ThePortForum.com

Posted: **13:33 Sat 18 Feb 2017**

DRT wrote: ↑21:39 Fri 17 Feb 2017
Andy Velebil wrote: ↑02:10 Fri 17 Feb 2017 RSVP me....I'll be there if I'm still sucking my share of earths air.

Darn, I was doing so good too.

Posted: **20:50 Sat 18 Feb 2017**

We are always watching.

Posted: **08:48 Sat 04 Mar 2017**

LGTrotter wrote: ↑21:06 Fri 03 Mar 2017 Oh here you go, a link

I was thinking that the undergraduate in the first story complained of having his Cockburn 04 drunk by the rowing club. Published in 1933 that would make it just about thirty, an 85 in todays money.

Posted: **21:19 Sun 12 Mar 2017**

LGTrotter wrote: ↑17:48 Sat 11 Mar 2017By the way, do we have any feedback on Ms Robinson's views? (I feared another correction should I attempt the apostrophe on her first name)

Mention is hereby made of the absence of punctuation at the end of the bracketed sentence.

Posted: **22:08 Sun 12 Mar 2017**

jdaw1 wrote: ↑21:19 Sun 12 Mar 2017
LGTrotter wrote: ↑17:48 Sat 11 Mar 2017By the way, do we have any feedback on Ms Robinson's views? (I feared another correction should I attempt the apostrophe on her first name)
Mention is hereby made of the absence of punctuation at the end of the bracketed sentence.

I thought I was tying my shoelaces carefully but it seems I was only tying them together. I realise I should know this but would I have been OK with 'Jancis's on this occasion? I also wonder how I would refer to more than one Jancis with a possessive apostrophe.

Brackets, gawdelpus. I realise 'parentheses' takes longer to write but I think it is more accurate, and elegant.

Posted: **22:13 Sun 12 Mar 2017**

LGTrotter wrote: ↑22:08 Sun 12 Mar 2017I also wonder how I would refer to more than one Jancis with a possessive apostrophe.

There is only one Jancis who could matter on this forum. About that, you’re safe.

Posted: **22:07 Wed 29 Mar 2017**

PhilW wrote: ↑21:32 Wed 29 Mar 2017I've rarely seen such a shoddy pile of festering shabbiness, a catastrophic display of inept and cankerous disdain, a disgusting mess which... oh hold on, you said critiqued, not criticised, I'm terribly sorry. Hmm, critiqued or praised, err... Yes, they're lovely, very good show.

I think he meant “cantankerous”. Also, an ellipsis should be a single character (“…”) rather than three dots (“...”).

Posted: **09:20 Thu 30 Mar 2017**

jdaw1 wrote: ↑22:07 Wed 29 Mar 2017
PhilW wrote: ↑21:32 Wed 29 Mar 2017I've rarely seen such a shoddy pile of festering shabbiness, a catastrophic display of inept and cankerous disdain, a disgusting mess which... oh hold on, you said critiqued, not criticised, I'm terribly sorry. Hmm, critiqued or praised, err... Yes, they're lovely, very good show.
I think he meant “cantankerous”. Also, an ellipsis should be a single character (“…”) rather than three dots (“...”).

I meant cankerous; cantankerous would have worked, though would have been less pustulent.
Not all input devices support entry of ellipsis as single character - if that latter is a crime, I may be a regular repeat offender...

Posted: **14:02 Tue 04 Apr 2017**

A BBC quiz on apostrophe punctuation... (I shamefully only got 7/10)

http://play.bbc.co.uk/play/pen/gwcv37b8rq

And an accompanying documentary on the apostrophiser from Bristol, who would enjoy this thread and fit right in!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08kys4c

Posted: **14:56 Tue 04 Apr 2017**

As one having English as 2nd language and being a bad pupil, who would not learn grammar at school, I am happy enough with 6/10.

Posted: **16:22 Sun 28 May 2017**

Two questions were badly formed, and we disagreed on the answer of one of them. Meaning that the BBC scored me 9/10.

But there are no crash helmets in the bible, so it should have been ten.

The BBC wrote:Your Result
9/10
Fantastic! You are a total grammar demon! Feel free to spread your pedantry far and wide.

Posted: **20:13 Mon 29 May 2017**

9/10 for me. Did not know that you add 's to plural nouns that do not end in s (men's team). Did get Jesus' crash helmet, but only because it looked correct and not because I knew the rule. Going by modern standards it should have been Jesus's crash helmet.

