Deliberate mistakes

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

As it's clearly "silly Saturday" …

I must just mention that ol' [and not 'ol] is the abbreviation for old.

MichaelG.

[Danny M2ZParticipant @dannym2z]

L'ol

* Danny M *

[Ian PParticipant @ianp]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 14/05/2016 08:40:28:

As it's clearly "silly Saturday" …

I must just mention that ol' [and not 'ol] is the abbreviation for old.

MichaelG.

But ol' is still three characters so how is it an abbreviation?

Ian P

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Ian Phillips on 14/05/2016 08:51:15:

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 14/05/2016 08:40:28:

As it's clearly "silly Saturday" …

I must just mention that ol' [and not 'ol] is the abbreviation for old.

MichaelG.

But ol' is still three characters so how is it an abbreviation?

Ian P

.

The apostrophe takes up less physical space than the letter d

… and [being silent] it is quicker to say out loud.

MichaelG.

[HowiParticipant @howi]

Why am I even reading the posts  here?

No! I don't (singular?) Either………

[Gordon WParticipant @gordonw]

I must have been off school on apostrophe day, maybe my dad took me on holiday.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Gordon W on 14/05/2016 09:48:00:

I must have been off school on apostrophe day, maybe my dad took me on holiday.

.

Now there's an interesting 'Tea Room' digression for those bored of apostrophes … The rules dictate regular attendance at school … Not 'frequent', and not 'high proportion' but regular.

To me, this means that the recent court decisions were simply wrong.

Serious, or flippant, comments invited.

MichaelG.

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

Does regular attendance at school mean once a week/month, or do they really mean everyday.

Ian S C

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Bandersnatch on 14/05/2016 03:58:24:

Posted by Hopper on 14/05/2016 02:35:12:

Apostrophe is never used to indicate plurality. Only to indicate possession or abbreviation (eg it's).

Let's not be too adamant:

The Firm's accounts …. (singular Firm)

The Firms' accounts ….. (plural Firm)

The plurality or otherwise of the Firm is indicated by the position of the apostrophe.

…. or, if you prefer to stay more on-topic:

Model Engineer's Workshop ….

Model Engineers' Workshop ….

Ah, interesting point. But the position of the apostrophe is not the apostrophe. The apostrophe is denoting possession, not plurality. Plurality is indicated by the letter s. Position of the letter s in relation to the apostrophe is what makes the difference between firm's and firms'.

Like most things in English though the rules are never consistent, except when they are. Thus we get the single Firm's accounts and the plural firms' accounts, but the singular Jesus's accounts and the city of Cairns's accounts. But verbally both of the latter are oft pronounced as if the second s did not exist. Gotta love the English language.

And what about the Court of St James's? Seems like a double possessive with both "of" and 's. Should it not then be "a hair of the dog's" rather than "a hair of the dog" that one sips on certain Sunday morns?

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 14/05/2016 10:29:21:

Posted by Gordon W on 14/05/2016 09:48:00:

I must have been off school on apostrophe day, maybe my dad took me on holiday.

.

Now there's an interesting 'Tea Room' digression for those bored of apostrophes … The rules dictate regular attendance at school … Not 'frequent', and not 'high proportion' but regular.

To me, this means that the recent court decisions were simply wrong.

Serious, or flippant, comments invited.

MichaelG.

Well, how often does one have to go to the local pub to be "a regular"? Daily? Weekly? Frequently?

[MWParticipant @mw27036]

Let the grammar wars commence!

Michael W

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by Hopper on 14/05/2016 15:20:16:

Well, how often does one have to go to the local pub to be "a regular"?

How often does one have to take Ex Lax to be regular? Enquiring minds want to know.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Hopper on 14/05/2016 15:11:27:

Posted by Bandersnatch on 14/05/2016 03:58:24:

Posted by Hopper on 14/05/2016 02:35:12:

Apostrophe is never used to indicate plurality. Only to indicate possession or abbreviation (eg it's).

Let's not be too adamant:

The Firm's accounts …. (singular Firm)

The Firms' accounts ….. (plural Firm)

The plurality or otherwise of the Firm is indicated by the position of the apostrophe.

…. or, if you prefer to stay more on-topic:

Model Engineer's Workshop ….

Model Engineers' Workshop ….

Ah, interesting point. But the position of the apostrophe is not the apostrophe. The apostrophe is denoting possession, not plurality. Plurality is indicated by the letter s. Position of the letter s in relation to the apostrophe is what makes the difference between firm's and firms'.

