| 1 |
On Monday 13 August 2012 09:03:38 Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> The confusion arises because, when used with a name, an apostrophe is |
| 4 |
> needed for a possessive. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
The confusion arises because the apostrophe has two functions, which |
| 7 |
collide in its/it's. Who can tell /a priori/ which applies in any given |
| 8 |
case? You just have to know. There's no substitute for a decent |
| 9 |
education. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> It is an understandable error... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Indeed, which is why I don't usually rise to any particular bait. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> ...unlike grocers' apostrophe's, which crop up everywhere and are far |
| 16 |
> more grating for me. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Agreed, except that I think you mean greengrocers'. I also find that |
| 19 |
commas seem to be thrown at random into a piece of prose in the apparent |
| 20 |
hope that a few will land where they might do some good. Even Penrose is |
| 21 |
sometimes guilty of that. And don't start me on the egregious Oxford |
| 22 |
comma. Nor on the German insistence on separating the verb from the |
| 23 |
object with a comma, as though the action could proceed without |
| 24 |
something to act on. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Even worse is the developing inability to distinguish between singular |
| 27 |
and plural. Not only that but the growing use of "stuff" shows an |
| 28 |
inability to distinguish even between what can be counted (number) and |
| 29 |
what can't (amount). I could find myself in despair if I weren't careful. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Rgds |
| 33 |
Peter |
Archives