Apostrophe crimes

[jdaw1]

altogether restored my joie de vivre, which was perhaps a little diminished

The undoing of that terrible diminishment is a joy to us all, and even more so with the addition of the hidden concession. Is a greater concession about to be added?

[djewesbury]

altogether restored my joie de vivre, which was perhaps a little diminished

The undoing of that terrible diminishment is a joy to us all, and even more so with the addition of the hidden concession. Is a greater concession about to be added?

Well, even if I were not so minded, the revelation elsewhere that you are considering the use of heavier bullets has prompted me to re-examine my course of action.

Perhaps I may accept that "P's and Q's" does not represent an apostrophe crime, per se. But I can still feel proud to have instigated such an important, nay essential debate.

Shall we leave it at that? The Chicago Manual of Style is such a boring book...

[jdaw1]

Honour is satisfied: thank you.

But as you have clearly implied. just because a rule seemingly has been something, does not mean that it should always be so. Which nudges me towards a new rule.

You have falsely accused a chap of a non-trivial transgression, of heinous villainy, or a terrible atrocity, of an apostrophe crime. Surely there should be some penalty on those falsely making such grave accusations. I suggest a fine: at your next tasting, you should bring an extra bottle.

On balance, do you think that such a rule would be good public policy?

[djewesbury]

Honour is satisfied: thank you.

But as you have clearly implied. just because a rule seemingly has been something, does not mean that it should always be so. Which nudges me towards a new rule.

You have falsely accused a chap of a non-trivial transgression, of heinous villainy, or a terrible atrocity, of an apostrophe crime. Surely there should be some penalty on those falsely making such grave accusations. I suggest a fine: at your next tasting, you should bring an extra bottle.

On balance, do you think that such a rule would be good public policy?

We have already established that the law cannot be applied retrospectively, have we? In that case, yes, it is self-evidently a Good Idea.

[jdaw1]

yes, it is self-evidently a Good Idea.

Well, if you’re going to be so d sporting about it, then I’ll bring, to the next appropriate tasting attended by the two us, an extra bottle.

Which makes two extras: what’s not to like.

[djewesbury]

yes, it is self-evidently a Good Idea.

Well, if you’re going to be so d sporting about it, then I’ll bring, to the next appropriate tasting attended by the two us, an extra bottle.

Which makes two extras: what’s not to like.

There's a chance you might have to post that, if as I fear I can't make the October tasting..

And you did remember this..?

We have already established that the law cannot be applied retrospectively, have we?

Then again, I don't mind too much being made an example of. More port all round after all.

[DRT]

I’ll bring, to the next appropriate tasting attended by the two us, an extra bottle.

Is it half a double mag of Sandeman Vau in two bottles?

[djewesbury]

I’ll bring, to the next appropriate tasting attended by the two us, an extra bottle.

Is it half a double mag of Sandeman Vau in two bottles?

[jdaw1]

There's a chance you might have to post that, if as I fear I can't make the October tasting..

Then it can be a subsequent tasting: next time you and I are each bringing one bottle to a not-too-structured event attended by the two of us, we’re each bringing two. You as payment for defamation; me as acknowledgement of you being sporting.

No date has yet been fixed, though I do have a hunch of what port fine port from a fine vintage, sir I shall bring.

[djewesbury]

There's a chance you might have to post that, if as I fear I can't make the October tasting..

Then it can be a subsequent tasting: next time you and I are each bringing one bottle to a not-too-structured event attended by the two of us, we’re each bringing two. You as payment for defamation; me as acknowledgement of you being sporting.

No date has yet been fixed, though I do have a hunch of what port fine port from a fine vintage, sir I shall bring.

Perhaps the 27th of November (my proposed near-birthday tasting)?

[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

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

It is too difficult to write an explanatory post using my phone. So you must wait to find out.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[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

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

It is too difficult to write an explanatory post using my phone. So you must wait to find out.

What I meant by my previous post is that, in much the same way that slang words are often incorporated into the O.E.D. once they have become sufficiently ingrained in the language, grammar rules might also change to suit the common fancy.

My belief (entirely unsubstantiated) is that Ps and Qs is the technically correct usage, but that P's and Q's has become so commonplace that it is now considered acceptable.

