Talk:Apostrophe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Other's / Others'

In the sentence: "Consider the others ideas", does the apostrophe come before or after the "s" in "others"? Is the sentence: "Consider the others their ideas", in which case the apostrophe represents the missing word "their" and should therefore be "Consider the others' ideas" the same as in "Magistrates' Court"? Or should it be "Consider the other's ideas"? NinjaKid 10:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It should be "Consider the others' ideas". "...other's ideas" would be correct if there is only one "other". Chris 42 12:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a simiple way to check: reword the sentence as "of the other"/"of the others" - if you would say "of the other", then it's "other's"; if you would say "of the others", then then it "others' ". As Chris 42 has already mentioned, whether it is "other's" or "others' " in the example sentence NinjaKid gives depends on whether there is one "other" or more than one. — Paul G 06:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

how about "there's"

I have always heard the usage of "there's", it may sound a bit informal but is it actually correct to use that? If it is, can "there's" stands for "there was" instead of "there is"? Consider the sentence : "there's once upon a time" Sandakanboy 06:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"There's" is as you say informal, but perfectly acceptable as the contraction of "there is", as in "There's a big difference between apples and oranges". However, it should not be used for "there was". Awien 18:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Usage of "It's"

As this article contains a list of apostrophe-usage examples, it should probably contain a section on the oft-misused "it's". This is a contraction for "it is", not the possessive, contrary to what many people think. --Edlin2 17:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

This is already covered in Basic principles: possessive apostrophe. Chris 42 17:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Other Countries and the Apostrophe

I'm trying to toss up whether a sentence or two should be dedicated to the Wade-Giles use of the apostrophe in Chinese transliteration to represent aspirated sounds. While it makes sense to an extent to have Pinyin alone in there, given it's now the official system, Wade-Giles was still widespread up until very recently and can be seen in many documents. Perhaps it is worth a mention for this reason? --ju'iblex 07:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgotten meaning of the apostrophe

An apostrophe is a figure of speech in which an object, an abstract quality, or an absent or imaginary person is addressed directly, as if present and able to understand. (The Language of Literature: British Literature - McDougal Littell)

See Lord Byron's "Childe Harold's Pilgrimage."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.181.207 (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

(somebody elese's openion) An apostrophe is a little frightened pet, who does three different jobs.

1. To form possessives of nouns 2. To show the ommision (instead of a missing letter) of letters. 3. To Indicate certain plurals of lowercase letters

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.239.236 (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Pluralisation of tokens

I read in Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss that the apostrophe can be used to pluralise tokens (er, the words rather than things - I'm not a linguist, so not sure what the correct way of expressing this is) so that "do's and don't's" is correct. Robin Johnson 11:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, but I have a related question (it may be the same one): is it correct, when reffering to letters in plural, to say A's? For example, is this correct? "The word correct has two R's." Or should it be "Rs"? --Steve

Yes, to help disambiguate the meaning, ‘R's’ is not wrong. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 01:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks wrong to me. I would prefer to say

The sign has two "R"s, one "S", and a few "and"s.

Or perhaps even

The sign has two 'R's, one 'S', and a few 'and's.

But then, I'm more of a computer programmer than an English teacher. --DavidCary 05:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The apostrophe should NEVER be used to make something plural. That’s Lynne Truss’s biggest mistake. And when referring to something specific, such as ‘R’s, ‘S’s, and ‘and’s, one may either use single quotation marks, or italicize the tokens, leaving the ‘s’s (or ss) unitalicized.. For example: “The sign has two ‘R’s, one ‘S’, and a few ‘and’s.” OR “The sign has two Rs, one S, and a few ands.”

76.21.91.222 (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Right single quote as apostrophe

Why is it preferred to use a right single quote when you really want an apostrophe?

This is a good question. The official explanation is that U+2019 is not only a right single quotation mark but also a punctuation apostrophe . But this doesn't really explain why they thought it sensible to use the same codepoint for both.

By the way, where does the terminology non-leaning and right-leaning come from? I can't find any justification for this, and am inclined to remove it. --Zundark 15:49 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A right single quote looks exactly the same as an apostrophe, or something like that. Personally, I think curly apostrophes look funny. Perhaps they'll change it in a unicode revision. The other good reason is that it's hard to differentiate between them. A good argument against apostrophe=quote is that then it's hard to tell where the quote ends (e.g. ‘Brahms’ music’). --Elektron 09:21, 2004 Jun 14 (UTC)

The same code point is used for both apostrophe and right single quotation mark in Unicode because they are the same physical character – that is the same sort was used interchangeably in hard typography. It might at first seem to be useful to distinguish them in coding, just as it might seem to be useful to distinguish between a period indicating the end of an abbreviation from the period indicating the end of a sentence. In fact, if such a distinction were to be recommended, many people would almost certainly still not enter the proper characters, old data would still not make the distinction, search engines would end up having to equate them in any case ... and in the end people looking at the text wouldn't know whether the right or wrong character was used. So why should anyone care?

Because using ’ for apostrophe can be confusing in quotations, especially if you prefer to use single quotes ‘ ’ perhaps? When typing I usually use ' for apostophe and ’ for right quote. My native language uses apostrophes for certain things, so this improves clarity a lot. Same applies to my handwriting as well. I should note however that on my keyboard layout both characters are readily accessible. Since that doesn't apply to a standard US keyboard I doubt such distinction, however practical, will become popular in the US, where people either use ' even for quotes or let Word's ‘smart’ quote feature mess things up. Shinobu 00:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Unicode prescribes such disunification by usage only when there is a major classification difference between the uses, as in explanation point used as a letter in IPA, Khoi and San compared to the same character used as punctuation. In some cases where previous character sets broke up a symbol by meaning (when it would have been better to have remained unified) Unicode encodes one of the characters as a canonical equivalent of the other and reommends one of them alone for all uses. jallan 01:56, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Could the statement "In most cases, the preferred apostrophe character is the punctuation apostrophe" be made more clear, as there seems to be more than one view on the preferred character? A-giau 18:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm told that the 'vertical' apostrophe (') didn't appear until the typewriter was invented, so it could be used for both an opening and closing quote, and the upper half of an exclamation mark. Robin Johnson 11:42, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The proper usage would be the curly one (’). The vertical one (') was invented for typewriters so they could use the same thing for opening and closing quotation marks. RdCrestdBreegull (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is both plausible and important. Can we find a source, and alter the article accordingly? Seeing the two forms given equal weight here made me feel slightly unwell. Grant (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Stoopid question

I wonder, how would you write the plural of "it"... As in mind your it?s. :) Paranoid 22:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Mind your its." If it's not clear from the context, maybe you can use emphasis to indicate the word: "mind your its." —Michael Z. 16:35, 2 March 2005 (UTC)

Spoken use

I really don't think (a) spoken use is a good guide to writing and (b) that making arguments to that effect really helps what should be a fairly concise advice page. So I've trimmed Noetica's addition somewhat, as well as dropping the "for goodness' sake" example, which is not relevant to the point re trailing apostrophes after z, x and ce.

While I'm here, I'll also not that I don't think Noetica's edits to the next point are apropos, in that they add superfluous and possibly wrong information, that place names usually don't take an apostrophe but sometimes do. I think it is clearer and less contentious to say sometimes do/sometimes don't. I haven't changed it because enough negativity is enough...

Also, I should declare my POV -- things like "Marx' theory of history" or "Alvarez' poetry" are an abomination and a crime against the language. I won't say that in the article, however :-) BrendanH 23:35, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Reply concerning spoken use

Brendan, I am assuming that you mean this:

I really don't think (a) that spoken use is a good guide to writing, [n]or (b) that making arguments to that effect really helps what should be a fairly concise advice page.

And not what you wrote:

I really don't think (a) spoken use is a good guide to writing and (b) that making arguments to that effect really helps what should be a fairly concise advice page.

Now, to answer this. I don't say that spoken English is a good guide to written English. I do say that it is one thing how we say possessives, and another thing how we write them down. Didn't my version make that clear? [Clarification, added later: That is, poor practice in spoken English may infect practice in written English; but if spoken English is well regulated to start with, it may help in determining proper forms in written English. In this sense, spoken English is indeed a proper guide to written English, one to which we may have recourse in settling the written form of the possessive. --Noetica 00:40, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)] Your declared point of view ("things like "Marx' theory of history" or "Alvarez' poetry" are an abomination and a crime against the language") is one with which I am in sympathy. When people omit an extra sibilant in such possessives, whether in writing or in speech, my flesh crawls. But we both have to set aside this prejudice! Consider the following representation of speech in which you or I censure a hapless offender:

"Yuck! Why do you say Marx' economics? You should say Marx's economics!"

This is the natural way to represent what had been said, and also the way of "correcting" it. The article is specifically about use of the apostrophe, not everything about forming correct possessive forms. And apart from that decisive consideration, many authorites do at least permit, if not suggest, the usage that we deplore. So we have to allow for it, for NPOV.

You dropped "for goodness' sake" from the examples. That was not helpful, since the example exists and needs to be pointed out. A better move would be to include the ending "-ss" among the exceptional endings, where it quite obviously belongs.

In accord with the evidence given above, I am re-editing the relevant material in the article. If anyone wants to edit what I edit, let them give similarly cogent justification for doing so. --Noetica 09:26, 11 March 2005 (UTC)

Place names

The developing official standard in the UK, the USA, and Australia is to omit the apostrophe in place names. These include street names, names of creeks and other waterways, coastal features, etc.

For street names in the UK, to take one category, go here:

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newsearch.srf?

Specify "street", then look up likely names such as "Davids", "Smiths", with and without an apostrophe. Results for these two:

• Davids (27); David's (3)
• Smiths (90); Smith's (2)

For place names generally in the US, see this excerpt from a valuable modern study of the modern apostrophe published on the web (in which I have marked some salient points in bold):

Place names are also dropping the apostrophe, such as changing Henry’s Fork to Henrys Fork. The United States Board on geographic Names is responsible for such changes. The Board determines how place names appear on federal maps and in other documents, and their policy states:

[a]postrophes suggesting possession or association are not to be used within the body of a proper geographic name (Henrys Fork: not Henry’s Fork) ...Apostrophes may be used within the body of a geographic name to denote a missing letter (Lake O’ the Woods) or when they normally exist in a surname used as part of a geographic name (O’Malley Hollow) (Gasque, 1997, p. 196).

The Board’s reasoning for deleting the possessive apostrophes is that it is not necessary to show possession. Moreover, standardizing place names saves time and money, since editors do not have to look up whether a name has an apostrophe or not (Gasque, 1997, p. 199). Only four U.S. place names have been able to keep their apostrophes officially, either by political pressure (in the case of Martha’s Vineyard), or by proving that the omission caused confusion, such as John E’s Pond instead of John Es Pond, RI and Ike’s Point instead of Ikes Point, NJ, whereby the version without the apostrophe could be misconstrued as another name. Finally, Carlos Elmer’s Joshua View was able to keep the apostrophe instead of becoming Carlos Elmers Joshua View, AZ, because without the apostrophe, the reference to a cliff overlooking Joshua trees could be confused with a name. (Gasque, 1997, p. 198). The overwhelming trend, however, is to reduce the use of apostrophes in place names.

["How the past affects the future: the story of the apostrophe", Christina Cavella and Robin A. Kernodle, 2003, online at: www.american.edu/tesol/wpkernodlecavella.pdf]

There are some place names that retain the apostrophe in Britain, but they are few, and diminishing. Examples are St John's Wood, St Michael's Hill (noted in Fowler's).

Rulings similar to the US one noted above are easy to come by for Australia. For example, here's one from a body responsible for such things in the Australian Capital Territory (ACTPLA: ACT Planning and Land Authority):

Possessive "s"

The possessive form should be avoided whenever possible without destroying the sound of the name or changing its descriptive application, eg Howes Valley should be written without the apostrophe. [www.actpla.act.gov.au/actlic/places/generalinfo]

Given all of this evidence, it is hard to resist the conclusion that, far from it being relevant that "some place names were established before modern orthography was codified", the omission of the apostrophe in place names amounts to a very modern standardisation. I have therefore edited the paragraph in question to reflect this. If anyone wants to edit what I edit, let them give similarly detailed evidence to justify their doing so. --Noetica 08:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't aware of this at all. Thanks for the detailed explanation. I wonder if this material could go right into placename etymology, toponymy, or toponym. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2005-03-11 16:12 Z

This is indeed quite fascinating. I count 4776 place names with apostrophes in the U.S. Geographic Names Information Server database, including several place names with four or more apostrophes, such as "Ts'ts'p'qhwi'lus Spring" (near Coeur D'Aline, Idaho). The GNIS FAQ (http://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/faqs.htm) states that their policy on dropping apostrophes is not applied to certain types of features, such as churches, cemetaries, hospitals, etc. As Noetica points out, it also only applies to apostrophes used to imply possession. The FAQ also states, "Since 1890, only five Board decisions have allowed the genitive apostrophe for natural features", although I actually count 12 cases in the database (not including obvious clerical errors).

The dropping of apostrophes from place names does indeed seem to be a trend. A copy of the GNIS database that I downloaded over 10 years ago has many cities listed with possessive apostrophes (such as "Lee's Summit, Missouri", and "Bailey's Crossroads, Virginia"). In most recent edition of the database, the apostrophes have been dropped from many of these city names, although not all of them. -- RadioTheodric 10:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

For Goodness Sake!

I'm not sure that it's true to say: "It is well to be aware, though, that the following are standard: for convenience' sake; for conscience' sake; for goodness' sake."

I must say that I've never come across these in British usage. Perhaps they are standard in American usage. The third in particular looks odd with an apostrophe. It's one of those composite expressions whose meaning has changed from the sense of the original component words. Another example is "By our Lady", which over the centuries became, with apostrophes, "By'r L'dy" (or something similar) and finally, in British usage, "bloody". In the same way, "For Goodness sake," is an exclamation which no longer really retains its original sense of "For the sake of Goodness", or "For the sake of God". For that reason, the apostrophe looks out of place because it points to a meaning that the phrase no longer really retains, just as putting apostrophes in "bloody" would baffle modern readers.

In the case of the first two, these look like straightforward grammatical errors which arise because the correct versions - "for convenience's sake" and "for conscience's sake" - are relatively difficult to say. Correct punctuation of grammatical errors can often be troublesome!

So I'd suggest that it's not so clear cut that it can be said "...the following are standard..."

I'd propose dropping the whole reference unless anyone feels strongly about it. Specifying how to punctuate what are fundamentally grammatical errors is probably beyond the scope of this entry. Adrian Robson 09:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Definitely not to drop it, since I disagree with you. Those three spellings are correct, and I do write for goodness' sake without thinking twice. Leaving off that apostrophe is an error. Pronouncing the three is not difficult. Just don't pronounce an additional trailing "-es"; that's exactly why they are spelled that way (although convenience's and conscience's are also correct). —Michael Z. 2005-05-17 15:39 Z

The only one of those I could even in principle agree with would be the third one. I can't recall any situation where I've ever seen convenience' or conscience', nor any style guide — noteworthy or otherwise — that purports to make those spellings 'standard'. At the very least, calling them standard is POV, and 'It is well to be aware' definitely so. (I would however note my disagreement with that etymology of 'bloody'; I'm firmly in the fake etymology camp with respect to that one.) -- Perey 19:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• I am British. Does anyone (USA?) actually say either "for convenience' sake" or "for conscience' sake"? I have only ever heard "for convenience's sake" or "for conscience's sake"? Hence I re-raise the question of "standard" for these phrases. -- SGBailey 12:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, SGBailey, "for convenience' sake" and similar forms are common enough to amount to a standard in British usage. As I understand it, they are also very common in American. It is easy to miss these pronunciations in rapid speech, and to imagine that there is an extra sibilant where none is actually said. Listen again!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

While I'm willing to accept "for convenience' sake" given a good ref, the ref did not appear to support "for convenience sake" - I've moved this part of the paragraph after the ref, and added a fact tag. This appears to be simply incorrect usage, and I can't find any style guide suggesting it as a possibility... other than the title of this talk section. --DewiMorgan 14:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Change page to use Punctuation apostrophe?

Since this page is about a typographical mark I propose we change it to actually use that mark (instead of the typewriter apostrophe), just like on Quotation mark. However, wikiquette and common sense (and WP:MOS for that matter) suggest that I shouldn't change a pretty consistent usage on this page just to force my own typographical whims on the other editors. Typography is good, but consistency and collaborative editing may trump it! So please speak up if you object. Arbor 09:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm on your side. Why shouldn't typography articles start to become good examples of typography? —Michael Z. 2005-08-8 16:16 Z

... especially since the page itself says “In most cases, the preferred apostrophe character is the punctuation apostrophe (distinguished as typographic, or curly apostrophe)”. Arbor 08:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. Are you proposing that every instance of an apostrophe in the article be changed to a Unicode apostrophe? I think it's a horribly bad idea. The article should remain easily edited by the average person. Now, if you only mean the apostrophe in parens at the top of the article, then yes, in fact, both should be shown. --Dhartung | Talk 05:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you do get it, but you have your terminology mixed up. So, just to make sure: No, I don't want to change to the "Unicode apostrophe"—if you mean the Unicode character APOSTROPHE U+0027, also ASCII 39. Instead I want the page to heed it's own advice, which is to change consistently to use typographer's apostrophes—Unicode character RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK U+2019. I don't see how this makes the article any harder to edit; the worst that can happen is that an editor inserts a few straight quotes, which I am sure will be diligently curlied by typographically anal people like myself. The vast majority will never even notice any change. Arbor 16:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but it isn't about the typographical mark -- it's about the part that mark plays in the language. Be clear that I see your point, I simply don't think it's worth the bother and extra edits and confusion and inconsistency. --Dhartung | Talk 19:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbor writes, and I quote:

"Instead I want the page to heed it's own advice"

Are you just testing us to see if we pick up on that, or is it time for you to be embarrassed? :) Eurosong 19:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hehe. But actually, even an apostrophe-Nazi like me doesn't normally use the proper sign on talk pages. I want the articles to look professionally, not impede my typing speed! Arbor 21:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Later: Argh! Now I get it. Ok, that was embarrassing. :) Arbor 21:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I love unicode, but I[]m strongly against using it here, as it[]s possible it[]ll display wrongly for people who[]ve got unicode-incapable browsers, or who[]re reading a filtered version. For example, Unicode[]s massacred by WAP gateways, so mobile devices won[]t show them. Wouldn[]t be a huge issue for other characters, but as the character[]s the focus of the article, it[]s just polite to be compatible. I think the existing explanatory text, "The apostrophe ( [] or ' )" should be sufficient for everyone. (I[]d use the unicode for "unknown character box" here if I knew it, but I[]m sure you[]ve got the point anyway). --DewiMorgan 14:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Irish surnames

Should Irish surnames like O’Brien use this mark then too? --84.146.129.26 14:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. --Dhartung | Talk 05:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Childrens'?

Is there the word childrens' a real word? I didn't think so, so I fixed the rule that was supposedly devalidated by "childrens'," but it was changed back.

No, ‘childrens'’ is not a word. However, the example is there because it's showing why ‘childrens'’ is wrong. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 02:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. The problem was that it seemed to be some ignorant person throwing in an example that supposedly disproved the rule. I'll clarify it. EDIT: Ok, I think I made it better. I actually modified the whole "tip" section. Check over it to make sure it's still correct.

Seems okay to me! —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 03:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

No schoolbook supports apostrophe for plurals

That's just apostrophe abuse. Apostrophes are for two things only; contractions and possessives, end of story. User:GreatAlfredini Mon 09/12/05 08:25 PM Pacific Time

Let me introduce you to my friends prescription and description. Although a grammar textbook can be as prescriptivist as it likes -- "this is right, and that is wrong" -- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. At the very least we should be labeling things as "correct" or "incorrect" based on a citation. It isn't our job to teach people how to use language properly. This is not permissiveness, it is describing the world as it is. Now to your example. Apostrophes in certain plurals is supported by a variety of sources [1] [2] [3] [4] (three .edu links, and that last is the Oxford English Dictionary!) although they do not all agree exactly on what exceptions are allowed. They do all agree that "mind your p's and q's" is an allowed usage, so you have engaged in a hypercorrection. Less consensus out there on acronyms and years. There's also in one link an endorsement of plurals of a word, e.g. "this sentence has two or three of's, depending on how you count the last one". --Dhartung | Talk 09:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that apostrophes should NEVER be used for plurals. Aaadddaaammm 23:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Apostrophe’s should NEVER be used for plural’s. (But seriously... they should NEVER be used for plurals.)

RdCrestdBreegull (talk) 05:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Converse of the greengrocer's apostrophe

When I worked as a copy editor, I observed that Associated Press style contains an absurd rule in which certain plural possessive phrases are categorized as "descriptive phrases," and the rule is to leave the apostrophe out -- for example, "writers guide," "citizens band radio," "girls basketball." The absurdity of the rule becomes obvious when you substitute a plural noun that doesn't end in s, such as "women" ("women basketball") -- and, in fact, AP style unself-consciously declares that these words constitute an exception to the rule, with which the apostrophe is supposed to be used! To me, the fact that "women's basketball," as opposed to "women basketball" or "womens basketball," is clearly the correct form indicates that the apostrophe is necessary in these so-called descriptive phrases, and the AP has simply concocted a rule to cover for a widespread misusage. With a nod to the greengrocer's apostrophe, I call this misusage the "unionists genitive," because labor unions are among the most stubborn adherents to this practice (e.g., "Teamsters Union").

Is this practice of omitting necessary apostrophes worth mentioning in the article alongside the greengrocer's apostrophe? --Mr. A. 19:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's an interesting 'use' of the apostrophe which I hadn't heard of before, so if you can find an external source for it, it's probably worth mentioning, maybe with some non-inflammatory disclaimer like "most grammarians believe this is incorrect." Robin Johnson 10:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

That disclaimer is inflamatory. Perhaps something like "most style guides do not include this suggestion, or recommend the apostrophe's inclusion", if that is indeed true. The edition of Ausinfo (the Australian Government Printing Service)'s Style Guide for Authors, Editors and Printers that I've read suggests that one should leave out apostrophes if rather than denoting possession, the -s indicated a more adjectival relationship. The example supplied that I can remember (I don't have access to the book at the moment) was "girls high school". This lack of an apostrophe certainly appears to be common, more-so than one would expect of an "error".

The absence of an apostrophe a proper nouns is common and a separate phenomenon; I think your "unionists genitive" is therefore a poor choice of name.

—Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 15:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough -- it's a tongue-in-cheek name anyway (as you can tell from the intentionally omitted apostrophe). Even so, I can't help but think that the glaring wrongness of a phrase such as "women basketball," next to the natural rightness of "women's basketball," is an unambiguous indication that, adjectival use aside, these so-called descriptive phrases are still possessives and should be punctuated accordingly. That being said, I think there are cases where plural nouns -- usually proper names -- can be used adjectivally, such as "Cubs outfielder" (an outfielder associated with the Chicago Cubs -- if the team were called the Minutemen, "Minutemen outfielder" wouldn't sound unnatural at all), but this practice is incorrectly extended to a plethora of inappropriate cases. --Mr. A. 20:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly the aural analogy with the genitive helps to support the use of girls as an adjective, where women would not be one; but even women can be an adjective, as in women riveters. It may also help that women's basketball is distinguishable from woman's basketball. This is differentiation in action! Septentrionalis 17:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum to this discussion, the UK supermarket giant Tesco (whose in-store signage is of a corporate, universal design) is particularly guilty of this trangression. It has aisles that are labelled "Mens magazines", "Womens magazines", "Childrens books", "Kids clothing", "Womens shoes", etc. It reinforces my argument that once the less grammatically able reach a high enough position in a company, anything goes — and nobody will challenge them over it. Chris 42 22:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The apostrophe in Italian

I'm surprised that you don't mention the use of the apostrophe as a substitute for the grave accent, in Italian. It seems very widespread!

Done.--Error (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Possessive puzzle

Forgive me, I've just dropped in here from the Porcelain page and I have a question. Is it the potter's wheel or the potters' wheel? The Century Dictionary gives the latter, but I think the potters will hang me out to dry if I start using this form.--Nick 10:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Oxford Dictionary says potter's wheel. Makes sense: a wheel used by a potter. —Michael Z. 2006-02-1 22:45 Z

New page.

For better or for worse, I have created List of crimes against the apostrophe. Just thought you might like to know. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Page move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Move request

Talk:Apostrophe (mark) — Apostrophe (mark) → Apostrophe – Apostrophe used to be the diambig page. I've moved it out of the way, but I can't finish the move because the redirect page is in the way. Thanks, Ben Aveling 22:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support Primary over the rhetorical appostrophe. Septentrionalis 18:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- H005 18:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support Sounds good. QuartierLatin1968 19:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support in a fit of irony. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 02:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Timrollpickering 02:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Struggling to maintain standards

Well, clearly this is one of those articles in which everyone is an expert. I have just removed the following text, put in place by an anonymous editor:

Nevertheless, although this practice has become common, style guides and grammar books still hold that it is incorrect. The appropriate form would be "Jesus's" rather than "Jesus'".

This is simply wrong, or at least it is unjustified. A quick look at some named authorities shows that "Jesus' " is quite standard and quite acceptable. I checked these, which are just the ones I had ready to hand (and please excuse the short-form referencing):

A manual of style, prepared by the US Government Printing Office (Gramercy)

The complete plain words, Gowers, 3rd edition, ed. Greenbaum and Whitcut (Penguin)

The Penguin working words, ed. Hughes (Viking)

AGPS Style Manual (AGPS)

The new Fowler's modern English usage, 3rd edition, ed. Burchfield (Oxford)

Right words, Murray Smith, expanded and revised edition (Penguin)

Webster's dictionary of English usage (Merriam-Webster)

All seven of these permitted "Jesus' "; none recommended any other usage for that name.

Please be restrained in your editing, and be prepared to back up your changes with something better than appeals to authority that simply don't hold water.

This article does not get any better! It is simply a continuing locus of contention. I really don't think such an article can succeed, in the end. Noetica 01:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Non-noun apostrophes

Do you put an apostrophe after a plural in possesives where the possessed is NOT a noun? For instance;

• drinks production
• drinks consumption
• drinks interests
• drinks growth
• sweeteners content
• flavours range

My instinct is for an apostrophe after the 's', as all these in context are plurals - but something looks wrong. A note somewhere on the page about it would be handy, as the question is not directly addressed in all the grammar pages I have looked at on the web FreeMorpheme 09:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, not a noun? That's not right, Freemorpheme. In every example you give, each of the elements is naturally to be taken as a noun. The question itself needs rectifying. Let me see if I can make some progress with this, using the example of sweeteners content. Do you intend this to mean the same as sweetener content, as in The sweetener content of this drink is too high? If so, this is the proper way to put it. We simply don't say The sweeteners content of this drink is too high, even if the drink has more than one type of sweetener in it. Please explain!

O, and since you take an interest in punctuation, I'm confident that you won't mind if I correct your semicolon to a colon, like this:

For instance:

• drinks production
• drinks consumption

...

Noetica 11:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, all of the examples are actual plurals in their own context, as in 'more than one type of sweetener in a broad range of products'. Or a sentence such as 'this condition impacted soft drinks consumption'. (You may have guessed I'm editing beverage research.) Consensus in the office is to omit apostrophes in all these cases, but I'm not thrilled with it. And they won't let me change it to 'soft drink production', you think that's what's throwing me? FreeMorpheme 11:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

FreeMorpheme, I'm not sure that I understand to what you are saying "No", in No, all of the examples are actual plurals in their own context,.... What are you contradicting in what I have said? Sure, the nouns in question may be plurals, but they are strangely used! We do sometimes say things like this:

• Iran seems to have a worrying nuclear-weapons agenda.

But these are special cases. In no such special case would the plural modifier take an apostrophe, because it is simply not a possessive! Here nuclear-weapons is the plural modifier – technically a premodifier, or modifier used attributively before the noun that is modified (agenda) – in which I have included the hyphen that is characteristic of such modifiers in such a position. Anyway, if you want to continue this, perhaps we could carry on the discussion at my place. Noetica 10:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

my two cents

"As of 2005, only five place names in the U.S. are officially spelled with an apostrophe (one example being Martha's Vineyard)." -- If there are only five, why not just list them?

"The English possessive of French names ending is a silent s is rendered differently by different authorities." -- The same applies to American place names of French origin, such as Illinois and Des Moines, and might make a more common example. BlongerBros 22:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the short list of place names: I agree, Blonger. They are listed in the above discussion, in material that I have cited. Why not look them up and put them in the article? But good luck to you, if you think any useful innovation will remain! This article, as I have suggested above, just churns around without ever tending towards stability or high quality. Too many "experts". Myself, I think it's just that kind of article, and I think nothing can be done about it. As for your point about Illinois, etc., that's good. But I do think these cases could be treated in the article as distinct from the other French examples. I imagine there would be "local" US rulings that would determine usage for them, and that the advice should be to follow those rulings, as with the non-apostrophised forms of names we have just discussed. I am not in, or of, the US; if you are, perhaps it would be appropriate for you to research this further. Noetica 22:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Other languages

I have deleted the following from the entry:

• Some Portuguese surnames carrying connection determinants, like Vitorino de Almeida (Vitorino of Almeida) elide the connection particle with the name, thus reading Vitorino d'Almeida. This happens in some names, but not in others, and it may occur or not (like in Francisco de Albuquerque).
• In many European languages, the apostrophe is used to indicate omitted characters, often in a contraction. For example, in the Portuguese language or Spanish language it is used when de (of) can elide with the following word, like galinha d'Angola (literally, Angola's chicken), some poetical constructions, like minh'alma, contraction of "minha alma" (my soul) or when associated with proper names carrying the determinants, as in um verso d' "Os Lusíadas" (a verse in "Os Lusíadas"). In Spanish language it is used (mostly to depict low culture manners) when a consonant or vowel is not pronounced, e.g. Pa' (para, for), pa'l (para el, for the), to' (todo, all), to'l (todo el, all the), comi'o (comido, ate), vamo'a (vamos a, let's go to), etc.

The apostrophe is not used very often in Portuguese or Spanish. It's much more common in French or Italian. FilipeS 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Greengrocers' apostrophes

In the mid 20th century the greengrocer's sign would probably have been written in white (paint or soap) on the inside of the window, and would be most unlikely to read “Apple's and orange's for sale, 50% off”. A much more common sign was “Apple's 1'- a pound, orange's 1'6d a pound.” which has the advantage of showing the standard use of the apostrophe for shillings, while d of course stood for pence, Any objections? ..dave souza, talk 12:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the apostrophe being used for shillings? Shillings are before my time, but in all the old books and photos I've seen it's an oblique stroke: apple's 1/-, orange's 1/6d. Robin Johnson 13:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

From memory both were common, will have a look for a source. ...dave souza, talk 13:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Make Room! Make Room!.jpg - Book price 4'6, cover Illustration by Alan Aldridge.
The oblique stroke does seem to be commonest in print, but several books in my possession show a shorter triangle of various proportions, rather like the apostrophe in the font used by my browser for Wikipedia. This example priced at 4'6 is one I had in mind for illustrating an article about the book in question, so have uploaded it as fair use. A much stubbier triangle is used on an Ian Allan guide, but no reason comes to mind to upload that. From memory the signs in greengrocers' windows were likely to use variations on the apostrophe rather than the full length stroke, and were often hand done in a rather decorative fairground sort of style. ..dave souza, talk 16:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's something I never knew. Thanks! Robin Johnson 19:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. It's as much a half stroke as a sans serif apostrophe, will aim to clarify in the shilling article..dave souza, talk 23:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Not ideal, but signs in this photo at the window front left show prices of 1'- and 1'2. ...dave souza, talk 09:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on my memory pre-1971, handwritten signs tended to use a little, filled in triangle (most easily described as a superscript filled in lower case, sans serif letter v). I believe most published books used oblique strokes - eg 1/- and 1/2, probably (as here) with a small font for the pennies (which may or may not have been superscript). The photo above of the Glasgow general store's handwritten signs illustrates the general principle. The book cover Make Room! Make Room! does nothing so much as confirm that it isn't a regular apostrophe. In my view a normal apostrophe doesn't cut the mustard. Anyone know how to obtain an oblique half stroke (longer than a sans serif apostrophe, shorter than an oblique stroke), possible thicker at the top? 195.217.52.130 22:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

On the issue of why they were called greengrocers' apostrophes: surely this was because their (mis)use was notably common in this trade, not because greengrocers were notably more ignorant of English grammar than other traders? Prior to the widespread availability of PCs in very recent years shopkeepers (and don't forget Napoleon referred to us as a nation of shopkeepers) had to write their signs on card to advertise their wares. Only the very largest chains (such as Sainsbury's) would have had access to print technology for price signs - it would cost a fortune to type-set and print a label for items that, by their very nature, were seasonal (such as apples and oranges - yes, greengrocer items - or pork - don't forget, until more-or-less universal refrigeration in the 1960s and 70s no-one ever ate pork in a month without an "r" in it! - or lamb, or winter coats, or Easter bonnets, or sunhats, or ... - definitely not greengrocer items) or imported and hence subject to a certain amount of price fluctuation (rice, tea, coffee - again, not greengrocer items). The article erroneously implies that other traders either didn't use handwritten signs (which, as has been noted, were often brightly coloured to attract trade) or were grammatically correct in every detail. I don't think so. To continue to say that only in recent years have market traders, other than greengrocers, caught the greengrocers' habit of misusing the humble apostrophe - well, really! Yes, misspelt words and misused apostrophes are common in any open air market today, but the article implies that this is a recent development; I firmly believe that market traders as a whole (with exceptions, of course) have never been able to spell or use apostrophes - but then would you, from choice, get up at 6.00am on a cold January morning to set up a market stall to scrape a meagre living when you could work in an air-conditioned office taking home four or five times as much pay purely because you'd been able to stay at school a few years longer and receive a better education? And it's not just market traders: ask your average shop assistant (or office worker come to that!) to punctuate a sentence properly or check the spelling of a document without using a word processor and have your eyes opened. Has the average literacy level materially increased or decreased in recent years? If, as we like to fool ourselves it has, then what does that say about the situation in years gone by? Is this section of the apostrophe NPOV? Or wholly accurate? Some more justification required, methinks. 195.217.52.130 22:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The grammar book I read said they were greengrocer's apostrophes, with the apostrophe before the s. While this would, to me, appear to make more sense, is it commonly accepted to be "greengrocers'?" (Well, is it correct to say "greengrocers'," not if it's commonly used or not.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.89.204 (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

two possessive sections

This page has two separate sections on possessive apostrophes. Does someone want to merge them or at least make it clear what the difference between the two is? --Dtcdthingy 21:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've rationalised the two sections I think you refer to. You were right: general comments (which correctly belong in the "Basic principles" section) had crept into the section dealing specifically with words (plural and singular) ending in s. Note that the Univ of Delaware's Writing Center is quoted in this latter section, and should therefore not be edited to reflect particular contributors' personal preferences. Soneone may care to consider the order of the different subsections of section 1 in the article. 195.217.52.130 15:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Major edit bt NorthOnTop

Sorry to paste over the previous (conflicting) edit, but I had done a very big change and it was impossible to work my stuff into the other person's stuff. I will go back to the edit history, and see if I can get thei edit and put it back... NorthOnTop 21:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a bad edit. There was nothing wrong with the previous one. And as for the "Disco's" example. How would you confuse it with the Greek island? For one thing, the latter has a capital 'D', and if it occurred at the beginning of the sentence, the context would make it clear. Sorry, I'm reverting. Chris 42 22:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Whistlers photographer

I'm hoping to clarify the use of a superscript s with an underline to be used in the example 'Whistlers Photographer' meaning a photographer who has photographed many of the paintings created by James Abbot McNeil Whistler. I have seen this used in signage but would like some reassurance.

The use of a superscript 's' may be artistic, but it is ungrammatical. It should say "Whistler's Photographer". Chris 42 19:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Morse code

Since Braille is represented in the article, I thought it would be worthwhile to mention that an apostrophe in Morse code is represented as ·----· (or, if you prefer, dit-dah-dah-dah-dah-dit). I didn't add this to the article directly, because Morse code really isn't another language (it's an encoding used by any number of languages), so the "Other languages" section didn't feel right. Nor did the "Computer & Unicde" section. Oh well. The trivia is here now, if someone wants to wedge it in. --Ds13 18:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I could see adding a section to the articles about particular characters giving their encodings in various non-computer communication methods, including Morse code, Braille, semaphore flags, and so on. *Dan T.* 22:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Teaching the possessive apostrophe

I am uneasy about this section in an encyclopedic article. If the paragraph in question sought to trace the history of how this element of grammar has been taught, it might have justification, but can what someone believes to be a useful pedagogical technique be verifiable and encyclopedic? Kevin McE 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't really a teaching technique. If you think about it, it's really the simplest and most useful formulation of the basic principle. Maybe the whole article should be rewritten on that basis? Awien 21:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Be that as it may, you headed a section as being about the teaching of the principle, and not the principle per se, which IMHO is a different matter. I cannot consider phrases like "a more fruitful approach to teaching the basics is..." or "This avoids all the problems" to be verifiable encyclopedic language. The de facto status of a grammatical entity is not determined by a common misuse, and an encyclopedia should not record that it has. Kevin McE 21:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Touchée! Caught in the act of trying to get the one really useful rule out there without re-writing the whole article, which I just don't have time for now. Awien 00:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Plural abbreviations

"For the plural of abbreviations, an apostrophe is widely regarded as incorrect, so CDs is preferable to CD’s." -- Any citations for that? I was taught quite the opposite and un-apostrophed plural abbreviations annoy me. I'm now curious. —Buddy13 15:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I totally consur. To include the apostrophe in an abbreviation plural is per the definition of the apostrophe (omitted characters). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Hodgson (talk • contribs) 06:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What charactor is omitted? Then should it be C'D's? Or C''''''D'''s for Compact Disks? A plural is never formed with an apostrophe. Compact disk -> CD; Compact disks -> CDs. It doesn't matter if it is an abbreviation, to make something plural yu add an s. Reywas92^Talk 15:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ask Oxford states that CDs is the usual plural, although it gives other examples where both versions are accepted. Personally, I would never add an apostrophe to a plural abbreviation as I was taught that they should be avoided at all costs, unless referring to lower case letters, as in "Mind your p's and q's." Again, Ask Oxford states that the apostrophes are unnecessary if written in capitals ("Ps and Qs"), which to my mind is the preferable way of writing it anyway. Chris 42 16:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's more a matter of style than absolute correctness. It used to be that any abbreviation or number would have an apostrophe added for a plural (and lots of other punctuation was used for abbreviations, for example, doctors were M.D.'s, now they are probably MDs). Nowadays, it's usual to use punctuation only to avoid confusion (although I think I would still use them with single capital letters: P's and Q's). —Michael Z. 2006-10-25 16:23 Z

Maybe with single letters. You are correct that the periods are depreciated and the plural of MD is MDs, but the plural of M.D. would be M.Ds. Reywas92^Talk 15:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"M.Ds."? On what authority, Reywas? I have never seen such a construction advocated in any style guide. The extremely detailed Gregg Reference Manual would make it "M.D.s" (if full stops are to be used), as I seem to recall. I haven't got my copy to hand, but I can check it in a couple of days. By the way, "deprecated" is the standard expression, in such contexts as this.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Can't find a source yet (M Ds is hard to Google). Well both that and M.D.s are correct. It's harder since that's a Latin abbreviation (Medicae Doctor), but my opinion is that you plural and then abbreviate, not the other way around. So you would go Compact Disk -> Compact Disks -> C.Ds. rather than Compact Disk -> C.D. -> C.D.s (for the now-deprecated usage). Partly, as you go over below, because having an s after a period looks bad to me. Thanks for the correction; I will try to remember that word in the future. Reywas92^Talk 23:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that you can find a respected source for "M.Ds." anywhere, Reywas. If you did, its "authority" would be hugely outweighed by other sources. And let us remind ourselves: it is not a matter of "correctness", but of convention. For various reasons I favour the British convention that omits full stops from most abbreviations. We see that no problem arises with "MDs", for example. The best conventions are the most stable and the most rationally founded. Note also: MD abbreviates medicinae doctor, "doctor of medicine". Accuracy! (You are young, but you will learn.) :)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like seeing them in such circumstances. I don't see the reason for making abbreviations work differently from ordinary words, especially when they are in capitals. Hence "P's and Q's" looks very wrong to me (so, to me, does "p's and q's", but much less so, because "ps and qs" just looks strange). If I see an apostrophe that isn't an obvious contraction I immediately think "possessive", so if it's being used in another sense it throws me off my balance when reading. Also, if you're going to use them in CDs, what would the possessive be? "The CD' 's tracks"? Riedquat 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Style guides wrestle with these matters in various ways. Some advocate use of italics: "ps and qs"; some go for conversion to capitals where such a move is harmless: "Ps and Qs"; and yes, some suggest an apostrophe: "p's and q's". Some do allow simply "ps and qs", since although these might "look strange" to some readers, why should we expect that rational solutions will never look strange, where every option is a compromise in any case?

Few these days would call for "CD's" as a non-possessive plural, and indeed there would be a problem forming a possessive from that. Certainly it would not be "The CD' 's tracks"; very likely "The CDs' tracks". But if that is acceptable, why not simply "CDs" for the non-possessive plural? Such considerations lend strong support to the dominant modern opinion: apostrophes are not used in non-possessive plurals, except perhaps in the rare cases where they appear essential for clarity and to avoid ambiguity.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It is utterly incorrect to suggest, as this article does, that plurals may be formed with apostrophes. This is an area where "some writer" (as the article states, without sources) who do this are completely wrong in their practice. 219.90.150.41 (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, the practice exists and is recommended by the Oxford English Dictionary in "very special cases". The sources are quoted within the text and I have reverted. Chris 42 (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Apostrophes are not used in plurals and it has never been correct to use them. The sources for this are actual manuals of English grammar. Normally I defend Wikipedia from people who dismiss it as being uselessly inaccurate, but this article's claim that it is sometimes correct to use apostrophes in plurals is just wrong and should be removed.Halfabeet (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Dutch speakers using English

An article about clear and proper use of the language needs to exhibit that. Could somebody who understands the rules of Dutch language and can use English as a native speaker please clarify this sentence from the Greengrocers' Apostrophe section: "In Dutch, this usage is proper and may sometimes be seen stuck to some Dutch English speakers". Thanks Kevin McE 09:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Senator Jones’s umbrella: NPOV

One section of the article reads:

Prominent sources require that almost all singular nouns, including those ending in an s, a z, or an x, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe. Examples include the Modern Language Association, The Elements of Style, The Economist, and Purdue University’s Online Writing Lab. Such sources would demand possessive plurals like these: Senator Jones’s umbrella; Mephistopheles’s cat.

I haven't checked those sources, and am quite willing to believe that they call for the spelling Jones's (which, as it happens, is also the spelling I prefer myself). But NPOV requires the fact that Jones' is also widely used and accepted to be mentioned -- indeed, many people were taught in school that it's the only correct spelling. So it should be easy to find sources calling for it, and cite them as well. (First place I'd look, if I had one at hand, would be a newspaper or wire-service stylebook -- newspapers tend to prefer shorter spellings.) I also find the words "prominent" and "demand" inappropriate in tone.

207.176.159.90 04:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, anonymous editor. I have looked over the section, and fixed some things that were plain wrong (like "plural" where "singular" was clearly intended). I have changed the wording so that the sources are not said to be prominent sources, but simply some respected sources (which they are, undeniably). I see nothing at all wrong with the use of demand that you advert to: they do demand, don't they? I have, as a consequence, felt at liberty to remove the rather drastic neutrality-dispute marker that you applied. If you still feel that neutrality is compromised, I suggest you adduce other respected sources that support other views of the matter (without cluttering things too much, yes?) – Noetica 09:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

1900's or 1900s

Is it 1900's or 1900s, 1920's or 1920s etc.? I had a long fight with my mother about this question. When you answer it, can you please prove it? 71.28.212.21 02:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You can't « prove » any such thing, as there is no recognised body you can appeal to. My personal ruling is that the apostrophe is for the possessive, hence you should definitely write "the 1920s".

Urhixidur 03:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that it is a plural of the years, there should definitely be no apostrophe. Reywas92^Talk 00:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed: no apostrophe required. (Even though it is a common Americanism — see this part of the article.) Chris 42 11:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree too, although some time ago I read somewhere a very convoluted analysis positing that the apostrophe is correct in this case because it is in fact a quasi elision... no, I didn't get it either.--ukexpat 21:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with "the 1920s" without the apostrophe, and can see no reason for having an apostrophe. It doesn't make things any clearer, so if permitted would seem to be an utterly arbitrary exception, although there are plenty of those in English. I also can't stand seeing apostrophes used with abbreviations and acronyms, like "CD's". Of course, there are exceptions, such as when the date is possessive. I think "The 1950's generation" would be right. In a similar vein, I disagree with the article's assertion that "KO'd" is acceptable, and I don't find "KOed" particularly awkard or unnatural. Ditto for "Mind your ps and qs". What it amounts to is that normally an apostrophe is indicating a posessive or a contraction, and when it gets used for other purposes (and I'm not counting the obviously wrong greengrocers) it stands out. Reading is normally an almost sub-concious activity, and I find that these extra apostrophes jar that. Riedquat 22:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the context. You would say “The 1970s (noun) were marvelous.” if you were referring to the years 1970-1979. You would say “1970’s (possessive) best actor was _____.” if you were referring to the year 1970. You would say “The 1970s’ (possessive) best actors were _____ and _____.” if you were referring to the years 1970-1979.

RdCrestdBreegull (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think these examples are the wrong way round. The year 1970 is singular so should therefore have 's added to denote possession. 1970s is plural and should have the apostrophe after the s in a possessive context. Dainamo (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Apostrophe in Article Names

This is about which, not whether. Did you know that you have to use the typewriter straight up apostrophe in the page name, because if you don't, it won't link? I couldn't find out why somebody's article wouldn't link, didn't notice the curly bit, spent ages looking for help, in vain. JohnClarknew 04:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the IT team at Wikipedia could address this... ~K

I ran into something like that with a "ü" character in a name in an article title; the url is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_K%C3%BCpfm%C3%BCller, but it wouldn't link at all when I had a different version of the "ü" in there somehow. URLs can only contain certain ASCII characters, and the straight aprostophe or single-quote is in that set; if you use the curly one, it has to get translated via some appropriate character set extension, and maybe it's not even in that extension. I'm not sure how to bring it to the IT guys' attention, but discussing it on this page is unlikely to do so. Dicklyon 03:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Brand Names

How about possessive apostrophes for brands, especially plural type names? Are the following correct?

Nike's shoes

Sun Microsystems' products

Anyone???

Dear anonymous, yes. Those two possessive constructions are certainly correct. The following non-possessive constructions would also be correct:

Nike shoes

Sun Microsystems products

For completeness, I should add that the following forms would be incorrect:

Nikes' shoes

Sun Microsystem's products

I hope that helps. – Noetica 04:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for typographic apostrophe (U+2019) on Latin keyboards in linux/x.org keymaps

There is a request at https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9480 to add the typographic apostrophe (U+2019) to Latin keyboard layouts. Please add your suggestion or comments there.--Hhielscher 20:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The section Teaching the possessive apostrophe

Thanks to the editor who removed that section. I just want to put on record that I think it doesn't belong here. Perhaps there should be a separate article on the pedagogy of punctuation, which is an important but separate topic from the present one. I think this article is in pretty good condition, now. I have not seen a more thorough or more careful treatment of the apostrophe on the web. Let's keep it focused, though. – Noetica 22:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

typographic, curly apostrophe

An apostrophe is entered by holding alt while typing 8217 on the numeric keypad (at the right side of a standard keyboard).

This produces ↓ on my XP in Firefox, OpenOffice, and Word.

This is a good question. The official explanation is that U+2019 is not only a right single quotation mark but also a punctuation apostrophe .

Alt+2019 produces π. --Espoo 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Statements concerning time

I regularly see mistakes concerning time. Two such examples are:

"last weeks exam" should be "last week's exam"

"two weeks time" should be "two weeks' time"

Maybe this could be factored into the main article?--Ukbenny

Added to which, the very common confusion between three months' notice (which should have an apostrophe) and three months pregnant (which should not). 213.249.135.36 23:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In a similar vein the movie should have been called Two Weeks' Notice

--ukexpat 21:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Plural of lower case letters

Regarding the recent edit war on the above, if the Oxford English Dictionary's website says it's acceptable, then that's good enough for me. Chris 42 22:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Forming plurals of lower-case letters is always going to be problematic. Why should we think there can be any generally satisfactory way to do it? Our conventions for organising the written language did not evolve in response to such narrow and specific pressures. Conventions for punctuation, as a subsystem that serves to organise written language, evolved to accommodate the most urgent and common needs. Generally they succeed well enough, though there will always be competing solutions – or "coexistent species", to continue the evolutionary analogy.

Take my own case. No one will convince me that the em dash is a better solution than the spaced en dash in sentence punctuation, or that the serial comma is to be avoided except when strictly needed for disambiguation, or that we should write James' even if James's is what we say, or that any comma following an italicised word must be italicised.

The last example is instructive. The Chicago Manual of Style has changed its recommendation, so that the comma is considered a part of the sentence as a whole, and retains the sentence's prevailing style, rather than being infected by the style of what falls adjacent to it. So Chicago was persuaded, presumably, by the weight of international practice, by logical considerations, or by aesthetic considerations. Is the pluralising of lower-case letters like that, or is it just a question of competing solutions with equal status?

Our job here is not to lobby for some solution or other: it is to survey and present the range of options, to note which are more and which are less accepted, and why. So far I have seen no citation that supports the usage that Hetzer obviously wants to push, to the exclusion of other usages. (That is, 'p's and 'q's, where every ' is a single quote, not an apostrophe.) I understand the appeal to use-mention distinction, and something of the logic of that appeal. But the reasoning is not spelt [sic] out; and that reasoning, so far as we have glimpses of it, is specious and incomplete. The cited article does not give authority for the proposed usage; and nothing could give authority for excluding the competing solutions.

Till NPOV is respected, and independent authorities are cited, I recommend that we resist Hetzer's proposed alterations. –Noetica 23:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Using the single quotes above is quite wrong. Although it may seem use-mention says they stay, they look bad, especially with the s after it, and would be much better if italicized. Apostrophes should never be used for plurals. Although, for lower-case letters it is possible to be confusing, such as dot your is or there are three as, so only for that would I accept. Capital letters, etc. must be pluralized without an apostrophe. Also, it should definitely be James's instead of James'. In Chris's link, #s 2, 3, and 4 are mostly wrong and should not have apostrophes. Only ommission, possesives, and individual lower-case letter plurals should have them, and the latter only sometimes. Lastly, in my opinion the comma after italics should go back to normal. Reywas92^Talk 23:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to see your opinions and preferences displayed here, Reywas92. But they are opinions, not authoritative rulings, just as my short list above gives only opinions. No doubt we have our reasons: but so do Chris and Hetzer have their reasons. Incidentally, Hetzer's preference can indeed be supported by a well-known authority: but that authority has not yet been cited. I may assist with that when I see NPOV being respected. Meanwhile, I trust you have learned not to be so precipitous in your edits (see my reversion just now, and my explanation in the edit summary). You are doing well, but are not yet a Jedi knight! –Noetica 00:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that I have ~2x your experience, please do not judge me. Reywas92^Talk 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Reywas92, I call it as I see it. I don't know what you mean by "~2x your experience". Certainly that could be measured several different ways. All I observe is that you came and edited the lead of an important article that many experienced editors have polished over many months, and did so precipitately and apparently without consideration of the facts as the article itself presents them. Take a gentle and friendly reproof for what it is. A patronising reproof? Perhaps. But consider how your own "huh?" is likely to be taken, as a dismissal of others' work in an edit summary. Now, let's get back to work. –Noetica 23:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about the letters themselves literally, not a t as if a t was a bouncy thing with four legs, which makes this case apply to the use-mention distinction.

