Spelling: English (UK) versus English (US)

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Just think of "his" as a comparison. I'm sure you wouldn't be tempted to write "hi's", would you?

But his is a full word, it isn't "hi's", because that would indicate that it is a possessive form of "hi".

Sorry, memory tricks don't tend to work on me if they use flawed or tricky logic. My brain goes through something, like the previous statement on his, and promptly forgets even when I want to remember.

[DMB]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm astounded. The "greengrocer's apostrophe" is to be seen in almost every high street. Keep your eyes open for it - you'll soon see it.

Greengrocers aren't the only offenders, of course.

See the wikipedia article on apostrophes. The greengrocer's apostrophe is way down the page.

Apostrophes used in a non-standard manner to form noun plurals are known as greengrocers' apostrophes, grocers' apostrophes or sometimes humorously greengrocers apostrophe's, "rogue apostrophes" or "idiot's apostrophes" (a literal translation of the German word Deppenapostroph, which criticises the misapplication of apostrophes in Denglisch). The practice, once common and acceptable (see Historical development), comes from the identical sound of the plural and possessive forms of most English nouns. It is often criticised as a form of hypercorrection coming from a widespread ignorance of the proper use of the apostrophe or of punctuation in general. Lynne Truss, author of Eats, Shoots & Leaves, points out that before the 19th century, it was standard orthography to use the apostrophe to form a plural of a foreign-sounding word that ended in a vowel (e.g., banana's, folio's, logo's, quarto's, pasta's, ouzo's) to clarify pronunciation. Truss says this usage is no longer considered proper in formal writing.

The term is believed to have been coined in the middle of the 20th century by a teacher of languages working in Liverpool, at a time when such mistakes were common in the handwritten signs and advertisements of greengrocers (e.g., Apple's 1/- a pound, Orange's 1/6d a pound). Some have argued that its use in mass communication by employees of well-known companies has led to the less grammatically able assuming it to be correct and adopting the habit themselves.

[mrbanana]

Originally Posted by HarryT

... or the increasingly common "would of, should of, could of, etc", instead of "would HAVE".

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07...headline_fail/


Almost as annoying as the way people use 'what' instead of 'which' for a limited choice, as in:

What one do you want?
What floor do you want?

instead of

Which one do you want?
Which floor do you want?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

But his is a full word, it isn't "hi's", because that would indicate that it is a possessive form of "hi".

But that's precisely the point: possessive pronouns don't have apostrophes. Why do people seem to think that "its" is an exception? It isn't.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But that's precisely the point: possessive pronouns don't have apostrophes. Why do people seem to think that "its" is an exception? It isn't.

People think that you say Fred's when something belongs to Fred, so you say it's when something belongs to it. I can understand why it's confusing.

The other place people often use apostrophes is for things like 2's and 3's, where 2s and 3s somehow looks wrong - as if there's something missing.

[amward]

Originally Posted by HarryT

... or the increasingly common "would of, should of, could of, etc", instead of "would HAVE".

Yes !!!!!AAARRRGGGGHHH! This is about my most hated grammatical mistake and it doesn't even make sense.

Talking about apostrophe "s", all you have to do is think whether the item following the "s" belongs to the word with the "s", if it does then the apostrophe is used. Works for me (although I suppose when you have a possessive pronoun like "his" it doesn't) Gotta love the English language.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by amward

Yes !!!!!AAARRRGGGGHHH! This is about my most hated grammatical mistake and it doesn't even make sense.

There's a certain logic to it in that the reason for it is obviously that people hear the spoken contraction "would've" and mistakenly think that it's "would of", rather than an elided form of "would have", but there's absolutely no excuse for it - it's just ignorance.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Just think of "his" as a comparison. I'm sure you wouldn't be tempted to write "hi's", would you?

Originally Posted by HarryT

But that's precisely the point: possessive pronouns don't have apostrophes. Why do people seem to think that "its" is an exception? It isn't.

Cough. One's friends might think that your rule on possessive pronouns has an exception.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Cough. One's friends might think that your rule on possessive pronouns has an exception.

If it doesn't have an exception, then it's not a proper rule .

[afa]

Originally Posted by mrbanana

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07...headline_fail/

I like the second error...

I've noticed, both in this thread and elsewhere, that a lot of people do seem to have a pet-peeve for the whole "would of" thing. I must say, this is not an error that I have frequently encountered. In fact, with the exception of the above linked article, I can't remember the last time I saw "would of" instead of "would have".

It doesn't seem to be nearly as common as "its/it's" or other misplaced apostrophes. Is it, perhaps, something that is more common in UK?

By the way, can someone confirm the correct way to write the plural form of an abbreviation? I see a lot of people write things like "LCD's" or something similar when they are referring to many instances of that subject. Is my natural inclination (that it should be "LCDs") correct? Or are abbreviated words another exception to the "apostrophe 's' denotes possession" rule?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by afa

By the way, can someone confirm the correct way to write the plural form of an abbreviation? I see a lot of people write things like "LCD's" or something similar when they are referring to many instances of that subject. Is my natural inclination (that it should be "LCDs") correct? Or are abbreviated words another exception to the "apostrophe 's' denotes possession" rule?

According to most style guides, using an apostrophe to form the plural of non-words, initials, and abbreviations, is acceptable. Thus "CD's", "mind your p's and q's", "LCD's", etc, are all fine. But when the abbreviation forms a new word, you don't use an apostrophe, hence "lasers", not "laser's".

[lindsayw]

The Greengrocer's Apostrophe is not just a Brit thing! But add contractions to it and you see (in Australia) Avo's 3/$1 - Yuck! That's avocados, btw. Or should I say "it's avocado's"?
And the Kiwi was correct in that US spelling (and SOME grammar) is more common in Oz than across the pond. I have no complaints about most US spelling, where it makes good sense: ize endings in place of ise, f'rinstance. In many cases US 'vocab' is simply UK vocab retained in its original form, while other English-speaking countries (including the UK) have gradually migrated to different expressions.

[afa]

Originally Posted by HarryT

According to most style guides, using an apostrophe to form the plural of non-words, initials, and abbreviations, is acceptable. Thus "CD's", "mind your p's and q's", "LCD's", etc, are all fine.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the info.

I suppose I should now stop sending hate-filled PMs to posters who do that, then.

But when the abbreviation forms a new word, you don't use an apostrophe, hence "lasers", not "laser's".

So what about LCDs? As in, "That LCD's display is not quite as sharp as those other LCDs."

Or should it be, "That LCD's display is not quite as sharp as those other LCD's"?

[DMB]

In my subbing days I always wrote the plurals without apostrophes: "the 1960s", "CDs", "LCDs". The thing is that it is rarely necessary. If, however, something is entirely in lower-case letters, as with "p's" and "q's", the apostrophe makes it easier to read.

By the way one could argue that an apostrophe is needed after the "s" in your sentence, viz:

"That LCD's display is not quite as sharp as those other LCDs'." since it means "not as sharp as those of the other LCDs"

[DMB]

Originally Posted by afa

I've noticed, both in this thread and elsewhere, that a lot of people do seem to have a pet-peeve for the whole "would of" thing. I must say, this is not an error that I have frequently encountered. In fact, with the exception of the above linked article, I can't remember the last time I saw "would of" instead of "would have".

It doesn't seem to be nearly as common as "its/it's" or other misplaced apostrophes. Is it, perhaps, something that is more common in UK?

I have mostly seen it perpetrated by Americans on the internet.