Apostrophe crimes

[jdaw1]

Preference, please.
• But in that era Lehman had alternated from single-A1 to single-A2, so …
• But in that era Lehman had alternated between single-A1 and single-A2, so …
• Other?

[DRT]

Between.

[Glenn E.]

Depends, but probably between.

From/to implies just a single change, which makes "alternated" seem out of place but not entirely incorrect. Between/and implies multiple changes.

[djewesbury]

This is both a German and English apostrophe crime. In German the apostrophe simply shouldn't be there. In English, the apostrophe is in the wrong place, as the article 'die' indicates that this is plural: the Lohners (as in the Lohner family - their Bernkastel bakery). Thus it should come after the s.
Moral: get it right in one tongue and don't be so promiscuous.

[Glenn E.]

Testing will mimic a utility power loss. There should be no business impact from these tests and no labs should not be affected.

Gotcha. So the labs don't impact the business. I'll let the service engineers know that they're no longer needed.

[djewesbury]

Please Derek, what is a Scotish Dudelsack, and where is yours?

[DRT]

Please Derek, what is a Scotish Dudelsack, and where is yours?

A Dudelsack it where you hide your spare Ts. I wear mine like a Sporran.

[djewesbury]

Is Pitter's Port what Gordon's Wine Bar on Villier's Street sells as its house port?

[Alex Bridgeman]

Is Pitters Port what Gordons Wine Bar on Villiers Street sells as it's house port?

Sorry. Now corrected.

[djewesbury]

Is Pitters Port what Gordons Wine Bar on Villiers Street sells as it's house port?

Sorry. Now corrected.

In that nest of possessives an apostrophe crime was almost understandable. Almost.

[jdaw1]

Those who have not been in a comma for the past month or so

Presumably a very large font size is recommended.

[jdaw1]

A booking of the very large room normally attracts a £500 minimum spend, which Simon agreed to wave on the basis that …

[DRT]

A booking of the very large room normally attracts a £500 minimum spend, which Simon agreed to wave on the basis that …

[over my head icon}

[jdaw1]

[over my head icon}

Sits back. In one corner, Derek, bemused and cowering. In the other, Owen and Daniel, daggers drawn — which poisoned? — and the show about to start. Bread and circuses.

Even the mis-matched brackets herald an unequal fight.

[DRT]

My Paratrooper training tells me that I should bow out of this argument and live to fight another day.

[jdaw1]

Derek, bemused and cowering.

[DRT]

Is there a dignified way out available if I sign a waiver?

[Glenn E.]

Perhaps you should waive a white flag?

[djewesbury]

I just saw this. Better start waving my poisoned arrows at you then.

[flash_uk]

This and some subsequent posts moved here from 2014 pre-Harvest Tour tasting, London, 9/23 by jdaw1.

Roberson's

Rage has clouded your grammar chip

[djewesbury]

Roberson's

Rage has clouded your grammar chip

No. You are thinking of jam perhaps?
I am thinking of these people, and I am using a possessive apostrophe after a singular name. If I have committed some other crime, please specify.

[flash_uk]

I am using a possessive apostrophe after a singular name. If I have committed some other crime, please specify.

No other crime, just that one Still think the phrase is grammatically invalid. What would be wrong with "Email sent to Roberson", Roberson being the shortened version of the business which is fully Roberson Wine.

[djewesbury]

I am using a possessive apostrophe after a singular name. If I have committed some other crime, please specify.

No other crime, just that one Still don't see how that is not grammatically meaningless. What would be wrong with "Email sent to Roberson", Roberson being the shortened version of the business which is fully Roberson Wine.

Mr Smith is a butcher. His shop is called J Smith, not J Smith's. However, we say, when popping out for a chop, "I'm just going to Smith's, back in ten minutes".
Mr Roberson is a wine merchant (albeit a rather inefficient one). His shop is called Roberson Wine. However, we say, when complaining that he sent us the wrong bottle of 1985, "Email sent to Roberson's".
I would use this form in both the singular and the plural.

[flash_uk]

I am using a possessive apostrophe after a singular name. If I have committed some other crime, please specify.

No other crime, just that one Still don't see how that is not grammatically meaningless. What would be wrong with "Email sent to Roberson", Roberson being the shortened version of the business which is fully Roberson Wine.

Mr Smith is a butcher. His shop is called J Smith, not J Smith's. However, we say, when popping out for a chop, "I'm just going to Smith's, back in ten minutes".
Mr Roberson is a wine merchant (albeit a rather inefficient one). His shop is called Roberson Wine. However, we say, when complaining that he sent us the wrong bottle of 1985, "Email sent to Roberson's".
I would use this form in both the singular and the plural.

Mmm. I still require convincing that this is not also grammatically incorrect. I agree the phrase "I'm just going to Smith's" may be used often but that doesn't make it correct. How about Primark, Tesco or Ryman. "I'm just going to Primark's to buy some socks." Doesn't work for me.

Edit: ...perhaps an admin could kindly shift our little grammar spat into the appropriate thread, I really shouldn't have started it here

[djewesbury]

Primark is not someone's name. The examples I used are. Smith's = the shop of Smith. Roberson's = the shop of Roberson. Used thus since time immemorial, and correctly moreover. Simples.
(And yes. Ryman's. The shop of Ryman.)

EDIT: I had a lovely pot of Earl Grey and a tarte aux framboise in Valerie's today!

[flash_uk]

Primark is not someone's name. The examples I used are. Smith's = the shop of Smith. Roberson's = the shop of Roberson. Used thus since time immemorial, and correctly moreover. Simples.
(And yes. Ryman's. The shop of Ryman.)

