Public Service Announcement: The Correct Use of the Apostrophe

[StellaBlue]

Okay... I realize this is an online forum, people type quickly, there are typos and intentional spelling mistakes and our grammar in general leaves a lot to be desired (even from those of us who use correct English in text messages!), but, just as a public service announcement, I would like to remind people of the correct use of the apostrophe.

This is a SIMPLE thing, yet I have noticed increasing misuse here on DU. Please know that, of all spelling/punctuation/grammatical mistakes, the abuse of the apostrophe drives us anal, Lynne-Truss-type people the most crazy! I do not understand why so many people, most of whom have indeed graduated from high school (and many of whom have a degree or multiple ones), continually misuse the apostrophe. What are they thinking when they write "I have thousands of book's"?!?! This is especially infuriating when they have used another plural word in the same sentence (here, thousands), but then seemingly arbitrarily decide to add an apostrophe to another plural word.

I am not trying to attract attacks or insults or accusations of elitism. I know that I commit heinous grammatical crimes in the course of regularly posting to this forum; that is to be expected. I just get the impression that many otherwise intelligent, well-educated, well-spoken people are confused on this point.

***

(snip - taken from http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk , the website of the Apostrophe Protection Society, UK.)
The rules concerning the use of Apostrophes in written English are very simple:
1. They are used to denote a missing letter or letters, for example:
I can't instead of I cannot
I don't instead of I do not
it's instead of it is

2. They are used to denote possession, for example:
the dog's bone
the company's logo
Jones's bakery (but Joneses' bakery if owned by more than one Jones)

... but please note that the possessive form of it does not take an apostrophe any more than ours, yours or hers do

the bone is in its mouth

... however, if there are two or more dogs, companies or Joneses in our example, the apostrophe comes after the 's':
the dogs' bones
the companies' logos
Joneses' bakeries

3. Apostrophes are NEVER ever used to denote plurals! Common examples of such abuse (all seen in real life!) are:
'Banana's for sale' - which, of course, should read 'Bananas for sale'
'Menu's printed to order' - which should read 'Menus printed to order'
'MOT's at this garage' - which should read 'MOTs at this garage'
'1000's of bargains here!' - which should read '1000s of bargains here!'
'New CD's just in!' - which should read 'New CDs just in!'
'Buy your Xmas tree's here!' - which should read 'Buy your Xmas trees here!'

Note: Special care must be taken over the use of your and you're as they sound the same but are used quite differently:
'your' is possessive as in 'this is your pen'
'you're' is short for 'you are' as in 'you're coming over to my house'

We are aware of the way the English language is evolving during use, and do not intend any direct criticism of those who have made the mistakes above. We are just reminding all writers of English text, whether on notices or in documents of any type, of the correct usage of the apostrophe should you wish to put right mistakes you may have inadvertently made.
(/snip)

***












For more hilarious examples, please see
http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/

***AGAIN, I am not trying to attract flames; I am just confused about why people who write otherwise logical, well-though-out, insightful posts continually misuse the apostrophe. I am also not saying that my grammar and punctuation and spelling are perfect; typing these messages is more the equivalent of writing a note than it is of writing a business letter! I am aware of this!

And before you attack me, think about whether you have judged the freepers by their grammatical/punctuation/spelling errors - we all have! Since we are not freepers, we should not WRITE like freepers!

Dont be moran's.

[unblock]

1. thank's!!!!!!!!111

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

8. The mods'es shouldnt' pick on us'

lol

[Hugin]

20. 'scuse... Ain't that "us'n"?

Point of order! Point of order!

:)

[EFerrari]

26. usess?

lol

[Hugin]

30. Us'll?

As in: "Us'll go to them thar' store's".

[Igel]

54. How 'bout: "Anything that helps us'll be appreciated."

Only in the representation of informal speech, of course.

[Hugin]

69. Perfect!

:thumbsup:

[Inspired]

2. Slow news day or what?

Or should I say slow new's day? Crikey.

[linazelle]

48. Wayyyy too much time on "somebody's" hands. nt

[IndyOp]

3. I've seen apostrophes used with acronyms so many times I thought it had

become common usage - there are missing letters...

"NASA's new PR campaign"
"OSP's location was in the Pentagon"

:shrug:

[Zen Democrat]

33. Those examples are correct. The apostrophe denotes a possessive.

[IndyOp]

100. The apostrophe denotes a possessive --

Doh! I hadn't thought of that way before -- :dunce:

Perhaps I'll try thinking before typing next time. Probably not on a Sunday morning, however.

:toast:

[many a good man]

41. Your examples are possessives so they are OK

NASA owns the PR campaign. The location belongs to OSP.

If there were more than one Office of Special Plans, you'd refer to them as the two OSPs, not the two OSP's.

[Anser]

146. Hmm what about -

If someone is talking about symbols.

Ex1. That URL has three ~'s
Ex2. What is the name of the symbol |; I've seen atleast ten |'s today.

For some reason ~s or |s just looks silly to me. I also like their use in plurals of some acronyms (the more symbolic ones.)
So lasers > laser's, but CD's > CDs.

The apostrophe is especially useful to show the plural of an acronym ending in "s", or generally just to avoid the possible confusion that perhaps that last "s" is actually supposed to represent a word.

So |~| A!


... It's late.

[Terran]

4. You've probably already read this, but just in case...

"Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1861976127/203-1384934-4162343

If you haven't, you simply must. You'll laugh, you'll cry!

[immoderate]

5. I like this post.

Thanks for doing this service.

While I don't want to be pedantic, and correct people, I encourage the use of proper English, knowing that it could draw charges of elitism, though that is not my intent.

What drives me crazy is the use of "alot" which is not a word. I see this done a lot. That's my contribution.

--IMM

[KoKo]

24. Agree...and as someone who types "alot and a lot " often interchanging

them...before I catch myself. :eyes:

[Igel]

56. There is no 'alot'; there are only 'a lot' and 'allot'. n/t

[jbnow]

104. What drives me crazy is not that

people use alot but that alot is not a word. It should be. I correctly write "a lot" but would prefer alot.

