Forum menu
I guess I could have proposed simply losing the apostrophe to denote possession. That’s unarguable.
Maybe to you. I think they aid clarity via some simple rules, that anyone could learn.
really? The OP, for instance, communicates expertly in written English, I'd say, but isn't confident about use of apostrophes hence the thread. I'm sure he could easily learn - but I can't honestly see what this would improve how he communicates.
I’m sure he could easily learn – but I can’t honestly see what this would improve how he communicates.
It would indicate possession or a contraction. I suspect there's a whole generation of us who weren't taught these rules properly at school.
The OP wouldn't've (2 apostrophes!) started this thread if they didn't want to know.
English uses apostrophes for two completely different functions (omission/contraction and possession) and the terminal -s similarly (plurals and...possession). No wonder it's confusing.
English uses apostrophes for two completely different functions
Shits'n'giggle's
The OP wouldn’t’ve (2 apostrophes!) started this thread if they didn’t want to know
He wanted to know in order for an engraving to be correct according to the pointless rules, not for clarity of communication.
It would indicate possession or a contraction. I suspect there’s a whole generation of us who weren’t taught these rules properly at school.
I'm well aware of the rules. I'm saying they don't help communication and are redundant for all purposes other than pedantry.
I’m saying they don’t help communication and are redundant for all purposes other than pedantry.
They aid communication by indicating possession and contraction.
really? The OP, for instance, communicates expertly in written English, I’d say, but isn’t confident about use of apostrophes hence the thread. I’m sure he could easily learn – but I can’t honestly see what this would improve how he communicates.
Maybe he could help with your Shatner Commas.
Will his knife what?
Will, his knife.
Language evolves, this is older English. I understand your point but it's not really appropriate here.
I think they aid clarity via some simple rules
When in doubt, this really is the rule of thumb. The point of language is effective and efficient communication. It's perfectly cromulent to slap an apostrophe in if it improves clarity.
I wish I had a better example because this one is terrible but compare TVs vs tv's. Writing tvs would be confusing.
what you are actually doing is shortening the phase “Will his knife”. The apostrophe replaces the missing letters (“hi”)
really - where does this belief come from?
I suspect we use s at the end of a possessive word from old English. Before the Normans invaded and brought in a lot of French words and grammar English was very similar to German, from which it was descended. Even now written German uses s or es to show possession, like “Das Haus des Mannes” to mean “the house of the man”.
Later the apostrophe was used when people tried to standardise the language, partly to indicate the missing e where es had been used (lambes became lamb’s) and partly to distinguish lambs plural from lamb’s possessive.
It is nothing to do with replacing “his” - otherwise we would all be saying “Alice’r knife” to replace “her”.
Confusion about using apostrophes for possession and abbreviation I can kinda get (and especially the it's/its thing). What winds me up is when people use them for plurals, as that is always, always wrong.
(Awaits example where it's not)
What winds me up is when people use them for plurals, as that is always, always wrong.
(Awaits example where it’s not)
Greengrocer's? 😁
It may be wrong but I think it sometimes aids readability in examples like Cougar's "tv's" above.
TVs looks weird. TV's also looks weird, and I'm sure it's wrong, but somehow looks righter.
Actually now that I've written it out, it looks wrong. Bugger. What was my point again?
Greengrocer’s? 😁
Exactly - apostrophes are classy so more apostrophes must be more classy. Look at our juicy plum's and peach's... who can resist? No. Ban these and ban the rest.
The point of language is effective and efficient communication. It’s perfectly cromulent to slap an apostrophe in if it improves clarity.
I wish I had a better example because this one is terrible but compare TVs vs tv’s. Writing tvs would be confusing.
^^Hard to say really what that's intended to communicate? The pointlessness of commas maybe? I'll have another go...
compare TVs vs tv’s. Writing tvs would be confusing.
Eh? Nah, anyway, now we've sorted this one, can we move on to that bugbear of Therese Coffey, the Oxford comma? May not take that long on reflection given who opposes it...
really – where does this belief come from?
That's an interesting question. I've always believed it to be the case but I don't know why.
TVs looks weird. TV’s also looks weird, and I’m sure it’s wrong, but somehow looks righter.
Really, with stuff like this the answer is to restructure the sentence. Writing "televisions" fixes the issue (I said it was a bad example).
can we move on to that bugbear of Therese Coffey, the Oxford comma?
This is the same answer. The canonical example is saying you have three sets of guests, "We invited the rhinoceri, Washington and Lincoln," arguing that the Oxford comma makes it "We invited the rhinoceri, Washington, and Lincoln." But if we rearrange the sentence to become "We invited Washington, Lincoln and the rhinoceri" then the problem goes away.
(Personally I take more of an issue with "rhinoceri" here, it's a hypercorrection like pluralising octopus as octopi.)
WILL MEC HEHT GEWYRCAN
The Oxford comma makes things clearer. I really don't know why anyone would not prefer it.
For example: I like whiskey, beer and gin and tonic.
Versus: I like whiskey, beer, and gin and tonic.
And: I like whiskey, beer and gin, and tonic.
Will, his knife.
Language evolves, this is older English. I understand your point but it’s not really appropriate here.
I know I was highlighting the irony of talking about correct use of an apostrophe and getting the comma wrong.
I don't give a shit about apostrophe because you generally have to try really hard to not understand what was meant.
The Oxford comma makes things clearer. I really don’t know why anyone would not prefer it.
For example: I like whiskey, beer and gin and tonic.
Versus: I like whiskey, beer, and gin and tonic.
And: I like whiskey, beer and gin, and tonic.
..and finally, a real life instance you'd not want to get wrong, at risk of ending up with a tonic!
I am also a fan of the Oxford comma.
I don’t give a shit about apostrophe because you generally have to try really hard to not understand what was meant.
Yeah. In social media stuff, emails from friends, who cares? In formal documents, you'd expect the author to understand apostrophes.
So what have I learnt from all this so far.
Well Will's getting a knife for his birthday it's clear. It'll be engraved with "Will's knife" on its side. Hopefully he'll be happy with its functionality and it's all he ever needs from a knife.
Let's not talk about his brothers' knives. (Now does he have one brother with several knives or more than one brother with a knife each?) 😉
Multiple brothers. The number of knives belonging to each is unspecified.
For example:
For example: I like whiskey, beer and gin and tonic.
Versus: I like whiskey, beer, and gin and tonic.
And: I like whiskey, beer and gin, and tonic.
This is the rhinoceri again. "I like gin and tonic, whiskey and beer." Or even, "I like whiskey, beer and gin & tonic."
Though really when you've got a list of multi-word items, that's what semicolons are for. "I like: whiskey; beer; [and] gin and tonic."
there are times cougs when it’s best just to say well done! 🙂
Oh yeah, I always miss that part. 😁
In social media stuff, emails from friends, who cares? In formal documents, you’d expect the author to understand apostrophes.
Well for a kick off I'd tell someone writing a formal document to write it properly. If you relying on apostrophes you've lost concisivitity and you've ****ed it.
A. You shouldn't be using contractions in a formal document, end of.
B. You shouldn't be relying on the possessive either there, as cougar has pointed out, is always a better more concise way to write it
C. There are enough problems with the concept of the apostrophe and enough people with dyslexia and other learning difficulties it would fail the accessibility requirements we should all strive for in technical documents.
I was taught to flip the phrase into the long form with 'of' to check the apostrophe placement. Remove the apostrophe and any s after it then place after the object word with 'of' inbetween.
So
Will's Knife = Knife of Will
Wills' Knife = Knife of Wills