Posted: **14:27 Wed 31 May 2017**

Glenn E. wrote: ↑20:13 Mon 29 May 2017Going by modern standards it should have been Jesus's crash helmet.

Modern standard presumably meaning since around 1715. The St James's district of London has been so named since early Hanoverian times.

I love the English language. There are so many twists and foibles to it that trip up mother-tongue English speakers. I feel sorry for people for whom English is a second language - and usually in awe of their linguistic capabilities.

Posted: **22:27 Wed 31 May 2017**

AHB wrote: ↑14:27 Wed 31 May 2017
Glenn E. wrote: ↑20:13 Mon 29 May 2017Going by modern standards it should have been Jesus's crash helmet.
Modern standard presumably meaning since around 1715. The St James's district of London has been so named since early Hanoverian times.

When compared to biblical times? Yes, that suffices as modern.

There have always been exceptions and still are, but I believe the general switch to 's on a noun that ends in s is more recent than 1715. I was taught to base the decision on how the word is pronounced, so even in the 1970s the change was still underway. At least in rural Nebraska.

Posted: **10:25 Thu 01 Jun 2017**

Glenn E. wrote: ↑20:13 Mon 29 May 2017 9/10 for me. Did not know that you add 's to plural nouns that do not end in s (men's team). Did get Jesus' crash helmet, but only because it looked correct and not because I knew the rule. Going by modern standards it should have been Jesus's crash helmet.

Meh. 9/10 also. I was happy enough with Jesus and his helmet, but disagreed with Richard Harris and his spats (You might say Denn-is-is but you write Dennis', so why different with surname than with first name, since both are proper nouns?)

Posted: **14:30 Sun 04 Jun 2017**

AHB wrote: ↑14:27 Wed 31 May 2017I feel sorry for people for whom English is a second language - and usually in awe of their linguistic capabilities.

I feel sorry for people for whom English is a first language — they have no excuse.

Posted: **17:19 Sun 04 Jun 2017**

PhilW wrote: ↑10:25 Thu 01 Jun 2017
Glenn E. wrote: ↑20:13 Mon 29 May 2017 9/10 for me. Did not know that you add 's to plural nouns that do not end in s (men's team). Did get Jesus' crash helmet, but only because it looked correct and not because I knew the rule. Going by modern standards it should have been Jesus's crash helmet.
Meh. 9/10 also. I was happy enough with Jesus and his helmet, but disagreed with Richard Harris and his spats (You might say Denn-is-is but you write Dennis', so why different with surname than with first name, since both are proper nouns?)

My understanding is that currently, Dennis's and Harris's are the correct forms. The odd (per modern standards) use of Jesus' is due to the fact that it is a biblical figure. Which, of course, means that St. James's makes no sense. Because English.

Posted: **18:05 Sun 04 Jun 2017**

jdaw1 wrote: ↑14:30 Sun 04 Jun 2017
AHB wrote: ↑14:27 Wed 31 May 2017I feel sorry for people for whom English is a second language - and usually in awe of their linguistic capabilities.
I feel sorry for people for whom English is a first language — they have no excuse.

Find the ASCII codes for me for an em-dash (and an ellipsis) and I will gladly use the correct punctuation. Until then, I will continue to be lazy.

Posted: **19:29 Sun 04 Jun 2017**

AHB wrote: ↑18:05 Sun 04 Jun 2017Find the ASCII codes for me for an em-dash (and an ellipsis) and I will gladly use the correct punctuation. Until then, I will continue to be lazy.

From memory: 0151 = “—”; 0133 = “…”. And curly quotation marks are 0145-0148.

Posted: **21:45 Sun 04 Jun 2017**

— … ‘ ’ “ ”

Excellent! Thank you. I shall endeavour to be correctly punctuated in the future.

Posted: **21:56 Sun 04 Jun 2017**

How does having the ascii codes help? Is there some way of creating the character in the post editor using the code?

Posted: **22:16 Sun 04 Jun 2017**

On a Windows PC, if you hold down the Alt key and type the number in question on the numeric keypad, the character in question will appear when you release the Alt key. That's why the preceding '0' for the em-dash is necessary.

Posted: **11:35 Mon 05 Jun 2017**

Glenn E. wrote: ↑22:16 Sun 04 Jun 2017 On a Windows PC, if you hold down the Alt key and type the number in question on the numeric keypad, the character in question will appear when you release the Alt key. That's why the preceding '0' for the em-dash is necessary.

This is what you get with the preceding 0: —

This is what you get without it: ù

It's magic!