For example...if a pen pal asks if I own property I would write back that I have a lot.

My pen pal is impressed until they come to visit me. They might leave quickly, thinking I am a liar.
They'd ask why I said I had a lot of property.
Well, because I have a lot.
Did I have more in another location?
No, they saw my property.
Well that was not a lot.
Of course it is a lot. Lot c-4729 in the township.
OH! A lot!
Yes, a lot.
I thought you meant a lot.

This might not come up a lot but to avoid the problem if alot was a word and I said I had a lot they would not think I was saying I had alot. And if indeed I had alot they could be duly impressed, not thinking I simply had a lot.

[Richard Steele]

6. Popcorn, anyone?

:popcorn:

[Buns_of_Fire]

34. Why, thank you. Don't mind if I do...

:popcorn: Would you like something to drink with that? :beer:

(For the record, though, the only thing that I really notice without fail is the usage of "loose" for "lose" and vice-versa. But then, what's a good discussion without someone bringing along their own can of gas to throw on the fire? :evilgrin: )

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. Hey, Don't Forget It's!

It's for It is, but just Its for possessive :)

on edit, I see you have It's, but didn't specify that the possessive rule of apostrophes doesn't apply hehe

[EFerrari]

10. Why not just use theses?

(This is the one I always have to check for.)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. LOL You made me laugh with that!

[pitohui]

9. this is a lounge post

but agreed my pet peeve is mis-use of "it's" and "its"

[markbark]

12. Eats, Shoots and Leaves, huh?

<n/t>

[LincolnMcGrath]

14. Did you read that panda joke?

OMG that was funny.

[RebelOne]

150. I recommend that book to everyone.

And the title is actually "Eats, Shoots, and Leaves."

[Individualist]

13. You made a good point, StellaBlue

We frequently ridicule freepers because of their illiteracy, so we shouldn't write like them. I'll add that I also am not perfect with grammar, punctuation and spelling. However, as another anal, Lynne-Truss-type personality, I'd like to add that speech is not spelled speach. That one always pushes my crazy button. :)

[KoKo]

38. And....no one wants to criticize folks who are new to the internet and

have something to say but don't always get it out perfectly, either. I've read papers written by Ph.D Physicists and Engineers who can't spell and wouldn't know an apostrophe from a period. They know the subject matter but writing it in a proper form is beyond them.

It's just that it bothers some more than others. I make many mistakes and I should know better. Sometimes typing speach instead of speech is one that's we all make when a word that sounds alike but is spelled differently transfers from our brain to our fingers. :D

[StellaBlue]

44. Re: PhD physicists and engineers

IMHO, they should be able to write a grammatically correct paper in order to be awarded a PhD.

That would be like me, as a verbal-brained person, not being able to bake a cake because I can't do the math. Seriously.

I am still shocked that people can graduate from high school and be functioning illiterates.

[KoKo]

64. An example: you use PhD whereas Ph.D was the proper form

years ago. I've seen it both ways and assuming how much the arrival of the internet has changed the way we write that one leaves out the period. :D I used to type papers for the Scientists and Engineers where "Ph.D" was proper. I prefer "PhD,"now, because it fits into the way writing has evolved. :shrug:

Your post has spooked me so much that I've had to edit three times.

:scared:

[StellaBlue]

68. I look things up

PhD

• abbreviation Doctor of Philosophy.

— ORIGIN from Latin philosophiae doctor.


http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/phd (US view)

[KoKo]

75. It may be in the Oxford Dictionary ...at this time as proper abbreviation

but it wasn't the abbreviation accepted years ago.

(I typed papers for Grad Students at Yale University Department of Engineering and Applied Science. Ph.D was the proper abbreviation at that time. :shrug: What else can I say? That was in the late 70's.

[StellaBlue]

77. I have a feeling

That the abuse of the apostrophe will be 'accepted usage' in a few decades, too. :/

I was only alive for six months of the seventies, so I can't really be blamed for not realizing the usage had changed since then. :) haha

And, really, I did look that up before writing it. It never made sense to me, anyway. If you're going to put a period after 'Ph', why not after 'D', as well? hrmm....

Anyway, this is a minor issue, as it doesn't affect the meaning of the term. And since most people realize that the usage has changed or is a bit up in the air, they would not likely cringe at seeing it one way or the other. Like the Oxford comma (which I still use, btw!). haha

:D

[Tomee450]

98. You

wrote "graduate FROM high school rather than graduate high school. I always include FROM, also. My old english teacher preached against saying someone graduated college or graduated high school. She insisted that FROM should always be used. I also wonder why people now use YOUR for you're. We also hear people saying "that's an WHOLE OTHER issue, story etc. or WHOLE NOTHER issue." What happened to the word, another?

[KoKo]

108. I've had that SAME Usage Problem with "Graduate" or "Graduated from"

It dogs me whenever I post. I always wonder if I'm "Old and Outta the Way" that I still use "Graduated From."

It makes me feel "non-cool." :shrug:

[TahitiNut]

114. I usually say "Degraded By"

:evilgrin:
Every time I see the word 'graduated' I envision someone enscribing lines on a Pyrex container.


Ecce graduate!

[KoKo]

122. OMG! Too Much!

:rofl: good one! :evilgrin:

[Tomee450]

115. I know things change

but I will probably always use the FROM, it was so drummed into my head as a student.

[KoKo]

124. Thank Goodness...someone else to "VERIFY" that SOME were TAUGHT

to use "Graduated FROM "Bush Victory in Iraq High School!" That the usage of FROM meant that you "departed from somewhere!"

When in the 80's I started to hear: "Graduated, 1989" from Blank......Blank...BlanK...place...I started to sweat bullets that folks would think that my usage of Graduated from "Blank" would be considered a "MARK OF ILLITERACY" since I attended Southern Colleges and after all...most folks think we are illiterate anyway. :-(

[TahitiNut]

130. Why don't people matriculate these days?

:dunce:

After all, if they can't pronounce it, should they? :silly:

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. One of my favorite pet peeves!

And such a simple rule.

One thing I have noticed is that the scroll on the bottom of the news stations contains more and more mistakes. Incorrect us of the apostrophe is probably the most frequent one I see.

