View Full Version : Use of apostrophes
Just been taking the apostrophes test a Skillswise <just for fun> http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/words/grammar/punctuation/apostrophes/quiz.shtml
Looking at this.........
5: This sentence is correct: The books' spines were split.
You said: false
This sentence is correct. There is more than one book, so the apostrophe goes after the s - books'.
...... I can't ever remember learning that an apostrophe goes after a word!
I was always taught that it was there to show that it was abbreviated so I am with you on this one Marty :confused:
Just been taking the apostrophes test a Skillswise <just for fun> http://www.bbc.co.uk/skillswise/words/grammar/punctuation/apostrophes/quiz.shtml
Looking at this.........
...... I can't ever remember learning that an apostrophe goes after a word!
[/color][/size][/font]
It does, if the word ends with an 's', as it does in plurals. The book's spine is the spine of one book. The books' spines is the spines of several books. I suppose you could see it as a shorthand for the books's spines, which looks rather awkward.
It does, if the word ends with an 's', as it does in plurals. The book's spine is the spine of one book. The books' spines is the spines of several books. I suppose you could see it as a shorthand for the books's spines, which looks rather awkward.
Ah i'm with you! I ussualy remember quirky things in English but i have no recollection. Shame my school shut down!! Hmmmmm
__________________
I love tests' ;)
9/10 on that test and i did the level C. :)
Pø†øƒGøLÃÂ
03-10-2005, 12:15
10/10 :angel: I hate seeing badly typed work with apostrophes in the wrong place... one of my bugbears.
absthechatter
03-10-2005, 12:18
I was taught at my Grammar school in Kent that if the word is plural and ends in an "s", then the aphostrophe would go after the "s". I was also taught that if something belongs to someone, it would also go after the "s"E.G. Stevens' back, meaning the back belonging to Steven, rather than Steven's back, meaning Steven is back.
At the age of 12, we moved to Brighton and I went to a good old comprehensive school. There I was told that an apostrophe after the s did not mean belongs to and I had been taught a load of rubbish before.
I still do not know which is correct and I'm pushing forty now!!!
LOL I went to a comprehensive so that probably answers that!!
I was taught at my Grammar school in Kent that if the word is plural and ends in an "s", then the aphostrophe would go after the "s". I was also taught that if something belongs to someone, it would also go after the "s"E.G. Stevens' back, meaning the back belonging to Steven, rather than Steven's back, meaning Steven is back.
At the age of 12, we moved to Brighton and I went to a good old comprehensive school. There I was told that an apostrophe after the s did not mean belongs to and I had been taught a load of rubbish before.
I still do not know which is correct and I'm pushing forty now!!!
As far as I'm concerned your grammar school was correct, but I learned English as a second language :shrug:
I was taught at my Grammar school in Kent that if the word is plural and ends in an "s", then the aphostrophe would go after the "s". I was also taught that if something belongs to someone, it would also go after the "s"E.G. Stevens' back, meaning the back belonging to Steven, rather than Steven's back, meaning Steven is back.
At the age of 12, we moved to Brighton and I went to a good old comprehensive school. There I was told that an apostrophe after the s did not mean belongs to and I had been taught a load of rubbish before.
I still do not know which is correct and I'm pushing forty now!!!
An apostrophe and an 's' is used to denote 'belongs to' (posessive), so "That is Steve's book" means the same thing as "That book belongs to Steve". However, where the object of the sentence is spelled with an 's' at the end - say, for example, 'James' - you put the apostrophe after the final 's', and do not put another 's' on the end of the word. So, "That is James' book" means the same thing as "That book belongs to James".
You can also use an 's' at the end of a word to denote plurality, as in the example in the original post. In this case, the same rules apply. If you are talking about one book having a bent spine, you write "The book's spine is bent" but if there are many books with bent spines, you write "The books' spines are bent".
So, your Grammar School was right, and your comprehensive school neatly demonstrates what's wrong with the British education system. :erm:
NB in the sentence above, "what's" is a contraction of "what is", not a posessive!
So what does Banks's Beer denote? That one's always confused me :disturbd:
smicer07
03-10-2005, 12:42
10/10 on the highest one. Easy peasy.
So what does Banks's Beer denote? That one's always confused me :disturbd:
Just what i'm in need of!!!
