Apostrophe crimes

[Glenn E.]

The problem is that Julian hasn't actually given me a good reason for why it's incorrect.

Compare and contrast:
• Fine ales from Isle of Skye
• Fine ales from ‘Isle of Skye’
What is the purpose of the quotation marks in the latter? I could have understood ‟Fine Isle-of-Skye ales”, as a compound adjective, but with the current arrangement of the words, the compounding is wrong.

Silly me, I thought the problem was "Macnabs Inn." This being the Apostrophe Crimes thread and all.

[jdaw1]

Silly me, I thought the problem was "Macnabs Inn." This being the Apostrophe Crimes thread and all.

I accept that the problem was an Apostrophes crime, rather than the singular Apostrophe crime.

[djewesbury]

Silly me, I thought the problem was "Macnabs Inn." This being the Apostrophe Crimes thread and all.

I accept that the problem was an Apostrophes crime, rather than the singular Apostrophe crime.

They're not apostrophes, they're quotation marks.

[jdaw1]

They're not apostrophes, they're quotation marks.

Oops. {Sackcloth and Ashes which we’re losing.}

[djewesbury]

They're not apostrophes, they're quotation marks.

Oops. {Sackcloth and Ashes which we’re losing.}

My sackcloth and ashes (donned yesterday) are beginning to become unhygienic. May I get dressed now?

[djewesbury]

[DRT]

I think registered trademarks are exempt from prosecution.

[jdaw1]

I also prefer ‟1960s” to ‟1960’s”, but the latter form has been sanctified by ancient use.

[djewesbury]

I also prefer ‟1960s” to ‟1960’s”, but the latter form has been sanctified by ancient use.

How? It's a plural. Simples no?
(It was the date I was commenting upon, not the brand name.)

[jdaw1]

I also prefer ‟1960s” to ‟1960’s”, but the latter form has been sanctified by ancient use.

George Saintsbury:

[djewesbury]

Ugh

[jdaw1]

Ugh

I also prefer ‟1960s” to ‟1960’s”, but the latter form has been sanctified by ancient use.

We agree.

[PhilW]

This post doesn't exist. If it did, I wouldn't have written it. If I wrote it, I wasn't there. Honest.

[djewesbury]

I also prefer ‟1960s” to ‟1960’s”, but the latter form has been sanctified by ancient use.

George Saintsbury:

I think context has a part to play here. I would definitely expect no apostrophe to be used for "we made no port in the 1960s or 1970s", but would expect it in "there was little VA found in the 1960's ports" (meaning ports 'belonging' to the decade of the 1960s [not just 1960 itself]) which could, in the context of discussion of ports, be shortened to "there was little VA found in the 1960's" if intending to the ports of the 1960s, thereby referring to the wine rather than the decade (as per use in the quoted section). Borderline, but probably acceptable.

I think that sounds like a perfectly horrible justification. And I disagree too.
If the possessive were applied to a plural the apostrophe would go after the terminal s.

[PhilW]

I think that sounds like a perfectly horrible justification. And I disagree too.
If the possessive were applied to a plural the apostrophe would go after the terminal s.

Agreed, my last post was rubbish.

[jdaw1]

Another example, from Wine And Food Quarterly, Spring 1964:

[djewesbury]

Will's were not revised, but one is likely to be in due course.

[Alex Bridgeman]

Will's were not revised, but one is likely to be in due course.

Quite right too. Shocking use of an apostrophe.

Unless it's a contraction of "Will and Testament" of course. Like 'cello, piano' or 'flu'. But it wouldn't have been now...would it?

[jdaw1]

Not a complaint or an error, merely an observation which might be of interest.

Examiners should not object to the specification and/or claims in patent applications merely because applicants are using British English spellings (e.g., colour) rather than American English spellings. It is not necessary to replace the British English spellings with the equivalent American English spellings in the U.S. patent applications. Note that 37 CFR 1.52(b)(1)(ii) only requires the application to be in the English language. There is no additional requirement that the English must be American English.

Be in the English language or be accompanied by a translation of the application and a translation of any corrections or amendments into the English language together with a statement that the translation is accurate.

[jdaw1]

• Polymer banknotes are more durable. They last at least 2.5 times longer than paper banknotes so will take much longer to become ‟tatty”, improving the quality of banknotes in circulation.

It is possible that ‟tatty” is correctly quoted, if the Old Lady is quoting some authority on what happens to non-polymer notes. But unlikely.

[jdaw1]

Is a word missing?

(Candidate words including ‟dis-empowered infantalised citizens of a bureaucratic nanny state”.)

[djewesbury]

Is a word missing?

(Candidate words including ‟dis-empowered infantalised citizens of a bureaucratic nanny state”.)

And I thought this thread was about grammar!
Quis custodiet custodiens*?

[Glenn E.]

There is a grammar problem. 'Interests' and 'passenger safety' do not agree.

[djewesbury]

There is a grammar problem. 'Interests' and 'passenger safety' do not agree.

But, to quote your own logic, so often seen / heard that surely part of common usage by now?
Safe driving from the Great Wen.

[Glenn E.]

There is a grammar problem. 'Interests' and 'passenger safety' do not agree.

But, to quote your own logic, so often seen / heard that surely part of common usage by now?

Only if you also believe that 'irregardless' is a word.

Besides, not my logic. At least not that I recall.

