mcroft: (Default)
[personal profile] mcroft
Bob's Quick Guide to the Apostrophe, you idiots from Bob the Angry Flower is the only guide to the Apostrophe that anyone will ever need.

Date: 2006-06-26 03:23 pm (UTC)
avram: (Default)
From: [personal profile] avram
Bob should be put in charge of the Chicago Manual of Style.

Date: 2006-06-26 03:37 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] spearweasel.livejournal.com
This' is' one of my favorite's. I love Bob the Angry Flowers obs'ervation's.

'!

Date: 2006-06-26 05:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] veazeyae.livejournal.com
"I've just had an apostrophe."

"I think you mean 'epiphany', Snee."

Date: 2006-06-26 05:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] uniforall.livejournal.com
Incorrect. I quote from Practical English Usage by Michael Swan, Oxford University Press, 1995:

Words which do not usually have plurals sometimes have an apostrophe when a plural form is written.
It's a nice idea, but there are a lot of if's.

Apostrophes are used in the plurals of letters, and often of numbers and abbreviations.
He writes b's instead of d's.
It was in the early 1960's. (or ... 1960s.)
I know two MP's personally (or ... MPs.)
It is not correct to put apostrophes in normal plurals.
JEANS -- HALF PRICE (not JEAN'S)

Date: 2006-06-26 06:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mcroft.livejournal.com
Take it up with Bob. :)

Date: 2006-06-26 06:07 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kadath.livejournal.com
Are you sure the apostrophes in the pluralizations of letters aren't because they are contractions of the phonetic spellings of the letters?

Of course, that theory rather falls down for "aitch."

Date: 2006-06-26 07:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sirvalence.livejournal.com
I'd argue that this is still incorrect, even if it is a common usage. Those usages don't require apostrophes for clarity.

Date: 2006-06-26 08:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] uniforall.livejournal.com
Clarity requirements have nothing to do with correctness. It's just rules, like etiquette, only partially based on logic of some sort and largely based on tradition.

I don't post on blogs much but I've heard that it was traditional to call people nazis so I'll try to abide by proper etiquette here: you're an apostrofascist.

Date: 2006-06-26 08:34 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sirvalence.livejournal.com
Are we sure it's not "Your an apostrofascist"? :)

For some reason the apostrophe thing does really irritate me. I've been known to say, "Contrary to popular belief, the apostrophe does not mean 'Look out, here comes the letter S!'" So I accept your epithet. But I'm not a grammar Nazi in general: for my part, I personally don't always follow the (American) rule that end punctuation marks always go inside quotation marks. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense.

Clarity is the most important thing, but unfortunately clarity is often most easily achieved through consensus.

Date: 2006-06-26 08:40 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jpmodisette.livejournal.com
A quick googling suggests that "apostrofascist" is an original term, (unless, as google suggests, Alla really meant to say that you were an astrophysicist.)

Date: 2006-06-26 08:48 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] la-directora.livejournal.com
It's just rules, like etiquette, only partially based on logic of some sort and largely based on tradition.

*Ahem* As a big fan of the etiquette, I feel a need to speak up here. :) REAL etiquette is based on a very simple and clean logic - behave in a way that makes people around you feel more comfortable. Which means that anything labelled as "etiquette" that is about making people feel incorrect and small and gauche is not, in fact, REAL etiquette, but just snobbiness run amok and mislabelled. And that's the stuff that is only partially based on logic and largely based on tradition.

Herein endeth the lesson. :)

Date: 2006-06-26 11:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jpmodisette.livejournal.com
I think that's not a very good definition, because it's too general. Etiquette is specifically about making people feel more comfortable by not violating social norms at them. That's exactly what uniforall was doing - she was obeying the net social norm of calling people nazis, so that everybody would feel comfortable and at home.

The wikipedia article suggests that even in one society people have many conflicting ideas of what etiquette is, apparently including how to spell it. ("ettiquete"? nice editing! Is that what ettins do? I bet they have the most complicated table manners ever!)