So what does Banks's Beer denote? That one's always confused me :disturbd:
That denotes a company that either doesn't understand grammar, or has deliberately misconstructed its brand name because it thinks the general public doesn't. :erm:
Incidentally, as demonstrated in the above sentence, the word "its" as a posessive is the exception to the rule. It does not have an apostrophe even though technically it should. If you write "it's", that means "it is".
__________________
10/10 on the highest one. Easy peasy.
I should hope so to, Mr teacher sir!
That denotes a company that either doesn't understand grammar, or has deliberately misconstructed its brand name because it thinks the general public doesn't. :erm:
Probably the company. It is brewed by Wolverhampton & Dudley Breweries - I was born in Wolverhampton (to my eternal shame :( ) and even I think they're all thick ;) :D
That denotes a company that either doesn't understand grammar, or has deliberately misconstructed its brand name because it thinks the general public doesn't. :erm:
I have looked this up before, in formal english, both Banks' and Banks's are acceptable. I noticed this when reading the Harry Potter books and they keep mentioning "Sirius's knife", whereas I would have thought it should have been "Sirius' knife".
If a name already ends with an s, the extra s is sometimes dropped: Jesus' parables. This is more common in U.S. usage and with classical names (Eros' statue, Herodotus' book). Additionally, many contemporary names that end with -es (a -z sound) will see the extra s dropped by some writers: Charles' car, though most style guides advocate Charles's car.
Pø†øƒGøLÃÂ
03-10-2005, 13:20
So what does Banks's Beer denote? That one's always confused me :disturbd:
Well that's actually correct, assuming that the company's name is Banks. It is stating that the Beer belongs to Banks and is correct in the use of the apostrophe, altho it would be more usual to say "Banks' Beer" as it is standard practice to drop the second s.
Well that's actually correct, assuming that the company's name is Banks. It is stating that the Beer belongs to Banks and is correct in the use of the apostrophe, altho it would be more usual to say "Banks' Beer" as it is standard practice to drop the second s.
But surely it belongs to me ;) - I chuffing paid for it :disturbd:
But surely it belongs to me ;) - I chuffing paid for it :disturbd:
If you're in debt like a large part of the UK population it technically belongs to your bank, and it should be spelt bank's beer. :erm:
If you're in debt like a large part of the UK population it technically belongs to your bank, and it should be spelt bank's beer. :erm:
But I paid cash, so actually it was Nugs' beer ('cos there was more than one ;) )
But I paid cash, so actually it was Nugs' beer ('cos there was more than one ;) )
More than one Nug? How do you cope? :Yikes:
Adding to Chris T's post (note the apostrophe!), I was always taught that when you use "'s" to show ownership, it actually is an abbreviation of the old English. eg "John's book" would be a short form of "John his book"; therefore if you have a plural or a proper noun that ends in an "s", you could theoretically add the "'s" after the final "s". However, since this would not sound so good in speech, we just use a single apostrophe.
Thus "Nugs' beer" should actually be "Nug's beer", unless you are saying it belongs to someone clled "Nugs" as opposed to "Nug".
Damn, I should have been a teacher!
More than one Nug? How do you cope? :Yikes:
Life's just one big party ;)
__________________
Adding to Chris T's post (note the apostrophe!), I was always taught that when you use "'s" to show ownership, it actually is an abbreviation of the old English. eg "John's book" would be a short form of "John his book"; therefore if you have a plural or a proper noun that ends in an "s", you could theoretically add the "'s" after the final "s". However, since this would not sound so good in speech, we just use a single apostrophe.
Thus "Nugs' beer" should actually be "Nug's beer", unless you are saying it belongs to someone clled "Nugs" as opposed to "Nug".
Damn, I should have been a teacher!
Blimey, it's a good job I'm still drunk from all of the beer - I didn't understand a word of that :D :disturbd:
Lets just not use them at all, then no one needs to remember complicated rules ... ;)
ScaredWebWarrior
03-10-2005, 13:48
I suppose you could see it as a shorthand for the books's spines, which looks rather awkward.
And also an easy way to see if that's where it goes.
But that's only a single example of the most abuse the apostrophe suffers - the grocer's apostrophe.
I really hate buying apple's or mushroom's !!!
Lets just not use them at all, then no one needs to remember complicated rules ... ;)
Yup I am happy to follow those guidelines!
:angel:
Another couple of non-uses of apostrophes that really grate with me are when people write "your" instead of "you'll", and "would of" instead of "would've"... just makes me wonder what kind of written English people learn these days!
Another couple of non-uses of apostrophes that really grate with me are when people write "your" instead of "you'll", and "would of" instead of "would've"... just makes me wonder what kind of written English people learn these days!
Not least because "would've" is a contraction of "would have" not "would of"!
Even the BBC is not immune to rotten grammar - there was a sequence in Spooks last week in which the characters were speaking Arabic, which was subtitled. At one point, one of them is subtitled as asking (IIRC) "Your certain?" Gargh! :grind:
Not least because "would've" is a contraction of "would have" not "would of"!
Even the BBC is not immune to rotten grammar - there was a sequence in Spooks last week in which the characters were speaking Arabic, which was subtitled. At one point, one of them is subtitled as asking (IIRC) "Your certain?" Gargh! :grind:
Exactly! When people write "I would of done that", or "Your never know this", it just makes me cringe. I think it's down to the poor state of spoken English in some measure too though. I knew a lady whose 13 year-old son actually thought that the TV remote control was called a "remoke"... bad diction, followed by poor written English...:dunce:
Even the BBC is not immune to rotten grammar - there was a sequence in Spooks last week in which the characters were speaking Arabic, which was subtitled. At one point, one of them is subtitled as asking (IIRC) "Your certain?" Gargh! :grind:
That's because the BBC is a far left organisation that hires Teh Grauniad rejects :jk: ;)
__________________
Exactly! When people write "I would of done that", or "Your never know this", it just makes me cringe. I think it's down to the poor state of spoken English in some measure too though. I knew a lady whose 13 year-old son actually thought that the TV remote control was called a "remoke"... bad diction, followed by poor written English...:dunce:
Indeed. I wonder if kids are still being educated with "airplane" and phonetic: loo-ten-ant, instead of "aeroplane" and phonetic: "leff-ten-ant".
Anyone would have thought we were living in the US.
So, your Grammar School was right, and your comprehensive school neatly demonstrates what's wrong with the British education system.
I went to a comprehensive school and I know full well when to put an apostrophe after a word. Perfectly good edukashun there.
Teh Grauniad
Get with it, punky. It's 'teh grauniad' now, as any fule kno.
I wonder if kids are still being educated with "airplane" and phonetic: loo-ten-ant
Have they ever been? I wasn't, despite regularly having lessons interrupted by USAF 'airplanes' buzzing over. My son says 'airplane', but he's two, so we have plenty of time to beat it out of him.
greencreeper
03-10-2005, 19:14
10/10 :D
There's a bit of a shift towards using "s's" to denote plural possession, but I'm not keen. I can hear he of the hairy hands in my head :D
patrickp
03-10-2005, 19:20
I was taught at my Grammar school in Kent that if the word is plural and ends in an "s", then the aphostrophe would go after the "s". I was also taught that if something belongs to someone, it would also go after the "s"E.G. Stevens' back, meaning the back belonging to Steven, rather than Steven's back, meaning Steven is back.
At the age of 12, we moved to Brighton and I went to a good old comprehensive school. There I was told that an apostrophe after the s did not mean belongs to and I had been taught a load of rubbish before.
I still do not know which is correct and I'm pushing forty now!!!
Depends what your comprehensive meant by that.
The possessive of Steven (the back of Steven) and the verb form (Steven is back) both contract to Steven's. Stevens' back would mean "the back of Stevens."
The apostrophe coming after the "s" would denote that the "s" is part of the word (i.e. the word is "Stevens") or that you are talking about more than one Steven. So, in this, your grammar school was certainly wrong. An apostrophe after the "s" certainly can denote the possessive, but only if the word ends with "s" already. So, as I see it both schools were wrong.
Disheartening, hmmm?
Just been taking the apostrophes test a Skillswise <just for fun>
<smug mode> Superstar! 10/10 :D
This sentence is correct. There is more than one book, so the apostrophe goes after the s - books'.
...... I can't ever remember learning that an apostrophe goes after a word!
Yes, if it can if it's a plural. If it was "book's" it would only be *one* book and *one* spine, so "spines" would have been wrong.
__________________
I love tests' ;)
:bsmack:
Graham M
03-10-2005, 19:24
I got 10/10 on the C test
loo-ten-ant, instead of "leff-ten-ant".
Actually, on that one, the Yanks are correct.
When you get "payment in lieu ("lew") of notice" it means "in place of" (from French)
A "Lieutenant" is someone who can stand "in place of" a superior, hence "lew-tenant" is actually more accurate than "lef-tenant".
Have they ever been? I wasn't, despite regularly having lessons interrupted by USAF 'airplanes' buzzing over. My son says 'airplane', but he's two, so we have plenty of time to beat it out of him.
Makes me wonder listening to kids these days. I remember once, my English teacher at the time asked the class how many prounced lieutenant as loo-ten-ant. Most of the class put their hands up, and the old guy went ballistic. American culture and movies seem to play a more prominent role in our kids lives than a proper English language education.
I had to run around a parade square with a rifle over my head for saying loo-ten-ant :disturbd:
loo-ten-ant, instead of "leff-ten-ant".
Actually, on that one, the Yanks are correct.
When you get "payment in lieu ("lew") of notice" it means "in place of" (from French)
A "Lieutenant" is someone who can stand "in place of" a superior, hence "lew-tenant" is actually more accurate than "lef-tenant".
Cheers for that, that's interesting. One thing about the English language, it is by far the most stupid and inconsistant out there. No other language has more exceptions. Aside from Japanese, with their alphabet, English is one of the hardest and involving to learn.
Another couple of non-uses of apostrophes that really grate with me are when people write "your" instead of "you'll", and "would of" instead of "would've"... just makes me wonder what kind of written English people learn these days!I would've thought the problem was more to do with your and you're.
"We will be round to your house later because you're cooking dinner and you'll appreciate help with the washing up" :p: :D
Graham M
03-10-2005, 19:42
There's a Taxi place nearby with a sign in the Window reading
"Taxi Driver's Required"
whoever wrote that needs to go back to school.
Cheers for that, that's interesting.
You're welcome (there was a certain temptation to write something else but I don't support cruelty to harmless apostrophes! :D)
One thing about the English language, it is by far the most stupid and inconsistant out there.
True, but there again it is often much easier to make yourself understood in English than other languages. One of the worst for this is Chinese which, being tonal, means that even if you use the right word, if you use the wrong intonation you can say something completely different and, perhaps, seriously insult the other person! :eek: )
Aside from Japanese, with their alphabet
That's why they developed Hiragana (http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2047.html) and Katakana (http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2048.html) to simplify the complex pictograms of Kanji into "syllabic" writing, especially for foreign word sounds that had no Japanese equivalent.
Actually, on that one, the Yanks are correct.
When you get "payment in lieu ("lew") of notice" it means "in place of" (from French)
A "Lieutenant" is someone who can stand "in place of" a superior, hence "lew-tenant" is actually more accurate than "lef-tenant".
Fantastic! I can pull you up on something (OK, it's only a tiny thing, but my God it feels good!;) )
"the word "lieu" merely means "place"; "in place of" translates to "au lieu de". For once I'm happy to be pedantic, and run the risk of a "slap" smiley!
On a (slightly) more serious note, I think that phonetically it should be "lef-ten-ant". Yes, the French is pronounced "lyoo", but the Americans say "loo", and in any case we have Anglicised that part of the word. It is an anomaly, as I can't think of another use of "lieu" in an English word... except maybe "Beaulieu", which is a proper noun, and pronounced totally differently anyway!
As Punky says, the English language is full of rule-breakers; it breaks about as many grammatical rules as the German language contains, which is saying something. I pity the poor sould that learns it as a second language, and yet am constantly amazed at how many do so, and how well. Meanwhile, a vast swathe of the English go abroad fully prepared to order "biere" or "bier" or "cerveza", and little else...
__________________
That's why they developed Hiragana (http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2047.html) and Katakana (http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2048.html) to simplify the complex pictograms of Kanji into "syllabic" writing, especially for foreign word sounds that had no Japanese equivalent.
It has long been an ambition of mine to learn Japanese (yes, I do have a life); but IIRC they say it takes about 10 years to learn to write it...:erm:
You're welcome (there was a certain temptation to write something else but I don't support cruelty to harmless apostrophes! :D)
So "that's" isn't a legal abbreviation of "that is"? I could have sworn it was. :confused:
So "that's" isn't a legal abbreviation of "that is"? I could have sworn it was. :confused:
Me too. Who says it isn't?
cookie_365
03-10-2005, 20:11
There's a Taxi place nearby with a sign in the Window reading
"Taxi Driver's Required"
whoever wrote that needs to go back to school.