Posted: **15:47 Mon 05 Jun 2017**

Glenn E. wrote: ↑22:16 Sun 04 Jun 2017 On a Windows PC, if you hold down the Alt key and type the number in question on the numeric keypad, the character in question will appear when you release the Alt key. That's why the preceding '0' for the em-dash is necessary.

Ah OK. Was aware of that little shortcut on Windows, but was wondering if there was some way of doing that on a mobile device…

Posted: **19:48 Mon 05 Jun 2017**

On Android using the Google Keyboard, switch to number input (hit the ?123 button) then hold down the hyphen to see other options.

Posted: **22:01 Mon 05 Jun 2017**

Glenn E. wrote: ↑19:48 Mon 05 Jun 2017 On Android using the Google Keyboard, switch to number input (hit the ?123 button) then hold down the hyphen to see other options.

Any tips for iOS?

Edit: Ah. Same thing works on iOS! Many thanks!

Posted: **15:55 Tue 06 Jun 2017**

flash_uk wrote: ↑22:01 Mon 05 Jun 2017
Glenn E. wrote: ↑19:48 Mon 05 Jun 2017 On Android using the Google Keyboard, switch to number input (hit the ?123 button) then hold down the hyphen to see other options.

Any tips for iOS?

Get a new phone?

Posted: **21:00 Wed 14 Jun 2017**

Andy Velebil wrote: ↑20:11 Wed 14 Jun 2017 The "hills" by my house are over 4,000' (~ 13,000 meters).

Math is hard.

Posted: **21:08 Wed 14 Jun 2017**

Glenn E. wrote:
Andy Velebil wrote: ↑20:11 Wed 14 Jun 2017 The "hills" by my house are over 4,000' (~ 13,000 meters).
Math is hard.

Hahha. One too many zeros on that. Damn phone. 1,300 meters. That better?

And the peaks behind that are higher. Though I think Eric in Colorado has us all beat at over 10,000 foot peaks there. Though I have skied at about 13,000 feet in Telluride Colorado and breathing during exertion gets a bit tougher at that elevation

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **04:05 Thu 15 Jun 2017**

Mt. Rainier is 14,411.

I've skied at 12,000' in Colorado (Crested Butte). Yeah, the last couple thousand feet make a big difference. Most of the resort is between 9000' and 10,500', but if you go up top and take a couple of those black runs you'll be gasping for breath in no time.

Posted: **07:34 Thu 15 Jun 2017**

Glenn E. wrote: ↑04:05 Thu 15 Jun 2017 Mt. Rainier is 14,411.

I've skied at 12,000' in Colorado (Crested Butte). Yeah, the last couple thousand feet make a big difference. Most of the resort is between 9000' and 10,500', but if you go up top and take a couple of those black runs you'll be gasping for breath in no time.

That's nothing; when I was a lad our parents would make my brother and I go t'top of Mount Everest before breakfast, with no Oxygen, or ice axes - or shoes; have a boxing match on the summit and t'loser had to carry t'winner back down while singing God save the Queen, and if we didn't do it quick enough they made us dig our own graves, bury ourselves, and then they would dance on our graves singing Hallelujah. TPF members of today think they have it tough, pah!

Posted: **08:34 Thu 15 Jun 2017**

PhilW wrote: ↑07:34 Thu 15 Jun 2017
Glenn E. wrote: ↑04:05 Thu 15 Jun 2017 Mt. Rainier is 14,411.

I've skied at 12,000' in Colorado (Crested Butte). Yeah, the last couple thousand feet make a big difference. Most of the resort is between 9000' and 10,500', but if you go up top and take a couple of those black runs you'll be gasping for breath in no time.
That's nothing; when I was a lad our parents would make my brother and I go t'top of Mount Everest before breakfast, with no Oxygen, or ice axes - or shoes; have a boxing match on the summit and t'loser had to carry t'winner back down while singing God save the Queen, and if we didn't do it quick enough they made us dig our own graves, bury ourselves, and then they would dance on our graves singing Hallelujah. TPF members of today think they have it tough, pah!

Brilliant!!
MP come alive again.

Posted: **14:17 Thu 15 Jun 2017**

Hahahah!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **20:58 Thu 29 Jun 2017**

Glenn E. wrote: ↑04:05 Thu 15 Jun 2017skied at 12,000' in Colorado

Phil’s reprimand was good, and, generously, he even left an error for others to spot. In a thread entitled ‘Apostrophe crimes’ everybody will have noticed Glenn’s incorrect use of a straight single quote (“'”, U+0027) rather than the prime symbol (“′”, U+2032). Tut tut.

