>>
>>You say "Cauli's" is NOT acceptable as a plural for "cauli" but you
don't
>>attempt to explain why.
>>I'm trying to show you that it's the same as the word "photo'" where
>>"photo's" is equal to
>>"photographs".
>>
>
> Tony, I know all about the apostrophe marking an elision. Look at the
> sentence you just wrote. Now tell me why "photo's" is equal to
> "photographs" when "photo" is apparently not equal to "photograph"?
> It is arguable that the apostrophe should be used in these words - it
> would be an archaic and very strange usage, but it's arguable - but if
> it is, it should be used in the singular. It is never acceptable to
> use an apostrophe to form a plural. *
>
> To go back to what I said in the first place - "cauli's" is - just -
> arguably correct as a plural for "cauli' " but NOT for "cauli".
>
> * There is a more respectable exception, which I think is both archaic
> and American - an apostrophe used to be used for plurals of single
> letters and abbreviations. "Mind your p's and q's" and "M.P.'s" are
> not so much wrong as to be avoided.
I didn't say "photo", I said "photo'" - with an apostrophe. That is
exactly
how
I write it if I'm abbreviating. I would do the same with "cauli'" should I
ever abbreviate
the word cauliflower. However, as I said earlier, some words which
strictly
speaking should
use an apostrophe have become so much part of our language without that I
don't
think anyone would argue that it should be in there. Such examples I gave
earlier
included "taxi". In that respect we are in agreement, but my original
argument that the greegocer's
"cauli's" was correct, albeit for the wrong reason possibly, still stands.
TonyB
|
