You don't use apostophe's to plauralise anything.

[DamenS]

I thought apostrophes were used to pluralize lowercase letters and abbreviations containing internal punctuation or abbreviations ending with the letter S:

He holds two Ph.D.'s.l
Three x's in a row wins.
They sent SOS's over three frequencies.

No?

Yes, this part of your statement is correct. Acronyms/abbreviations use an apostrophe prior to the "s" in order to denote the plural form - or maybe they don't ... Im just thanking God I didn't use the word "connote" rather than denote, eh, might had had us all choking on our breakfast muffins !!

Then again, with a surname that ends in 's' (correct possessive "Roger Hicks's camera") I am accustomed to "Roger Hicks' camera" and even "Roger Hick's camera".
R.

Roger Hicks's camera would be the accepted convention, though I personally believe Roger Hicks' camera would also be acceptable, but ah pity da fool who shortchanges your name an "s" by writing Roger Hick's camera !!

You think general apostrophe misuse is bad? Pfffft. Try having one in your last name. It's O'Brien, you asshat computers, capital O, apostrophe, capital B, lower case r, i, e, and n.

O'Dear - that's no good !

PS. What is a "plauralise" ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4vf8N6GpdM&feature=related

 

[wolves3012]

I believe the apostrophe is correct in RF's because as blindrobert said, it's an abbreviation, and the apostrophe stands for the missing letters in rangefinders.

Hardly "missing letters" - it should just be RF here, not RFF. Rangefinder is one word so its (no apostrophe) abbreviation ought to be just R. Unless, of course, you argue it's (apostrophised correctly) a "Range-Finder" i.e. a finder of ranges.

Since English isn't the first language of many on here and since the standards have declined so that non-speakers (well, writers) are confused enough to think anything ending in "s" has a mandatory apostrophe; well I think we ought to allow leeway!

Apostrophes signify possessive or contractions (not abbreviations, a period is used there) is what I believe is correct. They are never used to pluralise or simply because a word ends in an "s".

http://www.apostrophe.org.uk/

 

[Paulbe]

This has been an amazingly educational thread!
No solid conclusions, but surely some interesting stuff.
Whoda thought an apostrophe could be so controversial...??? 🙂
Paul

 

[wolves3012]

...Or indeed, pronounce it? As "meddi-evil", not "muh-deeval". Why do they omit the 'i' in "fertile" or "missile", which in English are are pronounced the way they spelled, "fur-tile" and "miss-isle", not "furtle" and "missal"...

While we're at it - why can recent US presidents not say "nuclear" rather than "nucular"? Couldn't resist adding that one! Not a pop at americans.

 

[mto'brien]

By the way, I believe the proper pluralization of the word apostrophe is apostrophi. The act of using apostrophi is apostrofication, present tense verb of apostrophi is apostrofying, past tense would, then, of course, be apostrofied. Do keep in mind that the ph is changed to an f as an exception when speaking of the verb and not he noun.

Hope that helps!

 

[Ezzie]

But where do you put the apostrophe when you get mixed up in a possessive plural compound?

 

[wolves3012]

The reasons for "language evolution" are many. But many "faults" are being dismissed as "evolution".

I remember as far back as the early 1990s, when chat rooms were all the rage: spelling and grammar were already nearly defunct (and by today's standards, they were not so bad, unfortunately). This was mainly due to the fact that the majority of users were very young kids, of course too young to know the subtleties of punctuation and spelling (I remember somebody calling Charles Manson a "cereal killer"...no, it was not meant as a joke). Not to mention that smileys had not yet been invented, and having had already noticed that tone doesn't really translate well on a glowing screen, came up with LOL, ROFL, BRB, etc. Russian spy network code, for sure...

Then, of course, being far behind the curve, the older people, who dismissed computers as either something secretaries use or something that kids use as expensive toys, once they "discovered" the Internet (like many now "discover" mobile computing and texting) they saw this Wild Wild Digital West, and reported back to their exploratory committees that spelling and punctuation didn't matter, when in fact was a symptom (well, the lack of was a symptom) of the dominant demographics.

Add a few cups of multiple recessions, decades of education budget slashing, and set the oven to schoolboard political hijacking to High, and voila, the intertoobes are an eyesore. Claiming so is taken as a personal attack by many.

This is not evolution, it's devolution.

Evolution is having new words as "e-mail" and "byte", and making "Google" and "friend" a verb (more commonly used as a gerund).

+1 on most of that. However, a large part of the blame can be laid at the door of a certain large software corporation, whose products dominate world-wide. When their spelling and grammar checkers are littered with errors (and yes, they are) it's no wonder that so few people have a grasp of anything near correct English (American or British style), especially if it's not their mother tongue. Some things are open to interpretation, variation and local styles. Some things are plain *wrong* and yet still are perpetrated and perpetuated by these laughingly-called "checkers".

 

[Roger Hicks]

The reasons for "language evolution" are many. But many "faults" are being dismissed as "evolution".

Evolution is having new words as "e-mail" and "byte", and making "Google" and "friend" a verb (more commonly used as a gerund).

