A place for those passionate about port, and for those new to it. We hold lots of Port tastings: please join us!
https://www.theportforum.com/
jdaw1, [url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7369&p=60356#p60356]here[/url], wrote:I hear my grandfather’s voice insisting on P’s and Q’s.
I can find an online source that claims I would have been correct with lower-case ‟p’s and q’s”, but not with upper case (Grammar Book, rule 11). The Chicago Manual of Style doesn’t seem to give guidance, and other guidance it gives about apostrophes is little better than painful rubbish (¶6.77 in the 14th Ed., being about the plurals of italicised words). Fowler also fails to pronounce.djewesbury wrote:jdaw1, [url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7369&p=60356#p60356]here[/url], wrote:I hear my grandfather’s voice insisting on P’s and Q’s.
Do you claim, therefore, that you should be absolved?jdaw1 wrote:I can find an online source that claims I would have been correct with lower-case ‟p’s and q’s”, but not with upper case. The Chicago Manual of Style doesn’t seem to give guidance, and other guidance it gives about apostrophes is little better than painful rubbish (¶6.77 in the 14th Ed., being about the plurals of italicised words). Fowler also fails to pronounce.djewesbury wrote:jdaw1, [url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7369&p=60356#p60356]here[/url], wrote:I hear my grandfather’s voice insisting on P’s and Q’s.
It isn’t yet clear. Fowler surely speaks on this but where?djewesbury wrote:Do you claim, therefore, that you should be absolved?
OxfordDictionaries.com wrote:There are one or two cases in which it is acceptable to use an apostrophe to form a plural, purely for the sake of clarity:
you can use an apostrophe to show the plurals of single letters:you can use an apostrophe to show the plurals of single numbers:
- I've dotted the i's and crossed the t's.
Find all the p's in appear.
- Find all the number 7’s.
I'm surprised.jdaw1 wrote:OxfordDictionaries.com wrote:There are one or two cases in which it is acceptable to use an apostrophe to form a plural, purely for the sake of clarity:
you can use an apostrophe to show the plurals of single letters:you can use an apostrophe to show the plurals of single numbers:
- I've dotted the i's and crossed the t's.
Find all the p's in appear.
- Find all the number 7’s.
Is that the same as "I'm wrong"?djewesbury wrote:I'm surprised.
DRT wrote:Is that the same as "I'm wrong"?djewesbury wrote:I'm surprised.
So do I.jdaw1 wrote:I think I’m right and djewesbury is wrong.
I was taught very strict use of apostrophes. I understand that sometimes, rules are nonsense. I understand that sometimes one must exercise discretion. I suppose it just looks ugly to me. Are you happy to agree to a compromise? Each of us has our own preference; I am not saying that I could not be persuaded of your case, but that instinctively, I do not at first agree with you.jdaw1 wrote:In a conversation about upper-case vowels, would it be better to mention ‟As, Es, Is, Os and Us”, or ‟A’s, E’s, I’s, O’s and U’s”? Clearly the latter. So for at least some upper-case letters the apostrophe is mandatory in this context. What about the letters which cannot be readily thought to form a word in such manner, including P and Q? The apostrophe being optional rather than prohibited seems more sensible, as that allows the likes of ‟in that typeface the kerning of the A’s and P’s was sometimes wonky”, with matching punctuation for the two letters.
So I think I’m right and djewesbury is wrong.
Will you sustain the complaint, or retract it?
Soft friendly prizes-for-everyone nonsense. There can be right and wrong denying it is the route to autotheistic self-delusion. Some children do fail some exams if everybody graduates, graduation is worth nothing. No. No. No.djewesbury wrote:That seems a suitably face-saving formulation. Neither of us need be 'right' or 'wrong'.
I do like the ‟very strict use”. Commendation. Thorough approval. But please reassure the readers that you were taught all the rules, including those concerning plurals of letters.djewesbury wrote:I was taught very strict use of apostrophes.
Oh sir, I see we are throwing our gauntlets onto the ground!jdaw1 wrote:Soft friendly prizes-for-everyone nonsense. There can be right and wrong denying it is the route to autotheistic self-delusion. Some children do fail some exams if everybody graduates, graduation is worth nothing. No. No. No.djewesbury wrote:That seems a suitably face-saving formulation. Neither of us need be 'right' or 'wrong'.
