Apostrophe crimes

Post by **Alex Bridgeman** » 17:13 Tue 15 Apr 2008

While I will concede that I should have used an apostrophe for "the five attendees glasses", I will not concede that the sadness was excessive. If any emotion should be attached to the sadness, it should be described as satisfied sadness.

Post by **jdaw1** » 18:15 Tue 15 Apr 2008

The extra sadness was for the missed apostrophe, that’s all.

Post by **jdaw1** » 16:06 Thu 17 Apr 2008

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=13093#13093]Here[/url], starting a thread entitled [url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1550]Single Quinta's[/url], Simon Lisle wrote:I have very little experiance on this part of vintage port.Apart from the Symingtons and the other big hitters,Which is your top three of the smaller not so well known Quinta's that are consistently making good port.

Post by **jdaw1** » 15:06 Sat 19 Apr 2008

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=13252#13252]Here[/url] Derek T. wrote:This time I'm definitely going to porto, assuming its the right plane!

Post by **jdaw1** » 15:07 Sat 19 Apr 2008

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=13253#13253]Here[/url] Derek T. wrote:So at least we are agreed its toms fault!

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 18:22 Sat 19 Apr 2008

jdaw1 wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=13252#13252]Here[/url] Derek T. wrote:This time I'm definitely going to porto, assuming its the right plane!

Yeah, but at least he spelt "definitely" correctly.

Post by **jdaw1** » 04:23 Fri 02 May 2008

Usually I exempt Conky from Apostrophe Crimes (well, it might be more accurate to say “sometimes†), but to omit an apostrophe in the title of a thread (Newcomers....Dont be afraid of the Geeks!) is just too much. (Alan: Newcomers: Don’t be afraid of the Geeks! might have been better.)

Post by **jdaw1** » 20:15 Fri 02 May 2008

G-man: repeat offender on whom I have been too soft.

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=13867#13867]Here[/url] g-man wrote:adding to julians' 63 and 75, the 47?

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 21:33 Fri 02 May 2008

jdaw1 wrote:G-man: repeat offender on whom I have been too soft.
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=13867#13867]Here[/url] g-man wrote:adding to julians' 63 and 75, the 47?

Are you assuming there is only one Julian? Scrub that.

Anyway, G-Man assures me that his native tongue is Taiwanese and you are not allowed Apostrophe Crimes on non-native speakers.

Post by **DRT** » 21:35 Fri 02 May 2008

KillerB wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:G-man: repeat offender on whom I have been too soft.
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=13867#13867]Here[/url] g-man wrote:adding to julians' 63 and 75, the 47?
Are you assuming there is only one Julian? Scrub that.

Anyway, G-Man assures me that his native tongue is Taiwanese and you are not allowed Apostrophe Crimes on non-native speakers.

Agreed.

Post by **jdaw1** » 22:15 Fri 02 May 2008

KillerB wrote:Anyway, G-Man assures me that his native tongue is Taiwanese and you are not allowed Apostrophe Crimes on non-native speakers.

1. Apologies: my understanding was that G-man had been speaking English from an age sufficiently young to be eligible for this thread.

2. Taiwanese?! Do you really mean Min Nan rather than Mandarin? Cool.

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 22:58 Fri 02 May 2008

jdaw1 wrote:
KillerB wrote:Anyway, G-Man assures me that his native tongue is Taiwanese and you are not allowed Apostrophe Crimes on non-native speakers.
1. Apologies: my understanding was that G-man had been speaking English from an age sufficiently young to be eligible for this thread.

2. Taiwanese?! Do you really mean Min Nan rather than Mandarin? Cool.

Can't remember. G-man? BTW, remember that I am protecting you from months of on-line grammatical abuse. Whatever you do, do not admit to being born in New Jersey.

Post by **jdaw1** » 23:20 Fri 02 May 2008

KillerB wrote:months of on-line grammatical abuse

Commendation for careful phrasing. The abuse would be, of course, grammatical. But on the subject of punctuation.

Post by **jdaw1** » 03:32 Sun 18 May 2008

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=14756#14756]Here[/url] Derek T. wrote:enough fruity scrumptiousness to be wiped out in it's youth.

Post by **jdaw1** » 00:55 Mon 19 May 2008

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=14799#14799]Here[/url] Derek T. wrote:to ensure AHBs kitchen floor remains uninhabited

… to ensure that AHB’s kitchen …

I’m grateful that you didn’t say “insure†, which would have been still more heinous.

Post by **DRT** » 01:03 Mon 19 May 2008

jdaw1 wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=14799#14799]Here[/url] Derek T. wrote:to ensure AHBs kitchen floor remains uninhabited
… to ensure that AHB’s kitchen …

I’m grateful that you didn’t say “insure†, which would have been still more heinous.

Firstly, "that" isn't an apostrophe and therefore should not be reported here as a crime.

Secondly, AHBs and AHB's are equally valid, as you once explained to me.

Are you having a bad day?

Derek

KillerB · Post by **KillerB** » 01:21 Mon 19 May 2008

Derek T. wrote:
jdaw1 wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=14799#14799]Here[/url] Derek T. wrote:to ensure AHBs kitchen floor remains uninhabited
… to ensure that AHB’s kitchen …
Firstly, "that" isn't an apostrophe and therefore should not be reported here as a crime.

Secondly, AHBs and AHB's are equally valid, as you once explained to me.

Are you having a bad day?

Derek

No they are not. The kitchen (and its floor) belongs to AHB, therefore it is AHB's kitchen and requires a possessive apostrophe. There are few occasions when the apostrophe is optional and this is not one of them. Whatever jdaw1's explanation it would not have meant this, unless he has some strange tiddly-winks club (no apostrophe required here, the club does not belong to tiddly-winks) definition that only he understands.

However, the 'that' is implied and should not be included as a crime, let alone an apostrophe crime. Only an extreme pedant would...

Post by **DRT** » 01:26 Mon 19 May 2008

KillerB wrote: the 'that' is implied and should not be included as a crime, let alone an apostrophe crime. Only an extreme pedant would...

Post by **jdaw1** » 02:14 Mon 19 May 2008

KillerB wrote:Only an extreme pedant would...

… notice the use of three dots (“...†) rather than an ellipsis (“…†)?

Derek T. wrote:"that"

Why the bolded quotation marks? Accidentally put inside the quoted text’s bolding? OK, it happens.

Post by **jdaw1** » 14:01 Mon 23 Jun 2008

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=16025#16025]Here[/url] DRT wrote:older one's that I haven't researched

Post by **DRT** » 14:57 Mon 23 Jun 2008

jdaw1 wrote:
[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=16025#16025]Here[/url] DRT wrote:older one's that I haven't researched

Damn! I had been doing quite well with my apostrophe's recently and now I've gone and blown it.

Post by **jdaw1** » 22:55 Tue 01 Jul 2008

[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=16228#16228]Here[/url] JacobH wrote:[edit to remove an offending apostrophe…]

I was too slow. But commendation for use of the ellipsis character (“…†), rather than three dots (“...†).

Post by **jdaw1** » 19:43 Fri 04 Jul 2008

Continental.com wrote:Some [car rental] agencies may also have a minimum age for rental or a surcharge for driver's under the age of 25.

Post by **jdaw1** » 13:17 Sat 05 Jul 2008

Continental.com wrote:Enter the infants full name as it appears on the travel document.

benread · Post by **benread** » 13:37 Sat 05 Jul 2008

jdaw1 wrote:
Continental.com wrote:Enter the infants full name as it appears on the travel document.

Are you flying continental by any chance?!

ThePortForum.com