And with winter coming on, can we come up with a correct spelling of 'canceled'? Does weather force schools to be canceled or cancelled? That one really bugs me. :)

[immoderate]

40. The rule:

If the first syllable is stressed, then the final consonant is not doubled when adding a suffix.

Canceled is correct.

--IMM

[Obamanaut]

81. Two of my favorites are "should of" for "should have" and "close

proximity." Is there a corresponding "far proximity?"

[proud2BlibKansan]

88. My very favorite oops ever was on a Shoney's restaurant sign

Come in and injoy are stake
chocklat cack for desert

Not much later, that Shoney's went out of business. Or should I say biznez LOL :rofl:

[Hugin]

16. THIS ARE BEING HUGH!!!111!!!

APB!!111 APB111!!!

EAGLES UP!!11

[Ex Lion Tamer]

17. YES!

Somebody who is as anal as me about punctuation!

[KoKo]

18. My spelling, punctuation and grammar have gone to hell since I've been

posting on the internet. I see so many mistakes I question what's proper use anymore. And, I was an English major!

Thanks for the post and reminder...:-)'s

[MGKrebs]

19. It's much worse than u think.

"2b? Nt2b?

Romeo, Romeo -- wher4 Rt thou Romeo?

"devl kikd outa hevn coz jelus of jesus&strts war."

Dot mobile, a British mobile phone service aimed at students, says it plans to condense classic works of literature into SMS text messages. The company claims the service will be a valuable resource for studying for exams.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/17/literature.text.ap/index.html

[Sinistrous]

21. Let's not forget these frequently brutalized words:

1. Their: shows possession, as in "Cowboys love their horses."

2. There: denotes that place, as in "Put it over there."

3. They're: contraction for "They are", as in "They're going bananas."

Sinistrous

[tjwash]

23. You forgot loosers / losers.

nt

[tjwash]

22. we hav bEEn pwned by teh gRammER nazis LOL !!!!!111!!11!

http://www.journalfen.net/userpic/51377/5630

[A Simple Game]

45. Thats Nazis'!!

Gee, didnt you read the Original post?

[giant_robot]

112. LOL! I love the grammar nazi flag!

Consider that graphic stolen! As an unapologetic grammar nazi, I will fly it proudly, sir.

[dalaigh lllama]

25. Your right!

Sorry, couldn't resist.:P You're right, of course. That's the one misuse that always leaps out to me.

[Pharlo]

27. Dont blaim mee,

Mah 'Hookt on fonix' tape didnt covir punkchewashun...

[Canuckistanian]

28. Good! I agree, we need to pay attention to this

The apostrophe is to be used sparingly and correctly. Otherwise, genuine confusion can result.

And incorrect use looks stupid, too.

[soup]

29. What's a MOT?

'MOT's at this garage' - which should read 'MOTs at this garage'

[StellaBlue]

39. these examples are from a British website

MOT

• noun (in the UK) a compulsory annual test of motor vehicles of more than a specified age.

— ORIGIN abbreviation of Ministry of Transport.


http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/mot?view=uk

[soup]

46. Ah, thank you.

Do they still have the yearly testing? Florida used to have mandatory emission tests in some counties, but J.E. Bush eliminated them.

[StellaBlue]

58. I had my Vauxhall tested earlier in the year

:)

[Evergreen Emerald]

31. This has been posted brazilian's of times

sorry.

[pretzel4gore]

32. rules for apostrophes and quotation marks

it's good to know what they are....one finger typers often take short cuts by using ' instead of " because, well it's easier, and that can lead to confusion when there's contractions and possessives and plural possessives etc!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

55. I use " for direct quotes...

and ' when I want to stress a word or phrase (because I'm too lazy to 'bold it' in html) :P

[StellaBlue]

62. ooooh

..another way to get on grammar Nazis' nerves is to use ANY kind of quote marks for emphasis...

My stepmother produced some pens to celebrate the 10th anniversary of her business, and I remember being shocked that they read:

Mary's Shop
"TEN YEARS"
1994-2004

That makes it look like it hasn't really been ten years, but we're all 'pretending' (wink, wink) that it has been. You know?

:scared:

[StellaBlue]

61. Sorry

As I just returned to the USA after living in the UK for four years, my fingers are still used to using ' for quotations, as they do. They use ' and then " for internal ones, such as:


'When I asked Mary about the car, she said, "It was red."'


...so opposite of our convention.

[peacetalksforall]

35. It's all about guilt. Spending too much time reading and composing and

trying to respond with lightening speed, but with a pause to check whether I said what I wanted to say and all because I should be doing something else. Somethings gotta give. I'm afraid it's grammar, punctuation, and spelling. Embarrassing as it is to reread after the too late mark. Then, sometimes hoping just a few read it anyway. Age contributes.

But, it's better to keep on writing with mistakes then not writing because we are in desperate times.

[niallmac]

36. Thanks for the post. It's a goodun.

By the time humanity has devolved beyond the reach of anyones blog I will be grammatically confident enough to tell the world
"We're screwed."
;(

[housewolf]

37. Serious question...

Why do some people take such offense at having improper grammer pointed out? I've never understood the reaction some people have to being given a little lesson in how to speak or write correctly? I mean, compare the reaction to a reaction when someone has a tag sticking up out of their shirt? It's perfectly acceptable to tell someone about it, or even more intimately, to stick it back in for them, and generally the recipient of such information is grateful. Why the super-sensitivity to mis-use of grammer?

[Hugin]

42. Isn't it spelled "grammar"?

:shrug:

[housewolf]

74. You are correct - grammar

oops!

:blush:

[StellaBlue]

43. grammar

:D

[Occulus]

60. Oh dear....

NOW we have to cover the question mark....

:P

edited to add: My grammer was very improper. Nice lady, but improper as hell.

:evilgrin:

[pretzel4gore]

71. oh dear! omg's!

goodness!
:evilgrin:

[Igel]

63. Because many grammatical 'mistakes' are either

simply prescriptive norms with little basis in how people have spoken for a long time, or because of dialectal variation. If you like your language variety, there's little point in having somebody tell you that something that is descriptively grammatical is prescriptively banned.

