On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 13:13:45 +0100, Whiskers
<catwheezel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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 :))
In the context I used it, I hope it was clear that I used
"abbreviation" literally, meaning "shortening" - the examples being
discussed are all contractions.
If you have "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" (DO try to get it wrong when it
matters!) you might want to check it - it is Lynn Truss who maintains
that an apostrophe was formerly required in the plural of initialisms
such as "m.p.".
--
Ian D
|
