Apostrophe crimes

[jdaw1]

The only other usage of that form that I have seen is a contraction not a possessive.

You might even remember that the dot-under-superscript has been echoed on placemats.

[djewesbury]

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

Exactly. That's a pretty common, albeit archaic abbreviation of 'brothers'. The other one is just a typographic incompetence.

[jdaw1]

pretty common, albeit archaic

Please explain how these two concepts can best be fitted together.

I’m trying ‟Dow 1878: pretty common, albeit archaic”, and wishing the world were different.

[djewesbury]

pretty common, albeit archaic

Please explain how these two concepts can best be fitted together.

I’m trying ‟Dow 1878: pretty common, albeit archaic”, and wishing the world were different.

I think you answered your own question.

[jdaw1]

Err, that it is an oxymoron?

[djewesbury]

Err, that it is an oxymoron?

Oh, I underestimated you. You find the phrase "common archaism" oxymoronic? I am disappointed. The persistence of this convention in signs etc is reasonably common. It is archaic, however, and only used by modern businesses when they seek to emulate old ones, is my contention. I see no oxymoron.

[djewesbury]

Ye (as in "ye olde") is an archaism, going back to the absence of the Old English dental fricatives thorn and eth from imported German blackface founts in the 15th century.
But it is pretty common.

[jdaw1]

pretty common, albeit archaic

Please explain how these two concepts can best be fitted together.

"ye olde"

Good explanation: thank you.

[djewesbury]

[djewesbury]

And of course we should recall that Bros (with superscript s and point beneath) is a contraction that requires no apostrophe and has nothing to do with apostrophising; the s is merely superscripted to make obvious the contraction that is already signalled by the point. So the existence of this form has no bearing on the correctness or otherwise of Writers (etc., see above) Tears.

[DRT]

JDAW and I have had beer in Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese (Ludgate Circus end of Fleet Street) and can attest that it is Olde. Unfortunately, the new owners did not possess Ye Olde Cellar Books.

[jdaw1]

I have conceded ye olde point, and hereby do so again. Good explanation.

[jdaw1]

Which do people prefer, and why?
• if ! this desideratum would be automatically satisfied
• if ! this desideratum would automatically be satisfied

[djewesbury]

Please give the whole sentence. Is there a full stop following or a further ellipsis? It makes a difference.

[jdaw1]

Don’t want to quote, but the following is equivalent.
• if the things are red, this desideratum would be automatically satisfied
• if the things are red, this desideratum would automatically be satisfied

[djewesbury]

The second. Just sounds better to my ear, irrelevant /non-existent grammatical rules notwithstanding.

[jdaw1]

The second. Just sounds better to my ear, irrelevant /non-existent grammatical rules notwithstanding.

I was hesitating. You have decided it.

[PhilW]

Or perhaps "would be satisfied automatically" to avoid the split.

[djewesbury]

There is no such thing in English as a split infinitive, unless you are the dead headmaster of one of the public schools specified by the Act.

[Glenn E.]

The former, I think, though it depends on what is happening. The former us more specific to me - red is pertinent to the satisfaction. The latter says to me that red simply allows the satisfaction to take place, but might not otherwise be pertinent.

[djewesbury]

[jdaw1]

I haven’t seen the context, but it is possible to construe a non-crime.

E.g.:
Title = ‟Understanding a wine”;
Sub-title = ‟journalists rant”, as in, plural noun and verb, as in, a capitalisation crime rather than an apostrophe crime.

But that depends on the context.

[djewesbury]

I haven’t seen the context, but it is possible to construe a non-crime.

E.g.:
Title = ‟Understanding a wine”;
Sub-title = ‟journalists rant”, as in, plural noun and verb, as in, a capitalisation crime rather than an apostrophe crime.

But that depends on the context.

The line break is mine.

[jdaw1]

The line break is mine.

That strengthens the prosecution’s case.

Have you written to RAH drawing his attention to your accusation, and thereby giving him an opportunity to respond?

[djewesbury]

The line break is mine.

That strengthens the prosecution’s case.

Have you written to RAH drawing his attention to your accusation, and thereby giving him an opportunity to respond?

I have now.
(A PM has been sent to the accused, inviting response.)

[jdaw1]

Preference?
• The new widget is designed to be robust to bankruptcy.
• The new widget is designed to be robust against bankruptcy.
And, of course, why?

[Alex Bridgeman]

The new widget is designed to be resistant to bankruptcy.

[jdaw1]

Robust versus resistant: please, what is the difference? Is resistance to something attacking, whereas robust suggests unaffected by things that might even be incidental to the robust things? If yes, I mean the latter = robust.

I can find santafe.edu/media/workingpapers/02-12-069.pdf on robust versus stable, but not on resistant.

[djewesbury]

I don't like either. Robust suggests to me something either intrinsically strong (as in triple-ply cardboard boxes) or rigorous (as in procedures). It's a simple adjective. You can't be robust against something, nor are you robust to anything. What you seem to be suggesting is that the widget protects against bankruptcy, or that it actually aids in resisting it, as AHB has said.