Date: 2006-06-27 03:02 am (UTC)
avram: (Default)
From: [personal profile] avram
Well, really, no usages require apostrophes for clarity. If they did, spoken English would have a way of distinguishing between apostrophized and non-apostrophized words. But it doesn’t — “cats” and “cat’s” are pronounced identically, as are “can’t” and “cant”.

The only exception I can think of is the possessive form of words ending in s — “Gus’s” is pronounced differently from “guss”. But it’s pronounced just about the same as “gusses”. So we could just drop the apostrophe entirely, spell possessives the same way we do plurals (add “s” for most words, “es” if the word otherwise ends in “s”), and rely on context to tell the difference, just like we do in speech, with no loss of clarity.

All we’d lose is the opportunity to feel superior about our knowledge of an irrelevant rule of punctuation.

Date: 2006-06-27 01:08 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sirvalence.livejournal.com
Clarity is never required, I suppose, but more clarity is generally helpful. When used correctly, apostrophes help differentiate between things that are less differentiable (?) without them. When used incorrectly, they can make things more confusing. (An analogy with comments in programming immediately springs to mind.) Wouldn't it be better to have them used correctly than to do away with them entirely?

Date: 2006-06-28 01:05 am (UTC)
avram: (Default)
From: [personal profile] avram
Clarity should be handled at the composition level — vocabulary and sentence structure. If you have to rely upon an apostrophe to make your sentence clear, you’ve built the sentence badly. (And what will you do if you have to read it out loud?)

In real life I’ve never once seen somebody honestly misread a sentence because an apostrophe was missing, or present when it shouldn’t have been. The actual reaction people always have, if they notice it at all, is more like Hah hah, an apostrophe error, whoever wrote that is stoopid! (or, alternatively, Arg, a stoopid apostrophe error, I hate that!). The actual intended meaning is always clear.

Date: 2006-06-28 01:28 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mcroft.livejournal.com
It's often the bellwether that the rest of the writing will have grammatical problems. As un unreconstructed apostrofascist, I find I have a more adversarial relationship with texts that fall down on this rule. I read them defensively, expecting at any time to have to stop my train of thought, repair the damaged trestle to the state the careless construction crew thought they left it in (based on my best guess), and attempt to get up a good head of steam for the rest of the trip. Like a ridiculously extended metaphor, sometimes it's not worth the bother.

On the other hand, I read Eats, shoots, and leaves about a week after I'd removed a rogue apostrophe from a bar's chalkboard advertisement about a block from my place in Jersey City, so I might be somewhat biased on the subject of The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation...

Date: 2006-06-28 02:18 am (UTC)
avram: (Default)
From: [personal profile] avram
Well, sure, most people who can write well have internalized some sort of consistent version of the apostrophe rules (there’s a lack of consensus about certain matters, like plurals of words that aren’t usually pluralized, or plurals of acronyms, or the possessive forms of famous names of antiquity). And most people who haven’t internalized these rules are bad writers on the compositional level. But not all. There are quite a few authors who routinely fall down on matters of spelling or punctuation; that’s why publishers hire copy editors.

What I’m saying is if we all just agreed to stop with the damn apostrophes already, and gave ourselves a few decades to get used to it, we’d all be better off. For those few decades I’d be twitching just as much as you would.

Date: 2006-06-26 07:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] sirvalence.livejournal.com
Yeah, but he didn't explain "its" versus "it's". As far as apostrophe usage goes, contractions trump possessives: if something belongs to "it", it's "its".

Date: 2006-06-28 03:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] notshakespeare.livejournal.com
I blame a bad 3rd grade teacher that tried to teach me a rule without stating why.

"Its" does not have a apostrophe for the same reason "his" does not. It's a special possessive form of a word, not a contraction.

Date: 2006-06-26 08:13 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nicoleallee.livejournal.com
Who does one on comma rules??

Date: 2006-06-28 02:54 am (UTC)
avram: (Default)
From: [personal profile] avram
That’s a collaboration by Ayn Rand and God.

Date: 2006-06-28 03:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mcroft.livejournal.com
I quake at the thought of an Objectivist webcomic styled after Bob the Angry Flower and drawn by God.

Date: 2006-06-28 04:39 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] nicoleallee.livejournal.com
Aren't they parents?

October 2013

S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 21st, 2026 01:58 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios