On 2007-10-19, Ian Dalziel <iandalziel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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!
> :-)
But the apostrophe is not used to indicate an abbreviation; it is used to
indicate a contraction (such as the wi in I'll or the o in didn't) or
possesive (as in my car's wheels) but not a plural (unless you're a grocer
and so benefit from the licence to use apostrophes in that position). If
you wish to indicate an abbreviation, use a full stop [American "period"]
-
but that is not done if the abbreviation is pluralised (again, unless you
are a grocer, of course).
The correct plural of cauli is caulies. Or is it caulis? Perhaps I'll
just have the peas.
See also "Eats Shoots and Leaves" by Lynn Truss - and if you dare, the
newsgroup alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe :))
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
|