Well, the taxi driver is required - who else would point the cab in the direction you want and make it go forward ? ;)
I can't think of another use of "lieu" in an English word
Perfectly good English word. 'Time in lieu' is a common term in employment situations.
English may have rather a lot of inconsistencies, but it has an almost complete absence of cases, inflections and gender, which more than offsets it. Compare Latin or German.
Perfectly good English word. 'Time in lieu' is a common term in employment situations.
English may have rather a lot of inconsistencies, but it has an almost complete absence of cases, inflections and gender, which more than offsets it. Compare Latin or German.
True, and the declensions of verbs (in the main) are incredibly simple; I found German a horrible, unpleasant language to study.
I found German a horrible, unpleasant language to study.
But the word order strangely liberating find you didn't is?
You're welcome (there was a certain temptation to write something else but I don't support cruelty to harmless apostrophes! :D)
So "that's" isn't a legal abbreviation of "that is"? I could have sworn it was. :confused:
Yes, but that wasn't what I was thinking of. It was the idea of writing something like "your welcome", but since I've just severely :bsmack: marky for abusing apostrophes I decided against it :D
:tu: But the word order strangely liberating find you didn't is?:rofl: :clap:
But the word order strangely liberating find you didn't is? Mmmm stay and help you i will ;)
OMG.... Going now am I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OMG.... Going now am I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You started it so stay you will now
But the word order strangely liberating find you didn't is?
:nono: Finite verbs in second position, non-finites in final position... (in main clauses)
Daniel your giving me headache! LMAO
All this in doing my head is...
Finite verbs in second position, non-finites in final position... (in main clauses)
Doubtless. I learnt it with the aid of a horizontal dictionary, of the female persuasion. Conducting an affair entirely in a foreign language certainly helps you get your tongue round the more difficult bits.
Doubtless. I learnt it with the aid of a horizontal dictionary, of the female persuasion. Conducting an affair entirely in a foreign language certainly helps you get your tongue round the more difficult bits.
That final position must come naturally then ;)
Conducting an affair entirely in a foreign language certainly helps you get your tongue round the more difficult bits.
What about the language though? :D
And I agree with you, it's the best way to learn a language ;)
It helps you polish up your labial fricatives too...no, I really must stop there.
It helps you polish up your labial fricatives too...no, I really must stop there.
As long as the lady concerned doesn't "decline" too well...
OK, so that's possibly the worst pun I've ever used!
Oh it is very close to it Me283 lol
Is anybody here a cunning linguist :disturbd:
Is anybody here a cunning linguist :disturbd:
:bsmack: Just for being obvious!!
Is anybody here a cunning linguist :disturbd:
Shall I mention the one about the popular linguist... having "three tongues"... etc etc
No, I'd best not...
Graham M
04-10-2005, 00:01
Is anybody here a cunning linguist :disturbd:
My Girlfriend reckons im pretty good at spelling :angel:
Doubtless. I learnt it with the aid of a horizontal dictionary, of the female persuasion. Conducting an affair entirely in a foreign language certainly helps you get your tongue round the more difficult bits.
:erm:
... Nah! ....
:angel:
:D
While we are on the subject of English grammar...
Is "I would" abbreviated to "I'd" or "i'd"? The former looks more logical, unless English grammar is recursive, whereas you'd have to put the I in lowercase as i'd is no longer a single letter.
You've completed level C
of the Skillswise Apostrophes
quiz and have scored:
10 /10
Yay :D
And Punky- it's I'd ....
While we are on the subject of English grammar...
Is "I would" abbreviated to "I'd" or "i'd"? The former looks more logical, unless English grammar is recursive, whereas you'd have to put the I in lowercase as i'd is no longer a single letter.
Yes, it's "I'd". That's because it's a conjoining of two words, as opposed to a syncopation of one, such as "ne'er".
downquark1
04-10-2005, 16:37
Got everything right apart from the shortening of the date and words '86 and like.
Doesn't mean I always use them correctly but at least I know them. :monkey:
Cheers for that Chris/Me283 :tu:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.