Very true. But equally, there are spelling evolutions too, which often start as flat errors, e.g. the 's' in 'isle', a pointless Renaissance latinization.

Some decades ago, I heard an American academic point out (on linguistic evolution, with modest wit) "There ain't no English that can't be verbed."

Did you learn at school the wonderful mnemonic for distinguishing participles and gerunds? Pa likes gin? Participle [is] adjective, gerund is noun.

Cheers,

R.

 

[robklurfield]

The language mavens and grammar police among us like to codify rules and flog the rest of us for ignoring them, whilst the lazy or uneducated among us like to flout the rules. And, worst of all, are those of us who choose to decamp simultaneously in both camps.

 

[blindrobert]

I believe the apostrophe is correct in RF's because as blindrobert said, it's an abbreviation, and the apostrophe stands for the missing letters in rangefinders.

Respectfully, that isn't what I meant.

I agree that the apostrophe is superfluous in RFF's. There don't appear to be any definitive rules on this now that I research it a bit more. The correctness of a particular usage depends on what manual of style you use (MLA, Turabian, AP, and let's not forget the green grocer manual of style which indicates an apostrophe whenever in doubt).

 

[blindrobert]

But where do you put the apostrophe when you get mixed up in a possessive plural compound?

You better use two, just to be on the safe side.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The language mavens and grammar police among us like to codify rules and flog the rest of us for ignoring them, whilst the lazy or uneducated among us like to flout the rules. And, worst of all, are those of us who choose to decamp simultaneously in both camps.

Why would anyone want to be perceived as illiterate? Language is a wonderful, flexible, marvellous tool, and deliberately using it sloppily and without thought is like banging in a screw with a hammer.

Mostly I try to stay out of language police debates, for at least six reasons. One is that I quite often have a slight idea of what I'm talking about, which sometimes gives me an unfair advantage. The second is that sloppy, slangy English can be used to great effect, as long as you're doing it deliberately: ain't no-one can argue 'bout that.

The third is that for many here, English (or even American) is not their first language, and constructions can be very different, quite apart from treacherous (or even teacherous) spellings. The fourth is that consistent spelling is a relatively recent innovation, owing most of its existence to the emergence of dictionaries in the 18th century, and sometimes I prefer the old spellings.

The fifth is that my internet keyboard doesn't spell anything like as well as I do. Even if I were a better typist, it would still drop letters and miss capitals. Trying to find a decent QWERTY keyboard is difficult enough in England. In France, where they use AZERTY, it's well-nigh impossible. I bought this one in Spain!

The sixth is that when I try to look clever, I'm likely to fall flat on my face. This is especially true if I am trying to correct someone else, as the original poster demonstrated with 'plauralize'. I'm not even keen on 'pluralize', though the OED traces it back to 1803. I'd prefer, "You don't make plurals with apostrophes". Incidentally, I've never encountered any other plural than 'apostrophes': I'd be grateful if an earlier poster could provide a reference for his alternatives to the common plural with 's'.

Cheers,

R.

 

[MikeL]

Mostly I try to stay out of language police debates, for at least six reasons.

That's fine Roger, but do the six reasons outweigh your desire to debate? 🙂

(and yes, I'm expecting debate on this)

 

[Sparrow]

That's fine Roger, but do the six reasons outweigh your desire to debate? 🙂

(and yes, I'm expecting debate on this)

Well at least there's only one thing on the agenda now ...

 

[Roger Hicks]

That's fine Roger, but do the six reasons outweigh your desire to debate? 🙂

(and yes, I'm expecting debate on this)

Dear Mike,

Well, as I said, MOSTLY...

(On this subject, anyway.)

Cheers,

R.

 

[MikeL]

Dear Mike,

Well, as I said, MOSTLY...

(On this subject, anyway.)

Cheers,

R.

😉

Apostrophe's? I'm happy when students write sentences with a subject and a predicate.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Or as one of Frances's students said once, at Cal State Long Beach, California, "What's a SENTENCE?"

Cheers,

R.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I understand with absolute certainty the use of the apostrophe in the FORTRAN language.

With English, it's not so absolute.

But most humans do not respond with:

120 RF's Forum
-------^--------
Error. Unrecognized syntax at this point. Illegal use of apostrophe or unintended possessive case invocation.

Usually they get the idea.

 

[tjh]

I understand with absolute certainty the use of the apostrophe in the FORTRAN language.

With English, it's not so absolute.

But most humans do not respond with:

120 RF's Forum
-------^--------
Error. Unrecognized syntax at this point. Illegal use of apostrophe or unintended possessive case invocation.

Usually they get the idea.

As an old FORTRAN programmer, the effect of your advice was to affect how I advise .... oh well, best to drop this topic and discuss something really important, like if the Leica M10 will have a built-in beer tap and, if not, will interchangeable taps be available as an option.

 

[segedi]

What a fun thread!

I've watched this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4c5v-cj2LA
Found it very informative, and it partially explains why Brits can pronounce French words well. It does not explain their horrid pronunciation of Spanish and Italian however. Nor does it go over apostrophes.

And this one seems interesting too:
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/story-of-english/

To be cont'd...