Orthography and punctuation ... that's a different matter. Then there's the overlay of "it's just a sign of ignorance", and nobody likes being called ignorant.

(And sometimes there are competing norms: When I was growing up, I'd have insisted on putting commas in double quotation marks; an advisor in grad school followed a different style; now I mix them--actual quotations have commas inside, but scare quotes or words quoted for exemplification have them outside ... go figure.)

[Occulus]

66. That's one rule I have never been clear about

and I've seen it done either way, so I suppose either way is acceptable.

And then he said, "it was a dark and stormy night," and she flipped out.

And then he said, "it was a dark and stormy night", and she flipped out.

Which is correct- or are both?

[kath]

118. this is the punctuation issue that I have the most trouble with, too.

And it may be another one where the rule differs in the UK and US.

[hvn_nbr_2]

143. I always learned that other punctuation marks go before the quotes.

So the correct form is
And then he said, "it was a dark and stormy night," and she flipped out.
not
And then he said ",it was a dark and stormy night", and she flipped out.

(The first comma after the first quote is for humorous effect. I've never seen anyone make that mistake.)

However, as a mathematician/logician/etc. sometimes the grammatically correct form offends my sense of logic. For example:
Did you really say, "I am not coming home tonight?"
Gammatically correct, but logically it looks as if the quoted statement was a question because the question mark is within the quotation marks. That usage offends me but I will still do it that way.

However, as a programmer/technical writer, there are times when I refuse to do it the grammatically correct way because it is flat-out wrong and will cause failure. For example, when giving instructions, I might say,
To get a long listing of all the files in the directory, type "cat -l".
Although it's grammatically wrong to put the period outside the quote marks, it's deceiving and gives erroneous instructions to put the period inside. If someone types "cat -l." they'll get an error instead of the results they want.

I must be getting into geek mode to get ready for the next week.

[IndyOp]

99. A tag could happen to anyone, bad grammer implies stupidity --

If you fix someone's tag, you and they are equals - it could've been your tag sticking out.

If you comment on someone's grammer they feel like you are calling them stupid -- you know grammer and are correcting them -- it isn't a relationship of equals. Also, many people have horrendous personal experiences with teachers and parents embarrassing them by correcting in front of other kids.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

102. Because we are here to discuss politics.........

not to recieve a grammar lesson. Correcting another person's grammar does not only imply an intellectual hierarchy, it is totally counter-productive to the task at hand here at DU.

[Lorien]

113. I don't know. Personally, I like having someone make a gentle correction

I'm dyslexic and it helps to remind me to re-read and spell check what I write.

Personally, I think internet chat rooms and discussion boards are contributing a great deal to Americans misuse of the English language (* certainly has made butchering the language more acceptable). It IS a problem because so often poor grammar, misspellings and other errors lead to miscommunication. Often I suspect that some are asking general questions, yet they leave off the question mark. Or we'll read "How come you all take good grammar so serious?" instead of "seriously". Then there's my recent favorite; the surname "Noone" (pronounced "noon") being used for "no one" because "it saves space". Really? Are we now THAT lazy? For the longest time I thought that Mr. or Ms. Noone was a controversial political figure whose actions I had somehow missed out on!

[OKNancy]

47. While we are talking grammar...PLEASE

I wish everyone would learn when to use "that" and "who" or "whom"

Here is an example. Paul Hackett is the one that should run.
It should be: Paul Hackett is the one who should run.

The person that took my son is you, Mr. Bush.
Should read: The person who took my son is you, Mr. Bush.

Who = for a person
That = for things

[Igel]

70. There's a lot of variation in actual usage,

the same with restrictive versus non-restrictive 'that/which~who'. Some varieties privilege animacy over clause type, others only allow animacy to be expressed in non-restrictive clauses. It would be interesting to check back in 200 years to see which wins.

I keep the relative/restrictive clauses strictly separate, and use 'who/which' only in non-restrictive clauses.

Then again, I have my own pet peeves. Use of indicative for subjunctive (esp. in present tense); use of mass noun quantifiers ('less') for count noun quantifiers ('fewer'); and various things involving negation, where I can't even produce examples, I find them so ungrammatical.

English has been really neat in that, apart from some prescriptivist weirdness, it's been accepting of a relatively diverse dialect base.

[muriel_volestrangler]

73. But there are exceptions to that

From Fowler's The King's English:

We come now to the exceptions. The reader will have noticed that of all the instances given in (2) there is only one—the last—in which we recommend the substitution of 'that' for 'who'; in all the others, it is a question between 'that' and 'which'. 'That', used of persons, has in fact come to look archaic: the only cases in which it is now to be preferred to 'who' are those mentioned above as particularly requiring 'that' instead of 'which'; those, namely, in which the antecedent is 'it', or has attached to it a superlative or other word of exclusive meaning. We should not, therefore, in the Spectator instance above, substitute 'the person that desires' for 'who desires'; but we should say

The most impartial critic that could be found.
The only man that I know of.
Any one that knows anything knows this.
It was you that said so.
Who is it that talks about moral geography?



Outside these special types, 'that' used of persons is apt to sound archaic.

http://www.bartleby.com/116/205.html

[slaveplanet]

49. what bothers me is the lack of

"like" and "you know" and "uh" in posts. You hear those so much in everyday conversation, that it makes one wonder if there is some type of net word bandit on the loose.

[Karmageddon]

50. for more examples of grammar/english usage, go to "engrish.com"

http://engrish.com/

Check out the links on the left.

[Gormy Cuss]

51. Could have, would have, should have

as contractions become
"could've, would've, should've" not
"could of, would of, should of."

A public service announcement.


On edit: most of us make some grammar or spelling mistakes on occasion.
Me, I can't compose at the keyboard and make many errors while typing that I'd never make writing text longhand.

