Pluralising with apostrophe-s
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H 
That's fair enough, but seriously, PDF lab is free and tiny so what do you have to lose by trying it out?
Indeed, but as I said earlier in the thread, the plural of "Mini" (as in Mac Mini) is "Minis", not "mini's"
That's fair enough, but seriously, PDF lab is free and tiny so what do you have to lose by trying it out?
Indeed, but as I said earlier in the thread, the plural of "Mini" (as in Mac Mini) is "Minis", not "mini's"
There are times when the 's IS acceptable for plurals:
Use an apostrophe to pluralize lowercase letters, words, and numbers that normally do not have plurals. - (Evergreen - A Guide to Writing)
"Your 8's look like f's."
"Cross your t's and dot your i's."
"Too many and's make this paragraph dull."
"Be careful to cross your t's,"
"Don't use so many but's in your writing."
"Those 9's look crooked."
However, I'm not contradicting your spelling of Minis. You're correct.
Comments
There are times when the 's IS acceptable for plurals
According to your evergreen guide. I'm sure that Lynn Truss would disagree, as indeed do I.
The problem is that if you say you can pluralise a digit with an apostrophe, you have one construct that can mean four different things: e.g. "9's" could mean "9 is", "9 has", "belonging to 9" or "the pural of 9". Sure, sometimes you will be able to work it out from context, but it's better to reduce the possibilities by using "9s" to mean the plural of 9.
There is never a need to use an apostrophe to pluralise a digit, and in the case of pluralising individual letters or ambiguous words, this can be achieved by placing the letter/word inside quotes, thus:
Your 8s look like "f"s.
Cross your "t"s and dot your "i"s.
Too many "and"s make this paragraph dull. (although I honestly fail to see the problem with: Too many ands make this paragraph dull.)
Be careful to cross your "t"s.
Don't use so many "but"s in your writing, again I don't see anything wrong with: Don't use so many buts in your writing.
Those 9s look crooked.
According to your evergreen guide. I'm sure that Lynn Truss would disagree, as indeed do I.
The problem is that if you say you can pluralise a digit with an apostrophe, you have one construct that can mean four different things: e.g. "9's" could mean "9 is", "9 has", "belonging to 9" or "the pural of 9". Sure, sometimes you will be able to work it out from context, but it's better to reduce the possibilities by using "9s" to mean the plural of 9.
There is never a need to use an apostrophe to pluralise a digit, and in the case of pluralising individual letters or ambiguous words, this can be achieved by placing the letter/word inside quotes, thus:
Your 8s look like "f"s.
Cross your "t"s and dot your "i"s.
Too many "and"s make this paragraph dull. (although I honestly fail to see the problem with: Too many ands make this paragraph dull.)
Be careful to cross your "t"s.
Don't use so many "but"s in your writing, again I don't see anything wrong with: Don't use so many buts in your writing.
Those 9s look crooked.
The American way seems to be easier to type and U.S. English seems to (de) evolve faster than British English. If there's an easier way (to ruin English), Americans will find it. In teaching English at the largest college (circa 200,000 students in one city - Miami) in the U.S., I constantly struggle against this erosion. An example: "Using 'First' instead of 'Firstly" when beginning a list." E.g., "First, we did this" and "Second, we did that." I always interject: "Final, we do this." No one seems to get the irony.
Is it possible that because we live on different sides of the pond, the punctuation is slightly different? Remember the old saw: "The U.S. and England are two countries divided by a common language." - or something to that effect. However, I read several (British) English authors, and I've noticed over the years that (U.S.) English is creeping into the 'British' language. A case of "lowest" (very) common denominator. One example of that is the occasional removal of the first 'e' in 'judgement' by British authors. I'm NOT at all thrilled by these changes. I prefer the past purity of 'British'. BTW, how to you distinguish between U.S. and British English when you speak of them. I pulled my method out of thin air.
Since you are a Moderator, perhaps you should move this to another forum as it doesn't quite fit into the current forum.
On to another variation....
My last name ends with an "s". People are confused about the possessive form, whether writing or speaking. It grates on me when I see the apostrophe inserted between the two final letters, thereby changing my name! Admittedly, even saying ....s's is awkward, but at least it's correct. Some try to get away with ....s' also. But verbally, it even sounds wrong, even if the listener gets the possessive intent.
I guess that's the attitude that results in the dumbing down of language. People who don't care are annoyed by those that do care. Oh well. The reverse is also true.
On to another variation....
My last name ends with an "s". People are confused about the possessive form, whether writing or speaking. It grates on me when I see the apostrophe inserted between the two final letters, thereby changing my name! Admittedly, even saying ....s's is awkward, but at least it's correct. Some try to get away with ....s' also. But verbally, it even sounds wrong, even if the listener gets the possessive intent.
Referring back to Evergreen - A Guide to Writing - Fawcett - (used by the largest college in the U.S.) using an apostrophe after a name or word ending in S to show ownership is correct.
E.g., Ladies' dresses; James' books; Ulysses' travels; Doris' shoes.
It eliminates the ssssSibilant ssssSounds.
Referring back to Evergreen - A Guide to Writing - Fawcett - (used by the largest college in the U.S.) using an apostrophe after a name or word ending in S to show ownership is correct.
E.g., Ladies' dresses; James' books; Ulysses' travels; Doris' shoes.
It eliminates the ssssSibilant ssssSounds.
According to the BBC and my dictionary built in to OS X (look up the word "possessive" and see the usage note), it's only possessive plurals where possesion can be shown by the s'. In other words, all singular possessives are formed by adding 's, even if the singular ends in an "s". So, "belonging to ladies" would be " ladies' ", but "belonging to James" would be "James's"
According to the BBC and my dictionary built in to OS X (look up the word "possessive" and see the usage note), it's only possessive plurals where possesion can be shown by the s'. In other words, all singular possessives are formed by adding 's, even if the singular ends in an "s". So, "belonging to ladies" would be " ladies' ", but "belonging to James" would be "James's"
Again, we live on opposite sides of the pond. AmericanZ speak with "forked tongues". If our text books say ' James', we use James'. Of course, this may be an example of the 'dumbing down of America'.
You're p___ing into the wind if you're trying to get us to speak British English.
Another grammatical pet peeve of mine is the possessive treatment of decades. As in, "I was born during the 1950's." Unless the 1950s owns you, it's a plural, not a possessive, so no apostrophe is used. The only major news source to cling to the possessive form of decades is the NY Times (oddly enough). It always looks so wrong to me, because it doesn't follow any accepted manual of style. I wonder why do it.
Again, we live on opposite sides of the pond. AmericanZ speak with "forked tongues". If our text books say ' James', we use James'. Of course, this may be an example of the 'dumbing down of America'.
You're p___ing into the wind if you're trying to get us to speak British English.
You say that, but the OS X built-in dictionary is the Oxford American English Dictionary. Check it out.
You say that, but the OS X built-in dictionary is the Oxford American English Dictionary. Check it out.
You can choose which dictionary you want to use. Both (and others) are built in.
You say that, but the OS X built-in dictionary is the Oxford American English Dictionary. Check it out.
It doesn't matter. I teach what I'm required to teach. I can't change it because of what the OXFORD American English Dictionary shows. If I used that, students would get it wrong on the computer tests they take.
"A principal function of apostrophes is to indicate possession. They are also used in contractions (can't, wouldn't), which are rarely acceptable in scholaraly writing, and the plurals of the letters of the alphabet (p's and q's, three A's)."
That's pretty clear.
The latest MLA Style Manual's (2008) rule for apostrophes (in section 3.4.7) is as follows:
"A principal function of apostrophes is to indicate possession. They are also used in contractions (can't, wouldn't), which are rarely acceptable in scholaraly writing, and the plurals of the letters of the alphabet (p's and q's, three A's)."
That's pretty clear.
Does it not have anything to say about possessives of words ending in s?
Also, it's a shame that it should say the principle use is to indicate possession. 's to indicate possession actually came from the apostrophe being used to contract the genitive case, which for many words was formed by adding -es. As such, I would contend that the principle use of the apostrophe is for contraction.
The latest MLA Style Manual's (2008) rule for apostrophes (in section 3.4.7) is as follows:
"A principal function of apostrophes is to indicate possession. They are also used in contractions (can't, wouldn't), which are rarely acceptable in scholaraly writing, and the plurals of the letters of the alphabet (p's and q's, three A's)."
That's pretty clear.
Does MLA cover all grammar? I doubt it. Further, if the texts we use were completely wrong, I'm sure someone or some organization (organisation) would have challenged the publishers by now.
I don't know how long they've been publishing this text, but I've been using it with its many updates for over 20 years. No controversy so far!
My university English Seminar professor (who had two law degrees as well as a doctorate in English) had a philosophy: "The rules of English grammar were NOT handed down to Moses along with the Ten Commandments." He meant they were man-made. They were not even codified and written down, unlike other languages, until a few hundred years ago. They have been evolving ever since. For evidence of that evolution, you just have to follow the OED as it enfolds the latest jargon. It's not a pretty sight.
The possessive case of singular nouns is formed by the addition of an apostrophe and an s, and the possessive of plural nouns (except for a few irregular plurals) by the addition of an apostrophe only.
Further, if the texts we use were completely wrong, I'm sure someone or some organization (organisation) would have challenged the publishers by now.
I don't know if these fringe cases are necessarily right or wrong situations. As far as I can tell, it's not that uncommon for style guides from different publishers to disagree. If your style guide is in the minority one could argue that it is "wrong".
I don't know if these fringe cases are necessarily right or wrong situations. As far as I can tell, it's not that uncommon for style guides from different publishers to disagree. If your style guide is in the minority one could argue that it is "wrong".
Re: Dr. Millmoss' post above. Note that I did not add an S after the apostrophe - three S's in a row and a ssssibilant hisssss. Not on my watch.
POSSESSIVE APOSTROPHES
It?s only a little mark, but its misuse arouses more bad temper among purists than any other punctuation. (That introduction brings to mind the irregular conjugation: ?I am a careful writer; you are a purist; he is a pedant?.)
And what of November 5? Is it Guy Fawkes? Day or Guy Fawkes?s Day? The one certain thing is that it isn?t Guy Fawke?s Day, because his name was Fawkes, with the s already on. And what does one do about Lloyd?s, the famous insurance market in London? How do you make a possessive from that? ?Names are complaining that some Lloyd?s?s syndicates were badly managed?? The style guide of the Economist says ?try to avoid using [it] as a possessive; it poses an insoluble problem?.
I Googled "Evergreen: A Guide to Writing with Readings. See URL above. There are more than 25 pages that list it; therefore, it is apparently sold to and used by many institutes of higher education. It can't be all bad. Again, if it were completely wrong in its treatment of singular possessive proper nouns, somewhere along the line, it would have been brought to justice. Therefore, that must be common usage or at least an allowable variance.
I suppose that we'll never agree seeing as how "experts" (ahem) don't agree. We might as well pack up and close this thread. Thank you all for the great discussion. The give and take was most stimulating.
Does it not have anything to say about possessives of words ending in s?
Yes. It says to add an 's.
Also, it's a shame that it should say the principle use is to indicate possession. 's to indicate possession actually came from the apostrophe being used to contract the genitive case, which for many words was formed by adding -es. As such, I would contend that the principle use of the apostrophe is for contraction.
You are correct about that. I'll have to double-check the manual when I get back into the office tomorrow to see if I mis-typed it, since that seems an odd thing to say.