[Glenn E.]

The new widget to protect against bankruptcy is designed to be robust.

[DRT]

This robust widget is resistant to bankruptcy.

[PhilW]

Preference?
• The new widget is designed to be robust to bankruptcy.
• The new widget is designed to be robust against bankruptcy.
And, of course, why?

I think there might be an issue of whether the action is by self (or the quoted party) rather than another. Against is usually in opposition to an action, for example "protection against attack"; even when used shorthand e.g. "protection against water" it really means "protection against water ingress" or "protection against water affecting it in some unwanted, though unspecified manner"; you could not have "protection to water" in the same way. By comparison "to" seems to usually relates to the preceding word, so "resilient to" but not "protection to"; in the "to" case it seems the item can be an item "resilient to low temperature" or "resilient to attack".
However, in analysing your sentence to make the suitable choice, we get stymied by the fact that a "widget" could not be solvent or bankrupt, nor could a company or person be "designed", which makes the choice somewhat arbitrary without more suitable contextual example.

[djewesbury]

Preference?
• The new widget is designed to be robust to bankruptcy.
• The new widget is designed to be robust against bankruptcy.
And, of course, why?

I think there might be an issue of whether the action is by self (or the quoted party) rather than another. Against is usually in opposition to an action, for example "protection against attack"; even when used shorthand e.g. "protection against water" it really means "protection against water ingress" or "protection against water affecting it in some unwanted, though unspecified manner"; you could not have "protection to water" in the same way. By comparison "to" seems to usually relates to the preceding word, so "resilient to" but not "protection to"; in the "to" case it seems the item can be an item "resilient to low temperature" or "resilient to attack".
However, in analysing your sentence to make the suitable choice, we get stymied by the fact that a "widget" could not be solvent or bankrupt, nor could a company or person be "designed", which makes the choice somewhat arbitrary without more suitable contextual example.

Well quite.

[Alex Bridgeman]

How did this end up in apostrophe crimes?

Shouldn't this be a thread all of its own - "JDAW's grammar and vocabulary queries" perhaps?

[djewesbury]

Glenn needs a day at Lords.

[jdaw1]

Glenn needs a day at Lords.

{Sackcloth and ashes}

[Glenn E.]

Glenn needs a day at Lords.

{Sackcloth and ashes}

But is it supposed to be "Lord's" or "Lords'"?

I fear I've just committed a crime because I can't be bothered to use proper quotes on an American keyboard.

[djewesbury]

Glenn needs a day at Lords.

{Sackcloth and ashes}

It doesn't happen often; but when it does, it's important that we show how egalitarian this court is.

[djewesbury]

Glenn needs a day at Lords.

{Sackcloth and ashes}

But is it supposed to be "Lord's" or "Lords'"?

I fear I've just committed a crime because I can't be bothered to use proper quotes on an American keyboard.

Lord's. It's named after a man called Lord who owned the land and started the cricket club there.

[jdaw1]

Lord's. It's named after a man called Lord who owned the land and started the cricket club there.

As I recalled, rather too late. Hence: {Sackcloth and ashes}, that being an acknowledgement of a penance.

[djewesbury]

Lord's. It's named after a man called Lord who owned the land and started the cricket club there.

As I recalled, rather too late. Hence: {Sackcloth and ashes}, that being an acknowledgement of a penance.

I wasn't rubbing your nose in it; rather, answering Glenn's query. Your penance is noted. You have done your time.

[jdaw1]

As the person who created this thread, as he who took it upon himself to criticise others, my mistakes hopefully few deserve extra disapprobation. Fair game.

[PhilW]

Hmm. I noticed a horrendous crime the other day which had not been picked up; unfortunately I failed to write my proof in the margin, and can no longer find it. I am therefore not accusing anyone of anything. Especially DRT

[DRT]

Hmm. I noticed a horrendous crime the other day which had not been picked up; unfortunately I failed to write my proof in the margin, and can no longer find it. I am therefore not accusing anyone of anything. Especially DRT

Whatever it was I plead temporary insanity due to man-flu.

[PhilW]

I think the Australian's wanted to call it The Sheila's Cup, which would have been more appropriate.

Surely that would have been The Sheilas' Cup, unless you were deliberately quoting an Australian crime<cough>.

[djewesbury]

I think the Australian's wanted to call it The Sheila's Cup, which would have been more appropriate.

Surely that would have been The Sheilas' Cup, unless you were deliberately quoting an Australian crime<cough>.

There are two crimes in one sentence here. Derek are you still double dosing on the Tramalisker?

[DRT]

Oops and oops.

[PhilW]

An decanting experiment done with these six would have been meaningless.

Perhaps harsh to classify as a crime, but the accused is known to prefer a high bar.

[jdaw1]

An decanting experiment done with these six would have been meaningless.

Perhaps harsh to classify as a crime, but the accused is known to prefer a high bar.

+1, for both the ‟harsh” and the accurate statement of the accused’s preference.

[jdaw1]

The pedants' revolt: Grammar guerrillas make their mark in battle against Cambridge council's war on street sign apostrophes.