[Arugula Latte]

139. Yes. That one really gets to me.

Get with the program and learn about contractions, people! *pushes school marm glasses up*

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. Let's translate your post into MORON dialect:

Public Sehbice Annoussmin: De Correck Use of de Apostrophe






Editid on Sun Nob-20-05 11:47 AM by StellaBlue



Okay... Gawlly!I realize dis is an online f'um, peoble type kick, dehe are typos 'n intenshunal spelligg mistakes 'n our grammar in genehal lees alot t' be desirid (eben from dose of us who use correck English in text messages! Huh huh!), but, uh, dgust as a public sehbice annoussmin, I wudd like t' remind peoble of the, errr, correck use of de apostrophe.

Dis is a SIMPLE digg, yet I habe noticid increasigg misuse hehe on DU. Please know dat, uh, of all spelligg/punctuashun/grammatical mistakes, duuhhhh, de abuse of de apostrophe dribes us anal, Lynne-Truss-type peoble de most crazy! Doihh, COOL! I do not undehstand errrr, why so many peoble, most of whom habe indeid graduatid from high school (and many of whom habe a degree or multible ones), continual misuse de apostrophe. What are dey dinkigg when dey write "I habe dousands of book's", duh...uh...?! Doihh, COOL!, duh...uh...?! Doihh, COOL! Dis is especial infuriatigg when dey habe usid anodeh plural word in the, ERRRR, same sentess (hehe, uh uh uh, dousands), but den seemigg arbitrary decide t' abb an apostrophe t' anodeh plural word.

I am not tryigg t' attrack attacks or insults or accusashuns of elitism. I know dat I commit heinous grammatical crimes in the, errr, course of regular postigg t' dis f'um; dat is t' be expecked. I dgust get de ipresshun dat many odehwise intelligent, uh, webuhll-educated, uh uh uh uh, webuhll-spoken peoble are confusid on dis poit.

http://rinkworks.com/dialect/

[IDemo]

53. You post has merit

"You", instead of "your", I see that a lot.

And while we're nitpicking language, how about dropping the incessant misuse and overuse of "issue"? As in: "Doctor, Jimmy seems to be having some flu issues".

</nit>

[BlackVelvet04]

57. Thanks. Another pet peeve for me is the

abundant use of abbreviations. I skip what might very well be good threads and posts because I haven't a clue what the abbreviations mean.

[Jose Diablo]

59. Thanks, now if I could just remember what a split-infinitive is n/t

[cry baby]

65. Thank you! We need a refresher course sometime's.

JUST KIDDING...

:evilgrin:

[TK421]

67. Thank you for posting this...from now on, I will know that my point will

not get across if I do not use the apostrophe correctly

[StellaBlue]

72. I DID put in my OP that I understand the nature of the Internet and

that I, too, make mistakes due to typing quickly. This format is really almost more like talking than writing.

BUT, as I said originally, it seems that many people who write otherwise deep, thoughtful, intelligent posts routinely misuse the apostrophe. And of all types of punctuation, the apostrophe seems, to me, one of the easiest to master. :shrug:

I am not really a grammar elitist; I think the English language, in all its forms, is amazing and powerful. But certain rules are in place to help us communicate effectively; the apostrophe is an example. Writing presidents or president's will give two very different meanings.

For people like myself who understand the correct use of the apostrophe, it gets very confusing having to read signs and (yes! even!) business letters and posts on the Internet two or three times to try to clarify the author's meaning. If everyone would just follow the (easy) rules regarding the apostrophe, this would not be a problem, and we could all write and read twice as many anti-* posts.

[TahitiNut]

76. It's not a matter of being "correct" - it's a matter of being conventional

Punctuation, like a dictionary, is far more observational than prescriptive. English is a living language and, as time goes on, it changes according to the manner in which it's used. The presumption of immutability is erroneous, no matter how long-lived the convention. Let's try to remember that contractions like "don't" and "won't" were long-regarded as vulgar (and deemed "incorrect" by the grammar Nazi's of the day) before gaining mainstream conventional acceptance.

That said, convention is worthy of some respect when interacting with others in writing. It's a form of social cooperation -- just as a certain cyber-subculture demonstrates cooperation in adhering to a convention of numerical substitution. Further, the attitudes prevalent in English-speakers prior to the 18th century that (unconventional) stylistic spelling and grammar were often symptomatic of erudition and creativity seems to survive to this day.

This is a familiar issue to those of us formally trained in mathematics. There is nothing more "correct" about E=mc² than R=pw² - since the assignation of specific symbols for their physical variables and constants is merely conventional, not prescriptive. Almost any math student can recall the agony of wading through papers or texts where the author employed unconventional notation.


On edit - Some folks might be surprised to see my comment about the contractions "don't" and "won't" and take refuge in the claim that the apostrophe represents elided letters. Well, what are the so-called elided letters in the contraction "won't"? (What does "wo not" mean?) Why isn't the accepted contraction "willn't"?? Where's the accepted contraction of "am not"? (Hint: It's "ain't.") See .. things aren't always as they seem, :shrug:

[StellaBlue]

79. "grammar Nazi's" haha

You did it! haha :)

And I realize that the English language is evolving... yada yada yada. I am formally trained in the English language, FYI. As I have said twice now, my issue with the misuse of the apostrophe is this: if we can just suspend all rules of grammar, calling them 'elitist' or appealing to the 'living language' argument, why have any conventions at all?

The misuse of the apostrophe often leads to confusion. It is a simple rule. I simply do not understand why so many people routinely misuse the apostrophe - it's mind-boggling.

Just like you are probably baffled by the fact that I don't understand calculus. However, I don't have to understand calculus to communicate with others. As I said previously, people misusing the apostrophe is, in my mind, akin to people not being able to bake a cake because they can't 'do the math'.

For the record, I have no problem with split infinitives or starting sentences with and or but. :)

[TahitiNut]

80. It was conscious. Consider this ...

"NAZI" is an acronym. As such, there are (many) missing letters. If we're to claim it's legitimate to employ an apostrophe to indicate missing letters, then why not use them to indicate the missing letters in the formation of plurals of acronyms?? Further, the base language for the acronym is German, in which plurals are formed according to an entirely different convention.

For example, we use "OP" to indicate "Original Post" and we see many folks who indicate the plural as "OP's" (instead of "OPs"). This is one of the more common ambivalences in using the apostrophe: in forming a plural for an acronym. What's interesting to me is that the context rarely (if ever) permits confusion regarding the meaning. Thus, convention is nearly pointless.

Again ... it's convention, not prescription.
(So much of the lamentations regarding grammar and punctuation sounds suspiciously like conventional table customs. Much of what I'm hearing is the agonized cry of "You used the wrong fork!!" To which I often think "Who could give a shit?")

Random thought: You must really detest e.e.cummings. :evilgrin:

[StellaBlue]

83. Well, I am not the only one

who is bothered and cringes when people write "OP's". At least you can justify your usage, unlike most people, who don't understand the argument or that they are unintentionally changing our conventions.

I see "OP's" or "Nazi's" and think: possessive.

"Its" and "it's" = the best example of when rules or conventions or whatever you want to call them are necessary for meaning. It would be easier if people would just use the apostrophe correctly.

[StellaBlue]

84. And

following your logic, you should've written

Na'zi's

?

[TahitiNut]

85. The German word being contracted is "Nationalsozialist"

Thus, "Nazi" is an odd combination of abbreviation and acronym ... a substitute for "Nationalsozialist." It's a rather amusing problem with application of English conventions to German nouns which are often formed by slamming other nouns together. I guess "Nazi" sounded more assertive than "Naso" - since the two German nouns are "National" and "Sozialist." (German nouns are always capitalized.)

I'm unaware (ignorant) of any accommodation for contractions in German. Formation of plurals and possessives follows an entirely different kind of rule set. I guess they don't have the problem with using apostrophes. :evilgrin:

[StellaBlue]

87. But you're writing in English

So, why not, by your own logic, write "Na'zi's"?

(I am aware that the word is "Nationalsozialist", btw. And that German nouns are always capitalized, whatever that has to do with it.)

My point was that your plural apostrophe was stupid. I have never seen anyone write "Nazi's" to signify plural Nationalsozialists intentionally. :evilgrin:

[TahitiNut]

103. The plural would be "Nationalsozialisten" I believe.

The addition of an 's' is an English convention. (Have you forgotten?) So, I suppose I should say "Nazien" huh? Or do you want to argue about whether the German or English conventions are most appropriately employed? (alumnus, alumni; alumna, alumnae) Gee. Go figure. So, what're the conventions for using apostrophes in German -- or in appending an English plural 's' to an acronym based on German?

Again ... it's conventional, not prescriptive.


Note: I'd appreciate avoidance of words like "stupid." I regard ascriptive use of such language as uncivil and impolite.

[KoKo]

110. ROFL! you are an "evil one."

:evilgrin:

[StellaBlue]

121. Oh, COME ON

When was the last time you read "Nazi's" in a newspaper or book - meaning plural "Nationalsozialisten"? hmm?

You're just trying to make the argument more and more tedious to hide the fact that your usage was INCORRECT - in ENGLISH. Which, frankly, is all I am concerned about (all about which I am concerned?).

You can write "Nazi's" if you want - but I will continue to think it looks stupid.

[TahitiNut]

128. Well, I'll attribute such obdurate absolutism to youthful zeal.

It's something a lot of us grow out of. (... out of which many of us grow.)
:evilgrin:

Again ... it's conventional, not prescriptive. :dunce:

[StellaBlue]

156. out of which many of us grow - hahahaha

Actually, most of the grammar Nazis I know are little old ladies. My mother is one, too - it must be genetic.

[WinkyDink]

94. I love StellaBlue.

Former English teacher here! I used to say the same bit about possessive pronouns! "Our's"? No. "Your's"? NO!!
And that a "rule" about not starting sentences with "And" or "But" was pretentious twaddle!
"Would of"? AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRGGGHHH!! "Of" is not a verb form!
"Alot"? Why not then "alittle"?!

[KoKo]

111. Absolutely she's a "Peach!"

What is a possessive pronoun? Since I've been on the internet...the terminology escapes me.

I have to "suffer through" tons of "ACRONYMS" when the poster doesn't even "define" what the "ACRONYM" refers to...and someone want's to TRASH those of us who use "Speach" instead of "Speech?"

:scarcasm:

[countingbluecars]

78. It's the message, not the mechanics,

that matters to me when reading DU.

[tjdee]

82. THANK YOU. That drives me up the wall!

Especially when it's easier to *not* type the extra stroke for an apostrophe that is incorrect!

That is one of my biggest pet peeves, this apostrophe for plurals thing. I just don't get it. Surely they didn't learn that in school. :scared:

I also hate the "lose" vs. "loose" thing.

[Thirtieschild]

86. And then there's

met up with ... you hear this on tv all the time; it's even made it into newspapers, books, messages. What's wrong with MET? Or meet, as the case may be.

[Lars39]

89. Regarding #3:

I'm probably showing my age here, but I was taught that there should be an apostrophe for acronyms(NOW's plan...) and numbers(1980's).
Maybe the rule has changed and those of us who are older and who do not write for a living haven't kept up with the changes. :shrug:

[StellaBlue]

95. but

NOW's plan is already correct, because it is possessive.

What if you wrote:

State NOWs formulated a plan.

That's where a decision needs to be made about whether to use an apostrophe or not. I say not - what's the point? To introduce one just confuses.

[ryan_cats]

90. You hit one of my pet peeves.

You hit one of my pet peeves. Your and you're misused drives me crazy and so does there, their and they're.


Bob and John think their car is over there but they're not sure.

[mb7588a]

91. I've had professors mark the apostrophe

when it is used to show posession of a name ending in an S.

For example:

It was Rawls's original position...
or
It was Plotinus's all-soul..

That is the correct useage is it not?

My mom was a high school English teacher - she always kicked our ass's (Hah, just messing with you.) about this kind of thing.

[Flubadubya]

154. No, I think it is not correct...

My understanding is that if a noun (or name in this instance) ends with the letter "s" and is a singular noun, the the apostrophe is NOT followed by another is. The last "s" is dropped.

As a matter of fact the OP used the example Jones's when it really should read Jones'. And Rawls's should be Rawls' and Potinus's should be Plotinus'.

I do medical transcription for a living and these grammar rules come up all the time. I have a psychologist I type for who is a real "anal retentive" himself, and everytime that comes up he will spell it out... he'll say, "that's j-o-n-e-s apostrophe".

[shanti]

92. you know what's worse?

when people use semicolon;s in place of apostrophe's cause they;re lazy typists :)

[Ladyhawk]

93. Good luck. :)

I used to be an avid grammar and spelling nazi. No, it didn't help. :)

[kskiska]

96. Next up – "him and me," "him and myself," "my wife and me," etc.

I've seen some really creative pronoun combinations.

[Tomee450]

129. Another usage that is common

is, "between you and I." Should be between you and me. I've heard some very educated people use the words "between" and "among" incorrectly.

[laruemtt]

97. this reminds me of when i first started

medical transcription. i went into it when i first got sick with Lyme and wanted something i could do from home. i went to a med. trans. company where you had to prove your competence. well, the "overseer" asked when i was writing something the way i was, and i said the other way was not grammatically correct. she said, 'O look! we've got a grammar person here!' oy. and here i'd thought my grammar loving self had found the profession of my dreams! and you should hear some of the doctors - "her and her husband had went to Florida." i kid you not.

[Arkana]

101. Thank you. Thank you thank you thank you.

I don't say anything--I don't want to incite cries of "grammar Nazi!".

[Stephanie]

105. Rule number three has exceptions.

"Mind your p's and q's" is correct, as per the AP style book. They say "learn your ABCs" is correct, but I have seen other rulebooks that prefer ABC's and BLT's. I think that one's debatable.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

106. I don't think that's correct

I think those things may be tolerated, but tolerance and grammatically correct are not the same. :)

[Stephanie]

107. p's and q's is correct according to the AP

and that is the style book for most journalists.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

109. I think maybe because it is known that way because of, funny coincidence,

A&P LOL (c'mon, that's kinda coinkidinky ain't it?)

Actually, on second thought, I wonder if it is because it is not really being used as a letter but as something representative, which in that case would be 's? :shrug:

Ya know, kinda like it isn't really plural of anything, it is its representation. Like I have 5 *'s and 7 )'s. Ok, maybe I just have no idea LOL

On edit, maybe it's because of the rule of missing letters, since technically it started from "mind your pints and quarts". Yeah. I like that explanation. That's what I'm sticking with lol

[Neil Lisst]

116. And while we're at it, the period goes INSIDE the quotes!!

That one drives me crazy".

[Kaylee]

117. Actually this is really helpful.

I am the queen of "mis-using" english ;)

[KoKo]

135. We wouldn't want to "misunderestimate those who "mis-use"

:D

[MoonRiver]

119. This has been bothering me a lot.

As you said, it's probably simply a result of the fact that people are typing fast and, therefore, making mistakes. I may have done it at times, but I do try to check for such things. I would like for people to be more careful though. It's a style thing. A post just looks more professional if the punctuation, grammar, spelling etc. are correct.

[KoKo]

125. Rushing to post "an opinion" on a post you feel you need to immediately

get onto...does sort of leave "correct grammar, spelling and checking for punctuation pauses" in the DUST.

Sometimes our Brains react in a way that phonitical spellings, brain farts, and tricky keyboards sort of "conspire" to fight against us.

:shrug:

It's not that some don't "know better" but that the instant replies of internet dialog somehow cause us to lose our better training? :shrug:

It's a PROBLEM: Here's a few posts for those "English Wonks" who want to dive in!

-----------------------

Phonetic Dictionary
WriteExpress.com Try Phonetic Finder, a software phonetic dictionary for Windows

ben's phonetic spelling
ben's phonetic spelling. Everyone knows that English is riddled with horribly ... Most other languages have a phonetic spelling system, or regularly ...
www.washedashore.com/rants/spelling/ - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

Phonetic spelling - definition of Phonetic spelling by the Free ...
Definition of Phonetic spelling in the Online Dictionary. Meaning of Phonetic spelling. What does Phonetic spelling mean? Phonetic spelling synonyms ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/Phonetic%20spelling - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

Phonetic/spelling alphabets for various languages
Such alphabets, used for spelling things out over voice links, are variously known as phonetic/radio/spelling/ telephone alphabets, and the term analogy ...
www.bckelk.uklinux.net/phon.full.html - 42k - Cached - Similar pages

Wikipedia:English phonetic spelling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
English phonetic spelling is a proposed standard for Wikipedia, recommended for ... Canadian raising is also ignored by the standard of phonetic spelling. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:English_phonetic_spelling - 19k - Cached - Similar pages

AskOxford: Why don't you introduce some form of phonetic spelling?
Why don't you introduce some form of phonetic spelling? Why is 'w' pronounced 'double u' rather than 'double v'? If, after browsing the FAQs, ...

[MoonRiver]

155. Yes, and I've felt that rush to get something down fast

when I feel like a topic is really hot. The problem is that one's message can be lost and/or garbled if the language is not intelligible. I've frequently had to deliberately slow myself down to at least do a spell check. When I've found typos later and had to edit I usually kick myself for not being more careful. JMTB.

[Jackpine Radical]

120. Thank's. (nt)

[StellaBlue]

123. I am finding the hypocrisy here - on such a minor issue - hilarious

Some people who have commented on this thread are likening my interest in proper English to be being a 'Nazi' - because I think that communication is made more efficient by standards and conventions. If grammatical conventions are elitist and ever-changing and pointless, let's just all speak in whatever language we want! I'll write in East Texas dialect and only Dr Phil will be able to read my posts! Or, better yet - I'll write in Klingon!

Just as many of us cannot comprehend how our fellow countrymen can be literate and hold down jobs while being total RW nutjobs, I cannot comprehend how otherwise intelligent, well-informed people do not grasp the correct use of the apostrophe.

And these same people make fun of freepers.

And, for about the fourth time, I did point out in my original post that I am as guilty as anyone else of making the occasional mistake in typing, and I was not trying to be elitist or personally offend anyone, but just raise the issue. Because the increasing misuse of apostrophes in English written communication is both mind-boggling and irritating!