Is it right even though Oxford English Dictionary's Web site says so? Does it actually make any sense that letters not be enclosed within quotation marks even when they are only mentioned and not actually used? Nobody has the right to decide what makes sense or what's logic, but I follow the rules of quotation marks and use-mention distinction, and it should make sense to everyone that text that should be read as-is and not interpreted, be emphasised, preferably within quotation marks. So where are your logics of pluralised letters to be written as just the letter being followed by an apostrophe and an ‘s’? (Or in your way written as ‘(...) followed by an apostrophe and an s?’. But what if an s was something eatable that I had for dinner yesterday? The letter followed by an apostrophe and a pile of food? Huh?)

And even though you are unfamiliar with quotation marks directly followed by an ‘s’, it doesn't make it less logic, Reywas92. What if someone had covered a wall with ‘ignorant’s with spraypaint? Or what if they'd just kept to ‘i’s? Would there be any logical faults in any of those two sentences? What I said was that someone had written ‘ignorant’ (or just ‘i’) multiple times on the wall, but what you would have said is that someone had sticked a bunch of ignorant people to the wall, probably by using spraypaint as glue.

This is not about whether to use single or double quotation marks. (From what I've learned, single ones are British standard and double ones are American, but I'm neither British nor American nor mother-tongue English-speaking, so I stick to the British.) It's about whether to follow unauthorised authorities' rules or to follow logics, with me taking part with the latter one.

Lack of logical sense is the source for misunderstandment, and lack of intelligence is the source for discussion. I do hereby end the discussion by declaring myself as righteous and any disagreements as wrong.

Hetzer 02:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely know what you are saying with use-mention, but in my opinion, "...followed by an apostrophe and an s?" or "...and an s?" seems much more correct than "an 's'?". (Which is better than the American "s"). Why not use use-mention's italicization rather than quotes. Here are some other apostrophe links, British and American, that you may be interested in, and some show nothing about any plurals: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. Keep the article how it is, using italics or nothing. Reywas92^Talk 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Reywas92, you ask in an edit summary: "Why did you delete the abbreviation part?" I did so inadvertently. Thanks for fixing that. –Noetica 23:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophes should NEVER be used for pluralization. End of story. For example: “Mind your ps and qs.” OR “Mind your Ps and Qs.”

RdCrestdBreegull (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oxford and Cambridge - Queens College

Potentially confusing to some, but the fact is that the apostrophe is in a different place in Queens' College, Cambridge and The Queen's College, Oxford. DFH 11:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

History of the apostrophe

To read this article, one might think that the apostrophe was first written with typewriters as a neutral single quotation mark ( ' ), and the typographic apostrophe ( ’ ) was invented for digital typography by Apple Computer around 1984. Of course, the apostrophe has had its cursive form for hundreds of years, and the derived neutral form was created to save keys on a typewriter (built with a single key to type the apostrophe, and both opening and closing single quotation marks).

Does anyone have any sources testifying to when the apostrophe entered English or Latin for its various uses? Any information about the development of its manuscript and typographic form? —Michael Z. 2007-06-25 18:27 Z

I added a stub section: Apostrophe#Typographic form. —Michael Z. 20:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dubious assertion

The assertion

None of this detracts from the fact that omission of the apostrophe in geographical names is becoming a clear standard in most English-speaking countries, including Britain and Australia.

needs some evidence to back it up. My 2006 UK road atlas lists dozens and dozens of placenames with apostrophes.

(Anonymous, please sign your posts!) I have removed the "dubious" tag. See earlier discussion, where evidence is given for the claim.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That discussion is inconclusive as far as the UK is concerned. The UK streetmap statistics by themselves show nothing about the omission of the apostrophe "becoming a clear standard". Some UK street names and place names have always omitted the apostrophe, and some have always had it, for no good reason that I'm aware of. The discussion also asserts that "There are some place names that retain the apostrophe in Britain, but they are few, and diminishing" but no evidence is given. My atlas lists 44 placenames with apostrophes under "St" alone. And http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newsearch.srf? lists 44 places called or starting with "St Mary's" and only 13 for "St Marys". (Unfortunately the street name search seems to be currently broken.) Again, there is no rhyme or reason why some places should have an apostrophe and others not. What is needed is evidence that the majority of UK placenames and street names that used to be written with an apostrophe now aren't, not just that there are a lot of names that might have an apostrophe but don't. I don't see that evidence. Matt 00:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.132.95 (talk)

Screen rendering (?) of apostrophe

The form of apostrophe used in many spots in this article creates a strange space between the apostrophe and the preceding letter. I realize this may be due to my browser or system, but thought I should mention it.-- • Pharillon • ^(T) 16:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I noticed that too. I think that this was changed fairly recently, and not very consistently. I imagine the intention was to replace the existing typewriter apostrophes with "curly apostrophes", but I don't think that this is the correct Unicode character. I believe it might be U+02BC, which is a "letter apostrophe", intended to be used in the transliteration of certain languages, but not, I believe, as a normal apostrophe in English. It may have been used here because the correct "curly apostrophe" does not actually appear curly in IE's default font at the normal size. The fact that it's the wrong character may explain why the rendering is peculiar, certainly in IE's default font anyway. I propose undoing this edit unless anyone can give a good reason why it should stay. Matt 02:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC).

• Someone else commented on this in an edit summary. I have changed them back to typewriter apostrophes. I suppose ideally they should be proper curly aposrophes, but almost no other Wikipedia article uses those, so I left that conversion to another day! (However, a lot of the typewriter double quotes have also been changed to curly double quotes, so the article is rather an odd mixture at the moment...) Matt 11:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC).

Just to further amplify that comment... the reason I didn't just change the letter apostrophes to curly apostrophes was firstly because the original conversion was inconsistently done (so it would have left a random mixture of typewriter and curly apostrophes), and secondly because going forward I don't see most editors using the curly apostrophes. New edits will probably use the typewriter apostrophe, so even if they were all fixed now to be curly apostrophes the article would become inconsistent in future. On the same basis I wonder if we should also change the curly double quotes back to typewriter quotes: most Wikipedia articles don't use them, many future editors probably won't bother either, and we'll just end up with a random mixture of styles. Thoughts? Matt 12:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC).

D'oh?

Why is there an apostrophe in D'oh? None of the rules seem to apply.

Glottal stop 65.169.210.66 (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It is known to be a contraction of "Damn" and "oh." The apostrophe stands in for the "amn." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.158.30 (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Pre-decimal currency notation in UK

An oblique stroke ('slash') was used as a general divider between the columns and was never a shilling sign. For example, if something was priced at seven pounds ten shillings and sixpence there were essentially three ways of noting the price in figures: (1) £7-10s-6d (2) £7.10s.6d and (3) £7/10/6. There was no 'shilling sign' and shilling was abbreviated as s. (Incidentally, up to about £2.10s. prices were often quoted in shillings and pence, for example, 32s.6d or 32/6 but this was not acceptable in formal documents or on cheques.

Some people, especially (?) market stallholders and greengrocers, prided themselves on using a somewhat ornate slash that looked like a filled triangle while others only started the slash. I hope this helps. If it sometimes looked a bit like an apostrophe that was entirely fortuitous. Norvo 01:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Rendering of typographic apostrophes in the article

The opening sentence used to read:

(1) The apostrophe ( ’  or  ' ) ...

To me, using IE's default font, and I presume to 90% of other users too, the two forms of the apostrophe are indistinguishable, both appearing as typewriter apostrophes. This makes the explanation unintelligible. So I changed it to:

(2) The apostrophe ( ’  or  ' ) ....

(Look at the edit window for this section to see the difference in the wikicode).

I also made the same change in a couple of other places where the visual distinction is critical to making sense of the text.