[jdaw1]

Allow me to grouch about another pet linguistic peeve of mine, use of which should be more than decimated.

Yes, that means to kill or destroy one tenth, but is colloquially used, not always with the emphatic ‟literally”, to mean destroy all or most of something.

Next up, listen to Professor Halliday (of Oxford, one of this sceptred isle’s better second-rank Universities), saying that ‟it was proposed that a Mars-sized body, about 10% of the mass of the Earth, ! hit the Earth when it was only 90% formed, !. The Earth would have been completely decimated”.

I’ll try to ignore the ‟completely” though have already failed. Instead let’s do arithmetic: 10% of mass of Earth arrives. Some debris falls back, some forms moon. The moon, of course, has a mass about 1.23% of the mass of the Earth. So Earth would have gained about 9% of its mass. In which context, please explain ‟completely decimated”.

[DRT]

I share your pain on this one. I also have a problem with the concept of the earth being "90% formed". At what point did it become the planet that we now know as earth? Surely a body that is 90% of the mass of what we live on today is already a planet, albeit that it is in the early stages of its life cycle? Applying same theory to humans would mean that I was only 70% formed at 18 years old, which makes no sense.

The earth gathers mass constantly and will do so until it begins disintegrating as a result of the sun expanding into its orbit. At what point will it be "100% formed"?

[jdaw1]

I also have a problem with the concept of the earth being "90% formed".

This isn’t a problem for me. He could have said something like ‟having accreted to 90% of its terminal mass”, but that seems needlessly formal, especially in a radio interview.

[Glenn E.]

I share your pain on this one. I also have a problem with the concept of the earth being "90% formed".

While I share jdaw1's annoyance with the misuse of decimated, I don't have a problem with this statement. To me, "90% formed" does not necessarily refer to its mass, but to the state of existence that we think of as our world. "90% of the way to being capable of supporting life as we know it," for example.

[PhilW]

I share your pain on this one. I also have a problem with the concept of the earth being "90% formed".

Regarding "90% formed" I side with DRT; it might be acceptable in a very generic hand-waving way to express a concept, but it's so inaccurate without defining what you mean by formed in this context as to make it useless for most purposes, especially for a professor unless he is catering to an audience with no understanding of the topic and limited ability to understand the concept.

Regarding decimation, I have to admit to having just had my understanding corrected I was aware of both the formal "one-tenth" use, and the more colloquial use along the lines of "a dramatic reduction, almost wiping out"; however in my head, I had put the two together and confused the formal definition into "reducing to one-tenth" instead of "reducing by one-tenth"; Now I know better - thank you!

[jdaw1]

Regarding decimation, I have to admit to having just had my understanding corrected I was aware of both the formal "one-tenth" use, and the more colloquial use along the lines of "a dramatic reduction, almost wiping out"; however in my head, I had put the two together and confused the formal definition into "reducing to one-tenth" instead of "reducing by one-tenth"; Now I know better - thank you!

One crime prevented hurray!

[PhilW]

One crime prevented hurray!

Indeed; except that if I ever used decimate in the formal sense, I'd have to qualify it to ensure the person to whom I was speaking understood my intention.

Most of my use of the word decimate is within the context of signal processing, where the term is used differently again. For example you might "decimate by 5" or "decimate by a factor of five", which means selecting only every fifth sample from an original sequence of samples. I note that this definition while in very common use is barely covered by the brief OED definition:

Historically, the meaning of the word decimate is ‘kill one in every ten of (a group of people)’. This sense has been more or less totally superseded by the later, more general sense ‘kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of’, as in the virus has decimated the population. Some traditionalists argue that this is incorrect, but it is clear that it is now part of standard English.

[Glenn E.]

in a radio interview.

especially for a professor unless he is catering to an audience with no understanding of the topic and limited ability to understand the concept.

I believe that qualifies, does it not?

[DRT]

It was on Radio 4. I do not think Radio 4 listeners qualify as "an audience with no understanding of the topic and limited ability to understand the concept".

[djewesbury]

It was on Radio 4. I do not think Radio 4 listeners qualify as "an audience with no understanding of the topic and limited ability to understand the concept".

Be careful of being over-generous to the R4 audience. Have you ever listened to Any Answers?