EDIT: I had a lovely pot of Earl Grey and a tarte aux framboise in Valerie's today!

Now I'm more convinced
But why then do we see Ryman on those shops rather than Ryman's, yet Sainsbury's above all those grocery stores?

[djewesbury]

Primark is not someone's name. The examples I used are. Smith's = the shop of Smith. Roberson's = the shop of Roberson. Used thus since time immemorial, and correctly moreover. Simples.
(And yes. Ryman's. The shop of Ryman.)

EDIT: I had a lovely pot of Earl Grey and a tarte aux framboise in Valerie's today!

Now I'm more convinced
But why then do we see Ryman on those shops rather than Ryman's, yet Sainsbury's above all those grocery stores?

Because different companies choose to do things differently. Personal preference at a particular point in time. Some choose a more colloquial brand ("Sainsbury's" - even though, when I was a child in the 1970s, the brand in big illuminated orange letters above the shop was "J Sainsbury"), some a more perfunctory and literal one ("Ryman").
Because there is no rule stating that we all have to do things one way.

[flash_uk]

I'm off to bed!

[PhilW]

Edit: ...perhaps an admin could kindly shift our little grammar spat into the appropriate thread, I really shouldn't have started it here

+1 for the request to splice out the above chain of posts please

This and some previous posts moved here from 2014 pre-Harvest Tour tasting, London, 9/23 by jdaw1.

[flash_uk]

So perhaps the rule would appear to be something like: a possessive apostrophe after a singular name may be used in situations where the object is implicit. Even though the object may be ambiguous. In this instance, it could be "Email sent to":
Roberson's shop
Roberson's customer service department
Roberson's mother
Roberson's incompetent warehouse chap

[djewesbury]

So perhaps the rule would appear to be something like: a possessive apostrophe after a singular name may be used in situations where the object is implicit. Even though the object may be ambiguous. In this instance, it could be "Email sent to":
Roberson's shop
Roberson's customer service department
Roberson's mother
Roberson's incompetent warehouse chap

I think that the first would always be the obvious implicit meaning.

Please note that out of deference to you, I referred to your employer in earlier email with no possessive apostrophe. I thought about adding one, but I guess I'm just too good.

[flash_uk]

Please note that out of deference to you, I referred to your employer in earlier email with no possessive apostrophe.

Which to me looked grammatically perfect

[LGTrotter]

[over my head icon}

Sits back. In one corner, Derek, bemused and cowering. In the other, Owen and Daniel, daggers drawn — which poisoned? — and the show about to start. Bread and circuses.

Even the mis-matched brackets herald an unequal fight.

My poor grammar, spelling, punctuation, idiosyncratic/incomprehensible mangling of language hardly qualifies me as one to sit in judgement.

Charitably I can only suppose that Derek was trying to show the truth of 'there is no 'I' in team' by leaving out the i in waive. He did it for all of us.

And has we have seen from the exchange between Daniel and Flash these things rapidly degenerate into the kind of arguments which begin with the choice of cutlery and end in divorce. We have got to, in the words of Mr Kravitz, let love rule.

[jdaw1]

Sits back. In one corner, Owen, letting love rule. In the other, Derek and Daniel, daggers drawn — which poisoned? — and the show about to start. Bread and circuses.

[djewesbury]

Anything currently made by the Symington's would do.

[DRT]

My correction was too slow. Speedy Gonzalez beat me to the draw.

[djewesbury]

My correction was too slow. Speedy Gonzalez beat me to the draw.

Quickest poisoned dagger in the business.

[flash_uk]

...Billy McKay was the presenters name (I think).

Oops.

[DRT]

Alex Sammonds definition

[djewesbury]

Alex Sammonds definition

Not once but thrice. I was tempted to post it but thought it was too much like shooting fish in a barrel. Ben, Ben, Ben…

[djewesbury]

Sorry. I left this as long as I could.
But there it still is.
Here, Jacob created a thread entitled
"Oporto and the Duoro"

[benread]

Guilty as charged!

[djewesbury]

I have not yet seen a bottle that looks like a chicken. Are we sure The claims about the entomology of the name are not just urban myth?

What on earth has this got to do with the study of insects??

Honestly, come on team, I feel like the Head Prefect here. Let's sharpen it up.

[DRT]

Inspired by your zeal, I know have my bottle sitting on:

[djewesbury]

Inspired by your zeal, I know have my bottle sitting on:

Deflecting from your own crimes?

[DRT]

Inspired by your zeal, I know have my bottle sitting on:

Deflecting from your own crimes?

No. Just being an honest citizen and reporting crime to the authorities when I see it.

[djewesbury]

That's good. If everyone grasses everyone else the school will run just fine.

[jdaw1]

The BBC, in an article entitled Hiding currency in the Dark Wallet:

I suspect that it would not be productive to contact the original author.

[djewesbury]

the TRPF

Tautology

[JacobH]

Sorry. I left this as long as I could.
But there it still is.
Here, Jacob created a thread entitled
"Oporto and the Duoro"

Hmm...I missed this. I didn’t realise we were moving on from apostrophe crimes to typing errors!!

But anyway, I plead not guilty on the basis that Duoro, whilst unconventional, is a legitimate alternative spelling:

By the law of the general company of the Alto Duoro it is expressly provided that if the sambucus fructus in umbella nigro, C. B. P. or the alder tree is found in or about a vineyard the penalty of forty shillings shall be incurred:--and if any of the berries or expressed juice (which they term baga) is found or discovered in any lodge or repository of wine besides the confiscation of all the wines of the said lodge to the company the owner or proprietor is liable to be imprisoned at the mercy of the king