And if I am wrong, then I am wrong. I must swallow it, whether pleasant medicine or nay.
I do like the ‟very strict use”. Commendation. Thorough approval. But please reassure the readers that you were taught all the rules, including those concerning plurals of letters.djewesbury wrote:I was taught very strict use of apostrophes.
A splendid attitude. Enjoy your other duel.djewesbury wrote:In this case I must be allowed to muster a proof of my own. I will be back, with my citation. (But it may not be until later tonight as we're going out now, I have another duel to fight...)
I encourage all other forumites to gather in the playground after school to form a circle around the duellists and cry "Fight! Fight! Fight!..".jdaw1 wrote:A splendid attitude. Enjoy your other duel.djewesbury wrote:In this case I must be allowed to muster a proof of my own. I will be back, with my citation. (But it may not be until later tonight as we're going out now, I have another duel to fight...)
My husband will indeed get a kiss from the Head Girl.DRT wrote:The winner gets a kiss from the Head Girl.
Please reveal ¶ number.djewesbury wrote:The Chicago Style Guide says that capital letters used as words form a plural by adding an s (sorry, no link, paywall).
jdaw1 wrote:The Chicago Manual of Style doesn’t seem to give guidance, and other guidance it gives about apostrophes is little better than painful rubbish (¶6.77 in the 14th Ed., being about the plurals of italicised words).
How would you write the plural of the first letter of the alphabet?djewesbury wrote:I do not think one would write GCSE's. Therefore, it is Ps. And, for that matter, Qs.
Easy! Easy! Easy! Easy! Get him JDAW. Steel his shoes!jdaw1 wrote:How would you write the plural of the first letter of the alphabet?
¶7.14. "Capital letters used as words, numerals used as nouns, and abbreviations usually form the plural by adding s."jdaw1 wrote:Please reveal ¶ number.
But then, I'm using the 16th edition.. not one published 20 years ago.. If you can wait until Monday I can get the full reference using my University staff login details, or I can photocopy a paper edition from the University library..jdaw1 wrote:The Chicago Manual of Style doesn’t seem to give guidance, and other guidance it gives about apostrophes is little better than painful rubbish (¶6.77 in the 14th Ed., being about the plurals of italicised words).
I would write As. As in the sentence, "I got three As and one D for my A-levels, but it's OK, the D was for Geography".jdaw1 wrote:How would you write the plural of the first letter of the alphabet?
My dad's bigger than yours!djewesbury wrote:And DRT: that's 'steal'. Please, make way.
"More than one A."jdaw1 wrote:How would you write the plural of the first letter of the alphabet?djewesbury wrote:I do not think one would write GCSE's. Therefore, it is Ps. And, for that matter, Qs.
Who are you cheering on here? Stop sitting on the fence.Glenn E. wrote:"More than one A."jdaw1 wrote:How would you write the plural of the first letter of the alphabet?djewesbury wrote:I do not think one would write GCSE's. Therefore, it is Ps. And, for that matter, Qs.
I get the feeling that this situation is similar to prepositions, with which one should not end a sentence. The correct usage is at times awkward, so technically incorrect usage is occasionally accepted.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
I'm telling my mum on you.djewesbury wrote:My dad's going to melt your dad's rubber bands.
Clearly we disagree about this hypothetical.jdaw1 wrote:In a conversation about upper-case vowels, would it be better to mention ‟As, Es, Is, Os and Us”, or ‟A’s, E’s, I’s, O’s and U’s”? Clearly the latter.
No upper-case lower-case distinction; and the example given has apostrophes.Chicago Manual of Style, 14th Ed., ¶6.82 wrote:Individual letters and combinations of letters of the Latin (English) alphabet are italicized:
In some proverbial expressions the distinction is ignored, and in that case the plural is formed by adding an apostrophe and s (see also 6.16):
- the letter q                [!]
- Mind your p’s and q’s.