[Vanje]

126. There, Their,They're

There is a place more distant than here.
Their =Those guys own it. It is Theirs.
They're = They are, as in, "They're Freepers, Honey.Dont try to reason with them."

[KoKo]

127. QUESTION IS! Should "Posts on the Fly" on an Internet "Discussion Board

be held to the same standards as the latest Oxford Dictionary...or the King's English or the Publishing Bible for Standards (whose name escapes me at the moment which all Newspapers and Publishers use to verify their reporters Grammar, Punctuation and Spelling" standards.

Does anyone remember the name of that "Bible for Publishers?" :eyes:

[BikeWriter]

131. Oh, the humanity!

[serryjw]

132. The LAST person that corrected my spelling

or grammar was put on IGNORE! Try it! You would never correct someone's grammar in person what right do you have to do it on DU?

[Renew Deal]

133. Ummm, about capitalizing IGNORE

:evilgrin:

[KoKo]

134. There have been a couple of "spelling stalkers" who have made a

habit of "intruding," at times. I wouldn't go so far as to put them on "ignore" though. :eyes:

[nolabels]

136. When I was in grade school I did good with this subject for a little bit

But then figured out later that don't really matter anyway, people are going to screw other people whether they knew good english are not.

I do love how you can dissect a persons intent by dissecting there use of the english language though. There are so many nuances to all of it that chess might seem simple in comparison

[Triana]

137. thank you...

....it's about time someone did this. Too many people don't know the difference between a possessive and a contraction and a plural possessive.

Another abuse I see all the time is between they're, their, and there.

They're is another contraction. As in "they are".

Their is a possessive. (ie: the fruit is theirs). Note no apostrophe is needed because the word itself is already in possessive form.

There means "over there" as in a place (it's a verb).

They teach this stuff in the First Grade...or at least they used to.

[Mythsaje]

138. My personal peeve?

"It's" as if the word is possessive. As in something belong to "it."

Drives me nutso. "It's" is a contraction of 'it is.' "Its," as counter intuitive as it may be, is the possessive form of the pronoun "it."

I can ignore nearly anything else, even the "you're/your" fumble. I even see other authors make this mistake in e-mail. But, for some reason, the "it" factor gets under my skin and makes me want to scream.

[Tom Joad]

140. Your right, of course.

[BigBearJohn]

141. I disagree with your assessment of the use of an apostrophe

with regards to CD's and 1000's....
I worked for a copywriter for a major magazine
and they used this convention all the time.

From Purdue University Online Writing Lab:

"There is no need for apostrophes indicating a plural on capitalized letters, numbers, and symbols (though keep in mind that some editors, teachers, and professors still prefer them)."

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_apost.html

[Mojorabbit]

142. I'll throw mine in the pot.

Bear and Bare. For some reason I wan't to scream when I see these words used incorrectly. None of the other's bother me a bit. Hell, now I am not sure if I was supposed to put an apostrophe in others in my previous sentence.
Aaack!

[karlrschneider]

144. Good point's! And we should loose all those extra apostrophe's!

:evilgrin:


But, seriesly, uh....

well, shit, I can't keep this up. You are right.

;-)

[Beam Me Up]

145. Oh, who needs punctuation and spelling, anyway? It's not like we need

them to be understood! After all, language is a living thing, changing constantly through usage. Perhaps someday very soon everyone will get there's.

:crazy:

[HulaChicken]

147. I did a TWELVE page research paper on the use of the apostrophe

So, I actually majored in English, and my senior term research paper was actually on the apostrophe....can you believe it? It's true! And to make a 12 page research paper on the silly little apostrophe short..... it is actually considered to be acceptable to use the apostrophe to make certain items plural.

For example, if you are a teacher and you give your students a bunch of A's, then you're going to be a very popular teacher!

If the apostrophe was left out, you would have given your students a bunch of As.

Looks like the word "as," right? So, there are actually some grammatical guides that advocate using an apostrophe to make the distinction. The general rule is that whenever there would be confusion, it's okay to use the apostrophe.

Also, you should have mentioned the difference between its and it's, which happens to drive me crazy. As an exception to the rule, when making "it" possessive, as in "the cat has its own tail in its mouth," you would not use the apostrophe. However, when you're making a contraction of "it is," as in "It's time to go to bed" (eg: It is time to go to bed) then you can use the apostrophe.

Also, there are many sources that say it's actually becoming acceptable grammer to use the apostrophe in just the way that makes you crazy...because by so much common use, it's becomming "correct" in much the same way that the word "ain't" which we were all taught in school was NOT a word......is actually considered a word, now. The French, as I understand it, have word-cops that make sure people don't misuse their language over there, for the fear that new "bad" words like these don't become "real."

As for your example, I think the reason that people often mistakenly use the apostrophe for nouns rather than adjectives, in your example "I have thousands of book's," is because we don't ever use the apostrophe for making an adjective (thousands) plural, but we do use it to make nouns plural. So, subconsciously, people feel it is more acceptable to use it for the noun (book) regardless of whether it is plural or possessive. An exception would be when the adjective "thousands" was written numerically, as in 1000's. And, per my explanation earlier, it can actually be considered acceptable to use an apostrophe to help clear up confusion, when it comes to numbers, acronyms and single letters.... although I prefer to write it as 1000s, because it's really more correct that way.

And lastly, THANK you for posting this, because it drives me crazy too!!!!!!!

Good nite! I mean, good night.

[donheld]

148. LynneTruss

:yourock:

[donheld]

149. LynneTruss

:yourock:

[Withywindle]

151. THANK YOU.

Drives me nucking futs.

[Barad Simith]

152. If there's an S at the end of a word, it get's an apostrophe

No pet's

Restroom's out of order

No shoe's, no shirt, no service

English lesson's here

This is apparently the new rule. Take it up with the general population if you have any objection's.

[Senator]

153. The Rest of the Story

There was a bit of ommission from the rules as laid out above. I suspect it might have something to do with the differences between British and American English, but can't say with certainty.

The rules/examples found on this page are a bit more comprehensive and are specific to American English usage.

As with many "American" things, there are some variants that are still considered acceptable.

--