers today prefer to eliminate superfluous apostrophes. The Guardian Style Guide is silent on this specific matter but I bring you this headline to make my point. The Telegraph style guide mentions using apostrophes "in plural forms of lower case letters standing alone".

The only edition of the CMS (which might or might be the same as the ‟Chicago Style Guide”) to which I have access includes an example of correct writing with the apostrophes, with no distinction being made between upper- and lower-case letters. Please could you check carefully whether your edition has the same example.

You have mentioned newspapers’ style guides. These do not define wrong. They make choices: ‟! forms A and B are both correct; the Daily Rant always uses the former.” That might make one of the possibilities correct; it does not make any wrong. Nonetheless, TheGuardian’s style guide is silent; and the Telegraph’s answers a different question. So you have not substantiated that ‟P’s and Q’s” is erroneous.

All very quiet.. What are they up to...? It's like that scene in the Holy Grail where they're all off making the Wooden Rabbit...

! in the quiet hours before a tasting? Was it like this at Scampton before 617 Squadron went out..?

Your sensitivity to quiet has been noticed.

[jdaw1]

There is a dispute in the Apostrophe Crimes thread about the permissibility of ‟P’s and Q’s”. Please read from post 901 and then opine.

[djewesbury]

Your sensitivity to quiet has been noticed.

And here I am writing a lecture for film studies students about genre in cinema, and horror in particular... It's all too spooky...

My definitive answers will follow this brief interlude of productive work (possibly tomorrow).

[DRT]

The people at National Punctuation Day (which is on Tuesday) appear to agree with Julian.

This debate appears to have been had a number of times on various geek-tastic forums. I have yet to find one that reached a definitive conclusion.

[PhilW]

There is a dispute in the Apostrophe Crimes thread about the permissibility of ‟P’s and Q’s”. Please read from post 901 and then opine.

When using acronyms, I would expect not to use an apostrophe when constructing the plural, since they would normally be capitalised and therefore avoid confusion e.g. PDFs or SATs; However, for single letters, while "Ps and Qs" would not generally cause confusion, "As and Us" would likely be confusing in comparison to "A's and U's". I would have no problem with someone using "Ps and Qs" or similar where it was clear, but would otherwise choose "P's and Q's"; I would never use "ps and qs", and while I prefer the capitalised form, would accept "p's and q's". I admit to having no idea on the formal rules for this.

With apologies to DJ... "Go on JDAW, pull his chair away, he's not looking"

[DRT]

It doesn't matter how many different authorities/style guides are cited - usage in this area has never been fixed

This appears to be the cause of the dispute. There is no correct answer.

So, if there is no rule, how can there have been a crime?

[djewesbury]

I am amazed at the laissez-faire attitude of you all. And the vigour with which you propound it! There is no crime because there was no rule! With thinking like that we would never have ventured out of the caves!

If there is no rule, then I maintain it is up to us - US! - to create one. And if the majority of you are wrong-headed enough to favour JDAW's interpretation (apparently because you are too weak-willed to see what's wrong with it), then so be it. But I will be back!

And I am not yet at the *picks up broken pieces of spectacles* stage. Not by a long way.

[DRT]

Law are not generally retrospectively applied.

At some point in history the powers that be decided that small boys who stole handkerchiefs from gentlemen should be hung. When that became the law I strongly suspect that the lawmakers did not go around looking for men who used to be boys who had stolen handkerchiefs before the law was passed so that they could hang them. Those men did not commit a crime because the law didn't exist for them to break it.

If we are to pass a law here that prohibits the use of apostrophes when pluralising single capital letters I vote that we should not hang JDAW.

[djewesbury]

At some point in history the powers that be decided that small boys who stole handkerchiefs from gentlemen should be hung.

You're just testing us, aren't you. I was always told that men (and game) are hanged.

If we are to pass a law here that prohibits the use of apostrophes when pluralising single capital letters I vote that we should not hang JDAW.

I am happy to allow clemency.

[DRT]

At some point in history the powers that be decided that small boys who stole handkerchiefs from gentlemen should be hung.

You're just testing us, aren't you. I was always told that men (and game) are hanged.

{engage family-friendly filter and don't comment on men being hung}

I was always told that questions should end with a question mark.

[djewesbury]

At some point in history the powers that be decided that small boys who stole handkerchiefs from gentlemen should be hung.

You're just testing us, aren't you. I was always told that men (and game) are hanged.

{engage family-friendly filter and don't comment on men being hung}

I was always told that questions should end with a question mark.

Touché. :graphic of a man bowing:

[jdaw1]

Aside:

Law are not generally retrospectively applied.

Though there have been exceptions:

The amendments made by subsections (1) and (2) are deemed always to have had effect.

(In summary, a too-clever lawyer managed to persuade a court to mis-read section 47 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (bail after arrest), so, within a week, the law was retrospectively changed to keep the villain inside.)

Back to main topic. It seems that the accusation has not been withdrawn, but that the jury of my peers has prevented my being hanged. Hurray for the traditional liberties of this sceptred isle.

[jdaw1]

I am amazed at the laissez-faire attitude of you all.

For my taste I would have preferred the usage of italics or oblique. But, perhaps because I have a laissez-faire attitude, I do not think that any crime has been committed.

[djewesbury]

I am amazed at the laissez-faire attitude of you all.

For my taste I would have preferred the usage of italics or oblique. But, perhaps because I have a laissez-faire attitude, I do not think that any crime has been committed.

What a thoroughly enjoyable and thoroughly educational pastime this has been. It has altogether restored my joie de vivre, which was perhaps a little diminished after returning from the Portuguese sunshine. I'm very glad nobody has been hanged.