My dislike of US punctuation continues unabated. These mixed-font words are very 1980s TheGuardian. Further, an oblique H would collide with the following ‘s’: horrible typography, in addition to the other errors in US quotations.Chicago Manual of Style, 14th Ed., ¶6.16 wrote:So far as it can be done without confusion, single or multiple letters, hyphenated coinages, and numbers used as nouns (whether spelled out or in numerals) form the plural by adding s alone (see also 6.82):
- xs and ys                all SOSs
jdaw1 wrote:Soft friendly prizes-for-everyone nonsense. There can be right and wrong denying it is the route to autotheistic self-delusion. Some children do fail some exams if everybody graduates, graduation is worth nothing. No. No. No.djewesbury wrote:That seems a suitably face-saving formulation. Neither of us need be 'right' or 'wrong'.
And if I am wrong, then I am wrong. I must swallow it, whether pleasant medicine or nay.
I am sensing grammatical relativism, of the kind that you earlier abhorred; or at the very least, very woolly rules. And not far behind, moral turpitude.jdaw1 wrote:But consider the different nature of our claims. You are saying that, in this context, use of the apostrophe is a crime. I am saying that an apostrophe is permitted, but not compulsory, unless needed for dis-ambiguity (‟As are most frequent GCSE grade”, versus ‟A’s are most frequent GCSE grade”).
So you are conceding that I haven't been beaten?DRT wrote:This fight is getting boring. It's a sunny day so I think I'll get my magnifying glass and go find some worms to cut in half.
You have said that I am guilty of an apostrophe crime. Either I am guilty, or I am not. The evidence acquits. But the earlier suggestion of both being right guilty and innocent was unacceptable. If you still believe that ‟P’s and Q’s” is an AC, say so clearly.djewesbury wrote:I am sensing grammatical relativism, of the kind that you earlier abhorred; or at the very least, very woolly rules. And not far behind, moral turpitude.
No. I am still convinced by JDAW's argument more than I am by yours. From what I can see there is sufficient authoritative support for the use of the apostrophe in this context to defeat your claim that it is a crime.djewesbury wrote:So you are conceding that I haven't been beaten?
I still believe that it is wrong, and I believe I have demonstrated that other authorities believe so too. You have dismissed these authorities, but not by dealing directly with them. You have quoted the 14th ed. of the CMS, rather than referring to the quotation that I gave you from the latest edition. I have substantiated my accusation of apostrophe criminality. I have yet to see my argument refuted.jdaw1 wrote:You have said that I am guilty of an apostrophe crime. Either I am guilty, or I am not. The evidence acquits. But the earlier suggestion of both being right guilty and innocent was unacceptable. If you still believe that ‟P’s and Q’s” is an AC, say so clearly.
No. I believe that the only two acceptable ways of doing this are as follows: "Ps and Qs"; or, if one insists on lower case letters, "p's and q's". I believe that the difference in case in the first instance obviates the need for an apostrophe; but furthermore I believe that the use of an apostrophe in the second instance is an error, but one that must be committed to maintain sense. I do not comment on the hideousness of ‟ps and qs”. If there are people who write like this, I have not met them. I do not believe in a multiplicity of permitted ways about this; although I offered you the UN-sponsored approach, I still believe that there is one usage that is right, and substantiated, and which moreover is just more aesthetically pleasing: surplus bits of punctuation which in one instance are wrong because they are neither contracting nor possessing, do not become right in another instance simply because of the vagaries of authorial clarity / typesetting.jdaw1 wrote:My suspicion, unprovable, is that you now recognise as acceptable all of ‟P’s and Q’s”, ‟Ps and Qs” and ‟ps and qs”. (Which isn’t ‟grammatical relativism”: it is merely a multiplicity of permitted ways to write the same thing.)
Indeed.jdaw1 wrote:Further, I suspect that your preferred style is not the one I chose.
I refer the Hon. Gent. to the answers I gave a moment ago.jdaw1 wrote:If these suspicions are correct, then please retract the original accusation, and perhaps comment on the merits of your preferred style.
Because the fourteenth is the only edition to which I have access.djewesbury wrote:You have quoted the 14th ed. of the CMS, rather than referring to the quotation that I gave you from the latest edition.
The only thing in the transcript which you might be interpreting as ‘substantiation’ is:djewesbury wrote:I still believe that there is one usage that is right, and substantiated
The only edition of the CMS (which might or might be the same as the ‟Chicago Style Guide”) to which I have access includes an example of correct writing with the apostrophes, with no distinction being made between upper- and lower-case letters. Please could you check carefully whether your edition has the same example.djewesbury wrote:The Chicago Style Guide says that capital letters used as words form a plural by adding an s (sorry, no link, paywall).