[djewesbury]

There is a grammar problem. 'Interests' and 'passenger safety' do not agree.

But, to quote your own logic, so often seen / heard that surely part of common usage by now?

Only if you also believe that 'irregardless' is a word.

Besides, not my logic. At least not that I recall.

Forgive me. I mistook you for JDAW. The clue is in the name, I know, but I managed to overlook that. This misrecognition also explains my wish that you drive safely from London (the Great Wen).
I have my new glasses on now.

[DRT]

I'm please to see that at least one person is still alive following last night's exploits at The Bell

[djewesbury]

I'm please to see that at least one person is still alive following last night's exploits at The Bell

Very much alive. I was home in Belfast by 10 o'clock this morning. Slightly tired now.

[jdaw1]

fuzzy views of DSO's (Deep Space Objects).

[DRT]

fuzzy views of DSO's (Deep Space Objects).

Can I not argue that "O's" is a contraction of "Objects"?

[jdaw1]

Can I not argue that "O's" is a contraction of "Objects"?

Unless it's a contraction of "Will and Testament" of course. Like 'cello, piano' or 'flu'. But it wouldn't have been now...would it?

[djewesbury]

I've just been out to look at Jupiter and I would be prepared to swear under oath that I seen the Great Red Spot. It was either that or a random reflection from my neighbours security light.

[DRT]

Perhaps harsh, but the subject is plural rather than singular so I think there is a case to be answered!

Darwin was writing his Origin of the species

[djewesbury]

Perhaps harsh, but the subject is plural rather than singular so I think there is a case to be answered!

Darwin was writing his Origin of the species

You're just mad you weren't there.

[PhilW]

Perhaps harsh, but the subject is plural rather than singular so I think there is a case to be answered!

Darwin was writing his Origin of the species

Not sure on the proposed singular/plural crime, though I did misquote the title which should have been (On the) Origin of Species.

[DRT]

Not sure on the proposed singular/plural crime

Origin of the Species = single species.
On the Origin of Species = all/multiple species.

Providing a very tenuous link to crimes involving apostrophes

[jdaw1]

There could be apostrophe mischief in a wrongly chosen one of:
• Species’ Origin
• Specie’s Origin
• Species Origin

But once the order is reversed, the crucial ‟of” appears, and there is no apostrophe, then relevance to this thread seems to be non-existent.

Or I have misunderstood, and further explanation is about to appear.

[DRT]

I have misunderstood, and further explanation is about to appear.

Yes, you have.

No apostrophe crime appeared on the charge sheet.

The crime that was committed was that a self-confessed, well educated pedant incorrectly naming one of the most famous books in the history of the English language. That was the crime. My mischief was to point out that the incorrect name used could be considered to be a book about the origin of a single species, whereas the correct name describes a plural of species. The singular v plural reference provides a link apostrophes. Apostrophes provide a link to this thread. That mischief does not require further scrutiny as it is incidental to the crime.

Send him down , I say.

[PhilW]

The crime that was committed was that a self-confessed, well educated pedant incorrectly naming one of the most famous books in the history of the English language. That was the crime.

Defendent highlighted the aforementioned issue, and admitted guilt to such, however the Plaintiff made no such accusation, instead claiming some vague nonsense about plurals. Move for case to be dismissed.

Additiional note: regarding the plaintiff's interpretation of the incorrect name, the title could still have referred to a single origin of the (multiple) species, e.g. If known to have come from a single but unknown source "what was the origin of the ports this evening?".

[jdaw1]

Lord have mercy on their souls. Perhaps, as I started this, I should be blamed.

But some credit is due. DRT was a sloppy klutz, barely noticing the mess that was his attempt at writing. (Examples are in the first few pages of this thread.) Now he is in the pit with pedants, squabbling about irrelevant arcana.

[DRT]

Perhaps, as I started this, I should be blamed.

Agreed.

[mpij]

Perhaps harsh, but the subject is plural rather than singular so I think there is a case to be answered!

Darwin was writing his Origin of the species

Not sure on the proposed singular/plural crime, though I did misquote the title which should have been (On the) Origin of Species.

Excuse my pedantry but you have now misquoted the title twice, it should be " On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

[jdaw1]

Help!

There was once a bank called Continental Illinois. How would I write its possessive?
• Continental Illinois’s diddly-do?
• Continental Illinois’ diddly-do?

Yuck and yuck.

[Glenn E.]

I believe that Illinois' possessive is as written.

The rule of thumb that has worked for me is that you follow pronunciation. One does not say "Illinoises" so one does not write it, either. One does say "Joneses" though, so one writes it as "Jones's".

[djewesbury]

The expedition leader had reassured us earlier that this kind of venture always allowed for this kind of contingency. It would, he said, be a couple of weeks before we were reduced to dehydrated food.

At the edge of the continent you have strong weather systems and the speed at which things can happen is astronomical.

[djewesbury]

[jdaw1]

Pot still, comprising two ingredients. Mostly, writers (presumably chopped, sun-dried, then re-wetted). Also, albeit a lesser quantity, their mothers’ tears.

It isn’t entirely clear whether the re-wetting is done with the mothers’ tears, or the tears are added later. Maybe that is the complaint.

[DRT]

Is the dot under the hyper-script "s" a substitute for an apostrophe?

[jdaw1]

Is the dot under the hyper-script "s" a substitute for an apostrophe?

[DRT]

So is that yes for a contraction but no for a possessive?