On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:48:19 +0100, "TonyB" <hatt.j.bennett@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>>
>>>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.
>
Well we seem to be in agreement - if you actually read what I said!
I'll try to rephrase it. It is not incorrect to use an apostrophe in
those abbreviated words - although in my opinion it is now unusual. It
IS wrong to add an apostrophe to form the plural.
That is why my original comment was that cauli's was acceptable as a
plural ONLY if cauli' was used as the singular.
Now, by all means read what I say and disagree with it. If you just
skim over it, tell me I'm wrong and deliver a lecture on a largely
unrelated subject you will find out just how rude I *can* be!
:-)
--
Ian D
|