Like most things in English though the rules are never consistent, except when they are. Thus we get the single Firm's accounts and the plural firms' accounts, but the singular Jesus's accounts and the city of Cairns's accounts. But verbally both of the latter are oft pronounced as if the second s did not exist. Gotta love the English language.

And what about the Court of St James's? Seems like a double possessive with both "of" and 's. Should it not then be "a hair of the dog's" rather than "a hair of the dog" that one sips on certain Sunday morns?

Ah, poor colonials. Here in the mother country the form James' is perfectly acceptable, even if we more often say say "jameses&quot.

N.

[DodParticipant @dod]

Ok, if the English language is so good , can someone explain why it is (its it's) you choose, mice instead of mouses or sheep(singular) and sheep(plural)

Confused of Scotland

[MuzzerParticipant @muzzer]

Not easily but if you are interested in this kind of thing, listen in on this program on Radio 4. A lot of these irregular verbs and strange plurals have their roots in centuries past. This week's was fairly close to the subject being discussed.

[norman valentineParticipant @normanvalentine78682]

Dod, it is that way because that is how we (the English) say it should be. It's our language and we can make the rules as it suits us. So there!

[DodParticipant @dod]

Posted by norman valentine on 14/05/2016 22:04:12:

Dod, it is that way because that is how we (the English) say it should be. It's our language and we can make the rules as it suits us. So there!

Whatever do you mean its you language, it's a mess of French, Greek, Latin, Indian and anything else that suits thrown in, strewth there is even 'Strilian in it, probably nae ony Doric amang at sotter

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Ah, poor colonials. Here in the mother country the form James' is perfectly acceptable, even if we more often say say "jameses".

N.

Not in the case of Court of St James's, in written language. Check your stylebook Mr Editor.

So why it is we say " a friend of mine, a friend of yours, a friend of Fred's, a mate of the dog's" but not "a hair of the dog's"? And why the double possessive at all (ie both "of" and 's) We colonials look to you guys for guidance on this stuff, y'know..

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by norman valentine on 14/05/2016 22:04:12:

Dod, it is that way because that is how we (the English) say it should be. It's our language and we can make the rules as it suits us. So there!

That would be all right if you stuck to the rules!

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Hopper on 15/05/2016 01:36:26:

So why it is we say " a friend of mine, a friend of yours, a friend of Fred's, a mate of the dog's" but not "a hair of the dog's"?

.

Simply because that expression is a short form of "the hair of the dog that bit me"

… [or whomsoever]

MichaelG.

[John FieldingParticipant @johnfielding34086]

And don't get onto the subject of English English and America English as we will here for the next month!

A famous person once said "America and England, two nations separated by an ocean and a common language".

Have you heard about the argument during the Second World War in an allied planning meeting in America? Seems the British delegates wanted to "table a motion" on some aspect of the talks. The Americans were vehemently against this, which surprised the British as they believed the USA was in favour of the idea. It went on for some time until the Canadian delegate pointed out that to "table a motion" in English speak was to propose an idea, but in American speak it meant to withdraw the idea.

[Anonymous]

It appears that the 'bubble' has burst.

Andrew

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 15/05/2016 05:52:43:

Posted by Hopper on 15/05/2016 01:36:26:

So why it is we say " a friend of mine, a friend of yours, a friend of Fred's, a mate of the dog's" but not "a hair of the dog's"?

.

Simply because that expression is a short form of "the hair of the dog that bit me"

… [or whomsoever]

MichaelG.

Go to the top of the class. As long as it is not that class of Fred's. Or you might end up in a court of law, such as the Court of St James's.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Guardsian Style Guide:

The possessive in words and names ending in S normally takes an apostrophe followed by a second S (Jones’s, James’s), but be guided by pronunciation and use the plural apostrophe where it helps: Mephistopheles’, Waters’, Hedges’ rather than Mephistopheles’s, Waters’s, Hedges’s.

The problem is that pronunciation may be a guide, but it isn't consistent because there are no rules on how you say it…

For example, it's St Thomas's Church but St Thomas' Hospital. Go figure as the yanks say!

Neil

<EDIT> LOL! I mis-spelled Grauniad, how apt!

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 15/05/2016 15:09:23

[Mark CParticipant @markc]

That makes sense…. it is his church (or at least his boss) but the hospital is named after him?

Mark

[Author]

Posts