Posted: **13:37 Fri 01 Sep 2017**

jdaw1 wrote: ↑19:31 Thu 31 Aug 2017Thank you

I confess to the omission of a terminating full stop.

Posted: **23:31 Fri 12 Jan 2018**

Posted: **14:05 Sat 13 Jan 2018**

I suspect many others are thinking exactly what I'm thinking after seeing this.

Posted: **15:25 Sat 13 Jan 2018**

Remarkable attention to detail: I have a Casio digital watch exactly like that one.

Posted: **19:12 Sun 18 Feb 2018**

idj123 wrote: ↑17:12 Sun 18 Feb 2018 Yes please! Does OBV count as an 'awful shipper's?

Posted: **14:56 Sat 10 Mar 2018**

flash_uk wrote: ↑19:12 Sun 18 Feb 2018
idj123 wrote: ↑17:12 Sun 18 Feb 2018Yes please! Does OBV count as an 'awful shipper's?

Flash is being hard. In the first post of that thread the theme had included the requirement “no awful shippers”. It could be that Ian was trying to quote, to copy the pluralisation of the original, whilst recognising that the new grammatical context required a singular. It was done clumsily, but I would not have rebuked this — indeed, didn’t.

Maybe I’m just becoming gentle in my dotage.

Posted: **14:01 Sun 11 Mar 2018**

This was typographical rather than grammatical with the second quotation mark inadvertently being inserted before the 's' rather than after and thus becoming an unintentional apostrophe.

Posted: **16:25 Sun 11 Mar 2018**

I think it would be better to claim that autocorrect inserted the s at the end, as the presence of “an” means shipper must be singular.

Posted: **22:06 Sun 11 Mar 2018**

flash_uk wrote: ↑16:25 Sun 11 Mar 2018I think it would be better to claim that autocorrect inserted the s at the end, as the presence of “an” means shipper must be singular.

jdaw1 wrote: ↑14:56 Sat 10 Mar 2018In the first post of that thread the theme had included the requirement “no awful shippers”. It could be that Ian was trying to quote, to copy the pluralisation of the original

Posted: **23:01 Sun 11 Mar 2018**

jdaw1 wrote: ↑22:06 Sun 11 Mar 2018
flash_uk wrote: ↑16:25 Sun 11 Mar 2018I think it would be better to claim that autocorrect inserted the s at the end, as the presence of “an” means shipper must be singular.
jdaw1 wrote: ↑14:56 Sat 10 Mar 2018In the first post of that thread the theme had included the requirement “no awful shippers”. It could be that Ian was trying to quote, to copy the pluralisation of the original

Yes "no awful shippers" in the first post, but if one then discusses a single bottle, the question would be is it "an awful shipper". Can't have "an awful shippers".

Posted: **23:23 Sun 11 Mar 2018**

He wanted to quote my original.

Yes, I agree, the sentence could have tortured a bit (“would OBV breach “no awful shippers”?”), but I sufficiently sympathetic to the mixed pluralisation from the quotation.

Posted: **21:50 Sat 31 Mar 2018**

It is very unlikely that this is correct:

Posted: **11:59 Tue 03 Apr 2018**

I think this is debateable. I would have said " readers' " but each of the many true stories would have come from a single individual reader. If that was the case, would the use have been acceptable?

Posted: **22:12 Tue 03 Apr 2018**

AHB wrote: ↑11:59 Tue 03 Apr 2018I think this is debateable. I would have said " readers' " but each of the many true stories would have come from a single individual reader. If that was the case, would the use have been acceptable?

Unless a single reader supplied all the stories, it’s wrong. Compare: the boys’ oranges: each boy allocated on orange, still, multiple boys.

Consistent with:

jdaw1 wrote: ↑21:50 Sat 31 Mar 2018It is very unlikely that this is correct

Posted: **12:39 Fri 13 Apr 2018**

From The Metro's article on Gateshead Council’s ‘smoke screen’ denial about 5G in their street lights, and spectacular in more ways than one...

Kim Newton wrote:My dads sisters daughters boyfriend’s sister works in at bewicks and she says its true, she thinks she heard 2 councillors discussing it over chocolate chip muffins.

Posted: **15:03 Sat 28 Jul 2018**

In The Economist!

ThePortForum.com

Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes

Re: Apostrophe crimes