[djewesbury]

I imagine that this professor, at home himself with the idea of what it was he meant, mis-spoke. I guess he used a kind of verbal shorthand when referring to an idea (90% formed) that he could, if required, substantiate and illustrate. I think that, as people who don't have access to his information or knowledge, we could let him off. Or would someone like to contact him and ask him to elucidate..?

[jdaw1]

Or would someone like to contact him and ask him to elucidate..?

Why him, given the following?

I also have a problem with the concept of the earth being "90% formed".

This isn’t a problem for me. He could have said something like ‟having accreted to 90% of its terminal mass”, but that seems needlessly formal, especially in a radio interview.

[djewesbury]

Or would someone like to contact him and ask him to elucidate..?

Why him, given the following?

I also have a problem with the concept of the earth being "90% formed".

This isn’t a problem for me. He could have said something like ‟having accreted to 90% of its terminal mass”, but that seems needlessly formal, especially in a radio interview.

Sorry. Entirely my fault. Confused the two of you. Easily done.

[jdaw1]

If you guess wrong, you can’t guess again until somebody else has had a guess

Germans, Americans, and seemingly me in New York. Apologies.

[DRT]

Is it wrong to guess incorrectly?

[djewesbury]

I'm lost

[djewesbury]

Oh I see. Wrong is an adjective, not an adverb. Hard on yourself JDAW.

[DRT]

I'm lost

Ask yourself where you are in yourself before asking others to guess incorrectly.

[djewesbury]

I'm lost

Ask yourself where you are in yourself before asking others to guess incorrectly.

good advice generally. Perhaps the motto of ?

[jdaw1]

May I basque in the glory for a while before thinking of a question?

No.

[djewesbury]

May I basque in the glory for a while before thinking of a question?

No.

i have tried posting the comment 'a very disturbing image' twice but Tapatalk only quotes JDAW's comment (no) and does not quote what he quoted from DRT, even though I see the BB tags for everything above what I write here. It may be Tapatalk can only display one level of quoting..? Anyway Derek in a basque is not right.

[DRT]

[djewesbury]

Not an apostrophe crime, but a real turkey nonetheless.

Croft 85 is pricier here. Was it one of the vintages affected by VA in that year?

Avoid! I think this is the port that we ordered and sent back three bottles in a row at The Crusting Pipe as they were fowl.

[DRT]

I'm not doing well at the moment. It must be the drugs.

[djewesbury]

I'm not doing well at the moment. It must be the drugs.

Don't fail us now, we need you.. get better drugs..

[jdaw1]

Wonderful thing seen in the gentlemen’s facilities in The Bung Hole:

Look carefully: an optional apostrophe!

You don’t see that very often.

[djewesbury]

Wonderful thing seen in the gentlemen’s facilities in The Bung Hole:

Look carefully: an optional apostrophe!

You don’t see that very often.

quite. You almost wish the ad agency had printed two versions.

[jdaw1]

Little punctuation quiz (but don’t post the answer). There’s a BBC story, Muslim free school allegations prompt Labour questions. What small change to this headline’s punctuation would have dramatically changed its meaning?

[RAYC]

The "Pinho Valley"...? "Quinta do Retiro..."?

[jdaw1]

Perhaps this is harsh.

[jdaw1]

As I have said before, ‘bailin’ is a verb not a noun. It is a power, not a special kind of bond.
!
Bailin is no different from other resolution tools in that respect.

[Glenn E.]

Little punctuation quiz (but don’t post the answer). There’s a BBC story, Muslim free school allegations prompt Labour questions. What small change to this headline’s punctuation would have dramatically changed its meaning?

I can think of one, but perhaps there are others?

[jdaw1]

That question is past its best-before date. Compare:
• Muslim free school allegations prompt Labour questions; and
• Muslim-free school allegations prompt Labour questions.

[Glenn E.]

Yes, that was the change I was thinking of.

[jdaw1]

tis you, tis you...

[DRT]

tis you, tis you...

Guilty m'lord. Can I plead diminished responsibility as a result of really enjoying my Talisker?

[jdaw1]

really enjoying my Talisker?

After last weekend, that is not what you should be doing. Do I detect, ahem, a lapse?

[DRT]

really enjoying my Talisker?

After last weekend, that is not what you should be doing. Do I detect, ahem, a lapse?

Oops.