Too American? Most British newspapers today prefer to eliminate superfluous apostrophes. The Guardian Style Guide is silent on this specific matter but I bring you this headline to make my point. The Telegraph style guide mentions using apostrophes "in plural forms of lower case letters standing alone".
djewesbury wrote:All very quiet.. What are they up to...? It's like that scene in the Holy Grail where they're all off making the Wooden Rabbit...
Your sensitivity to quiet has been noticed.[url=http://www.theportforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=55955#p55955]Here[/url] djewesbury wrote:! in the quiet hours before a tasting? Was it like this at Scampton before 617 Squadron went out..?
By PM to RAYC PhilW JacobH, jdaw1 wrote:There is a dispute in the Apostrophe Crimes thread about the permissibility of ‟P’s and Q’s”. Please read from post 901 and then opine.
And here I am writing a lecture for film studies students about genre in cinema, and horror in particular... It's all too spooky...jdaw1 wrote:Your sensitivity to quiet has been noticed.
When using acronyms, I would expect not to use an apostrophe when constructing the plural, since they would normally be capitalised and therefore avoid confusion e.g. PDFs or SATs; However, for single letters, while "Ps and Qs" would not generally cause confusion, "As and Us" would likely be confusing in comparison to "A's and U's". I would have no problem with someone using "Ps and Qs" or similar where it was clear, but would otherwise choose "P's and Q's"; I would never use "ps and qs", and while I prefer the capitalised form, would accept "p's and q's". I admit to having no idea on the formal rules for this.jdaw1 wrote:By PM to RAYC PhilW JacobH, jdaw1 wrote:There is a dispute in the Apostrophe Crimes thread about the permissibility of ‟P’s and Q’s”. Please read from post 901 and then opine.
This appears to be the cause of the dispute. There is no correct answer.[url=http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/55970/plurals-of-acronyms-letters-numbers-use-an-apostrophe-or-not]Here[/url], someone who appears to know something about the subject wrote:It doesn't matter how many different authorities/style guides are cited - usage in this area has never been fixed
You're just testing us, aren't you. I was always told that men (and game) are hanged.DRT wrote:At some point in history the powers that be decided that small boys who stole handkerchiefs from gentlemen should be hung.
I am happy to allow clemency.DRT wrote:If we are to pass a law here that prohibits the use of apostrophes when pluralising single capital letters I vote that we should not hang JDAW.
{engage family-friendly filter and don't comment on men being hung}djewesbury wrote:You're just testing us, aren't you. I was always told that men (and game) are hanged.DRT wrote:At some point in history the powers that be decided that small boys who stole handkerchiefs from gentlemen should be hung.
Touché. :graphic of a man bowing:DRT wrote:{engage family-friendly filter and don't comment on men being hung}djewesbury wrote:You're just testing us, aren't you. I was always told that men (and game) are hanged.DRT wrote:At some point in history the powers that be decided that small boys who stole handkerchiefs from gentlemen should be hung.
I was always told that questions should end with a question mark.
Though there have been exceptions:DRT wrote:Law are not generally retrospectively applied.
(In summary, a too-clever lawyer managed to persuade a court to mis-read section 47 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (bail after arrest), so, within a week, the law was retrospectively changed to keep the villain inside.)The [url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/9/section/1/enacted]Police (Detention and Bail) Act 2011[/url], §3 wrote:The amendments made by subsections (1) and (2) are deemed always to have had effect.
For my taste I would have preferred the usage of italics or oblique. But, perhaps because I have a laissez-faire attitude, I do not think that any crime has been committed.djewesbury wrote:I am amazed at the laissez-faire attitude of you all.
What a thoroughly enjoyable and thoroughly educational pastime this has been. It has altogether restored my joie de vivre, which was perhaps a little diminished after returning from the Portuguese sunshine. I'm very glad nobody has been hanged.jdaw1 wrote:For my taste I would have preferred the usage of italics or oblique. But, perhaps because I have a laissez-faire attitude, I do not think that any crime has been committed.djewesbury wrote:I am amazed at the laissez-faire attitude of you all.