The apostrophe abuse thread

973 posts in this topic

Really? A road bike belonging to more than one lady? If anything I would have guessed that the first one was correct.

 

(I'll admit, however, that it's not my area of expertise; I'm only an enthusiastic amateur. Probably give "ET" a run for "her" money, mind...)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So I guess it is indeed an abuse of the apostrophe through misappropriation of an innocent symbol. But it wasn't me that screwed it up - it is the posters on this forum. I don't use a German keyboard (I refused even the company one and insisted on US English). I copied and pasted it from another post. I also noticed that accent symbol in place of an apostrophe on some signs written in English by the government. I can't remember exactly where I saw this but if I see it again I'll snap a photo.

Ahhh you are right, my apologies. I misunderstood/read your original message.

 

I am sure you will see many signs with the accent instead of the apostrophe. My students are constantly doing it incorrectly. And, as you have said, many here do it. Drives me nuts. Ages ago, I did want to post two blown up pictures of the accent and the apostrophe - but never did.

 

As to keyboard. I think it is what you are used to. I hate having to look for characters when I am at home, because they are placed differently. And, as someone said, the Z and the Y. Grrrr they have had me cursing on many occasions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Surely a lady's bike would suffice?

Yes, it would. (My point was that writing ladies' wasn't wrong.)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm walking past the pikey hangout in town, McDonald's, and there are some new benches outside. My friend asks who they belong to. They belong to McDonald's. They are McDonald's'.

 

Is McDonald's' right? Wouldn't McDonald's's be equally (in)correct?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well more important Freising stepped up in the world with that McDonalds it placed there at their bahnstop. Am I correct in saying that they also extended out onto the sidewalk as well?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I'd call it an improvement personally. They put some seating out on a grassy area. Rather appropriately, the space that McDonald's are using was going to be the new public toilets. Now we still have no toilets (not even in McDonald's) but there's no shortage of shit any more.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is McDonald's' right? Wouldn't McDonald's's be equally (in)correct?

I wouldn't use either. Correct or not, if we can have "McDonald's hamburgers", I reckon we can also have "McDonald's benches".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Hart's Rules doesn't broach this issue, but the Chicago Manual of Style sort of does. Basically they say "Rewording may be advisable to avoid such awkward possessives as 'the Rogerses' address'".

 

But it would be Yahoo!'s chief executive.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wouldn't use either. Correct or not, if we can have "McDonald's hamburgers", I reckon we can also have "McDonald's benches".

"McDonald's hamburgers" is a generic description, as in "I like McDonald's hamburgers", everyone knows what you mean, unlike their benches as there are various kinds (see below). But: "McDonald's'(s) employment policy is to never hire native German speakers" is acceptable as a genitive construction.

 

post-4788-1243539620.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not sure I'd call it an improvement personally. They put some seating out on a grassy area. Rather appropriately, the space that McDonald's are using was going to be the new public toilets. Now we still have no toilets (not even in McDonald's) but there's no shortage of shit any more.

I would not call it an improvment either I was just being a smart ass.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So I'm walking past the pikey hangout in town, McDonald's, and there are some new benches outside. My friend asks who they belong to. They belong to McDonald's. They are McDonald's'.

 

Is McDonald's' right? Wouldn't McDonald's's be equally (in)correct?

Personally I would say McDonalds' but that's just because McDonalds is the plural and the you're now indicating ownership. Also removes the annoying 's's :)

But I bow to any other grammar pedant...

 

However, I really wish you wouldn't start sentences '...So I'm...' as it sounds so like, really, whatever?... :)

Are you Bobbie09 in disguise??? :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a winner:

 

Wouldn't a gay like Hilton wan't to claim it wasn't staged if he wanted to humiliate Eminem for being a 'homophone'?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wouldn't a gay like Hilton wan't to claim it wasn't staged if he wanted to humiliate Eminem for being a 'homophone'?

That "wan't" is indeed a winner, but apart from that, I didn't know Eminem was a homophone. What other word sounds like 'Eminem' but means something different?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'M&M candy, 4 1. Melt in you're mouthn't in you're hand.'

 

as u can c i've be'n practicin' my '''s :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The subtitle of The Mac Worship Thread is worthy of inclusion:

 

Because PC's are, like, totally lame, dudes

 

Erm, because the are belonging to political correctness like totally lame dudes? What are are, and why are are plural? It's political correctness gone mad, I tell you!

 

This message has been brought to you by my fellow aquatic mammal, the sealion...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now