With this change the typographic apostrophe appears curly to me, as it should. Someone changed it back to (1) with no explanation. I have changed it to (2) again but if there are problems with this then please explain them so that a solution to suit all can hopefully be found. Matt 23:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"fo'c's'le"

The statement made about the abbreviated form of "forecastle" is erroneous. It contains only two apostrophes, as can be confirmed by looking in dictionaries (see the OED, for example). Granted, the "t" is also omitted, but it is not replaced with an apostrophe. — Paul G 07:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 06:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so, Paul G. SOED gives only fo'c's'le as an abbreviation. While OED directly gives only fo'c'sle, it is remiss, since one of its own citations has fo'c's'le: "1873 [T. E. Brown] (title), Betsy Lee: a *fo'c's'le yarn." I have supplied a reference to SOED in the article.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mon amie"

"A notable exception to this is mon amie: amie is the feminine form of the noun meaning "friend" but in all cases it is written with the masculine possessive mon. Thus m'amie as a contraction of the potential ma amie is not used."

Amie is not an exception in this regard. For example, to say my church, you would say mon église despite the fact that église is feminine. I'm fairly certain that "m'" is used only as a contraction for the pronoun me rather than the possessive mon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.37.181 (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point, Anonymous. In fact the article was in error. I have now fixed the account of m'amie, and given more detail. I have checked all of this in standard sources, and I could provide a citation if necessary: but we don't want to clutter the page.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 21:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Grave accent as opening quotation mark

The article presents the use of the ASCII grave accent (`) as opening quotation mark (‘) as non-standard, which is clearly wrong, given that the original ASCII standard ([11]) defines the character as ‘Grave accent (opening single quotation mark)’. Moreover, in TeX as well as in the Adobe Standard Encoding, this codepoint unambiguously identifies an opening single quote.

Unfortunately, however, opening single quote as well as apostrophe/closing single quote have been relegated to General Punctuation (U+2000–U+206F) in Unicode, retaining a (largely useless) non-combining accent and a specifically typewriter-style quote/apostrophe in the Basic Latin range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.247.89 (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is interesting, and probably should be mentioned at "grave accent" too. I have always considered the use of that character as a quote mark in ASCII text to be a blunder. I found another discussion at http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/latin1/ascii-hist.html, which says "Originally included for use as an accent; overloaded in the US to also mean an opening single quotation mark." (my italics; I am in the UK), and "The use of the character as a quotation mark seems to appear only in the US versions of the standard." It also reports "The character was finally mentioned by name when the second ISO draft was distributed in December, 1963. Here it is unambiguously the grave accent, with no mention of the opening single quotation mark." That's considerably earlier than the document you mention, which is dated as late as 1975. So I'm not quite sure of the exact sequence of events here. There is a question in my mind about the other uses you mention -- as to whether they should be considered just a way of entering the quote character using a convenient key, on the understanding that it will be converted to a proper closing quote (or apostrophe) where possible. That's a slightly different thing to my mind. Matt 03:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.53.118 (talk)

• • I probably should have noted that the British equivalent [12] also mentions the dual nature of the grave accent. Both this and the US standard were apparently registered for use with escape sequences in 1975, but the American encoding described by the document is X3.4 1968 from 1968, and I would suspect the British one, BS 4730, to be considerably older as well.

• • ‘An annotated history of some character codes’ [13] gives lots of details and references on ASCII, and Markus Kuhn’s ASCII and Unicode quotation marks [14] describes the issue with the grave accent in depth (albeit giving anything but an impartial view of the historical development).

• • Unicode-style character charts are now available for Adobe Standard Encoding [15] (derived from Unicode mapping [16], authoritative data also available from Adobe [17]) and TeX’s text font layout for Roman fonts, also known as OT1 [18] (constructed manually from the corresponding table in the TeXbook; a few characters are missing, but they are unimportant for this discussion [f-ligatures and slash for Polish slashed L]).

• • Both OT1 and Adobe Standard Encoding understand 0x27 (apostrophe) to be a curly apostrophe / right single quotation mark and 0x60 (grave accent) a right single quotation mark, and both put the real grave and acute accents outside the standard 7-bit printable 0x20–0x7E (G0) range, which would seem to suggest that 0x60 and 0x27 were considered to represent ‘ and ’ at the time (c. 1980), at least in the US, consistent with the ASCII X3.4 1968 standard. Adobe Standard Encoding includes a non-directional apostrophe at a different position, whereas OT1 does not provide this character at all. (TeX provides curly apostrophe, acute accent and mathematical prime, so Knuth probably considered all possible uses of the multi-purpose typewriter-style character to be catered for already.) OT1 furthermore makes the double quote look like a curly right quote, but provides the non-directional version in the typewriter-style typeface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.247.89 (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Galician restaurants

Has somebody an explanation for the O' vogue in Galician restaurants in Madrid? My guess is that, at some point of Francoist Spain, a Galician store name was harder to get approved than an Irish one, so they were passed as "Irish" names, but I doubt that the official in case could not see through the ruse. --Error (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Incoherence

"As a particular case, Jesus' is very commonly written instead of Jesus's, even by people who would otherwise add 's in, for example, James's or Chris's; Jesus' is referred to as "an accepted liturgical archaism" in Hart's Rules."

Can somebody understand what this trying to say? If some people commonly add the 's, why would we be surprised they add it in another instance? The logic just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, I just figured it out; sentence parser on the blink again. I could have sworn the text in the article read "Jesus' is very commonly instead as Jesus's" -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob The Angry Flower -- not mentioned, not even as an external link?

Since Wikipedia is an *Internet* resource, I am surprised that the main article does not make mention of the classic "guide" to apostrophe use that is frequently linked to within Internet forums and blogs, etc... that of the comic "Bob The Angry Flower" -- see http://www.google.com/search?&q=bob+the+angry+flower+apostrophe 199.214.24.177 (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

A small gallery of greengrocers' apostrophes, all from the same camp site in New Zealand. There were plenty more on the wall in the manager's office, but I didn't have the balls to photograph them.

• 
• 
• File:Greengrocers' apostrophe 3.JPG

Jasper33 (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Confusing (at best) sentence in 1.1.2

"Traditionally it was more common to require and many respected sources still do require that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe. ... Some respected style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style recommend the more modern addition of an s but specifically state that both habits are correct." The second sentence has two problems: (1) it says adding an s is more modern, in contradiction to what precedes; and (2) "both" has no referent, since there is as yet no mention of omission of the extra s. I think what it should be saying is something like this: However, many modern writers omit the extra s. Some respected style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style recommend the traditional practice but say that both are correct." Brec (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC) Update: Edited page in accord with foregoing. 216.82.143.39 (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Traditionally is very doubtful. Modern English Usage is older than most of the sources mentioned, and supports the omission of the second s; nor is this phrased as an innovation. Certainly Jesus' and Socrates' are nineteenth century usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Possessive of a possessive

One thing that hasn't been discussed (unless I missed it) is what happens when a noun is already possessive, King's College, Saint Paul's, Halford's, and you need to make the name of the organisation possessive. Is the president of King's King's president (illogical, the president belongs to King's, not the King), King's' president (logical but strange looking), King's's president (also logical, still stranger looking), or what? Ditto for Saint Paul's / Paul's' / Paul's's' new rector, Halford's / Halford's' / Halford's's policy, and so on. An interesting conundrum. Awien (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Anybody? !?Awien (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Done! And I've covered a few other oddities while I was at it.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Dexys Midnight Runners

It's entirely correct for the apostrophe to be missing from the band name "Dexys Midnight Runners". Dexy is not a person, it's a slang name for an amphetamine drug. Dexys were also called "midnight runners" as they supposedly enabled you to dance all night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.40.49 (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, Anonymous. SOED gives the singular as dexy or dexie, but the regular plural is dexies in either case. All common nouns ending in consonant+y have plurals with -ies. Only if it were a proper noun, Dexy, would the plural be Dexys (as with the three Tonys I know; or blame it on the Kellys). However this works out, Dexys in that title is clearly a possessive (misspelt or not), so standard English practice demands an apostrophe: Dexy's if there's one of them; Dexys' if there are two.

Thanks for dropping in!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 05:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Too many heading levels

IMO four heading levels is two too many. 86.133.247.1 (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC).

I was worried about that too, Anonymous. I made all those headings so we could link to low-level subsections separately; but we can live without that feature. I have now fixed it so we have only three levels. OK? Thanks for dropping in.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 05:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added anchors to the headings, so that you can link to, for example, Basic rule (compound nouns), if so desired.  --Lambiam 01:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we still seem to have four levels of heading, just that some of them now don't appear in the TOC. When I'm looking at the text and scrolling through I don't get any feel for the section organisation. Heading 3s ("=== ... ===") and heading 4s ("==== ... ====") are indistinguishable to me unless I start counting pixels. The underscored heading 2s stand out, but within each heading 2 section my brain can only cope with one further level. Beyond that everything just becomes a muddle. 194.72.9.25 (talk) 03:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC).

I accept Lambiam's neat solution, myself. I agree that headings at different levels are hard to distinguish, but I take that to be a pervasive flaw in the Wikipedia environment. We could get creative with horizontal rules. I might try that, since it can't do any serious harm. OK?

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)