Just kidding here--I'm with the grammarians.

--J. Kevorkian

But are you that protege of his I heard-tell about, pinboy?

This event in grammatical history is an apostrophe catastrophe.

Oh. Woe.

My sorrow and dismay knows no delay. it forthwith hath washed over me as might a mighty torrent in a tub of untethered T's. Torturous tips tearing into the tender stratum corneum to the subcutaneous layer of my tragedy-tattered soul.

Beasts, Beasts one-and-all that would this very thing lead us to behold!

--So, Howz it hangin' dude?

EDIT: For grammar and misspelling, you uncaring, negligent monsters!

I live in a British town with an apostrophe in the name -"Chandler's Ford". Well, normally with one. But a Google search with the apostrophe gets 502,000 results, and 1,000,000 without it (and it's an usual combination of words, so I think pretty much all of those hits will mean the town). If I use a mapping site to find "Kings Crescent" I get 24 results for Britain; "King's Crescent" gets 2 (and those 2 don't appear in the 24). There is something to be said for being consistent; and apostrophes aren't so easy to enter on phones, for instance.

I haven't had any problems with Mapquest, whether with or w/o apostrophes. Computers can be programmed to ignore apostrophes. So that's not the reason.

"Kings Crescent" lists 24 roads, in 24 different towns. "King's Crescent" lists another 2 roads, in 2 different towns. If you don't know how each one has been listed, then you won't find the one you're looking for. Or you end up searching twice.

"Computers can be programmed to ignore apostrophes." Yes, they can be; but, typically, they aren't. That's why I gave the Google "Chandler's Ford" example. Google, although it is programmed to search for some alternatives (such as plurals, or past and present tenses), doesn't search for "Chandlers" as an alternative to "Chandler's".

What does Mapquest do with "King's Crescent"? It gives me "Kings Avenue, Hounslow". Absolutely useless.

for the software to be programmed that way.

That's all they need to do. It's an easy fix.

There are all sorts of databases being used for all sorts of information. None of them would be highly useful, if they didn't ignore characters. But they do. They need to hire a computer programmer specialist. I bet the lower ranked people who work in that department know about this fix.

and the council has an easy fix, too: don't put apostrophes in any new street names it comes up with. Which, given the many street names that already don't have apostrophes in where you might expect them, is not exactly revolutionary.

The council can't affect what Google, Streetmap, Mapquest and who knows how many other companies do with their products. They can, however, have a standard naming convention for new streets. At no cost or effort. Which has actually applied, though unofficially, in their own area and in many other parts of the country, for some time. So that's what they're doing.

wherever possible. I dunno theyre just annoying. Commas too, but sometimes you need em. I'm not saying they should be eradicated, but wouldnt it be nice never to have to see "it's" for possessive again?" Think about that.

And then there is the brain that has a lifetime of discipline in one direction. The brain and its panic!

My palms are sweating just thinking about what it might do.

(I'm typing in incomplete sentences. Anyone is free to correct or edit. I'm strong enough for it.)

I got a flash picture of several grammarians and editors jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge....

Relax Kurovski. We will still need editors who know the rules for the foreseeable future. But must accept that we have already become a two-headed monster. The proper written language found in books and reports --vs. text bits or netspeak without correctness. The formal "high" written English vs quikky blurps (as a friend of mine writes "blurbs)." I kind of like blurps to characterize this new low form of written English. Rhymes with "urps." Sentence fragments--their time has come!

It's just breaking down into high falutin formal and easygoing informal. So you go right on being correct in your sphere of influence. And dont feel responsible for the damage caused by the digital age. U can still feel superior awhile yet... If it's too much to control in the blogosphere, just go ahead, correct somebody. They'll ignore you if theyre polite...

The judges hammered on the table.
The judge's hammered on the table.

My brothers object.
My brother's object.

Look at the boys box.
Look at the boy's box.

what we mean when we say we helped our uncle jack off a horse!!!

I don't hear of too many people complaining they are mystified by something they read in email or blogosphere.

of "it's" (it is) and the possessive "its" drive me crazy.

and the reason is --

The cat's paws --has an apostrophe. Its paws doesn't. It's not logical.

Wouldn't it seem a bit odd to see our's, your's, her's, hi's, their's ?

a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence. It would be nice to see real words instead of slang (dunno). It would be nice to see real words instead of slang (em). I prefer to see the written language with punctuation.

is clear.

Commas and apostrophes and other punctuation are essential to clarity of writing.

The internet blogging is an exception....where speed and shortcuts are the common practice. But that's not "writing." That's more a flinging of brain waves onto a computer internet highway.

I see no problem with using a form of shorthand for blogging or email or any quick message on the net. The horse is out of the barn anyway. It's just the way it is. No grammar police have a hope of cleaning up the internet. Ridiculous to try. It is a casual medium. And if some of my friends had to conform to all the rules of grammar and punctuation, they'd be so stressed out they wouldn't write anything.

Everybody knows that if you're going to write a book or a report or a business letter, you use the more formal approach (which I am familiar with --in fact I could be a grammar cop myself if I saw any point in it).

The problem comes when people want to insist that there is only One Way and it is holy. As a culture we can easily deal with a casual style that is closer to the way we actually talk. I don't think formal written English is in danger of dying off. Communication is changing though and flexibility is a good thing.

There's the formal dinner you make for relatives or friends coming over and there's the shortcut day-to-day cooking. We don't all have to have the formal dinner every night. (+ a million other examples of where we compromise out of expediency & common sense).
-----------------------

(Edit to put hyphens in "day-to-day." (OK, OK) I'm not nearly as down on hyphens as apostrophes.)

Once you truly learn about it, you automatically diagram sentences and use the proper tenses & punctuation.. It becomes second-nature.

I hated it when schools started letting kids get away with sloppiness.

And the Grauniad... lol... first I've heard of that.

Also, I'm with the Grammarians. I loved the mother in Infinite Jest.

We need a word of the week on DU

it's a nice word, but sometimes I use dust-up.

If we had a word of the week, we could ask for submissions. I would submit catawampus.

I hate it when the host is forced to adapt to the parasites... but such are our lives; the sub-literate will inherit the earth.

which indicates that cases are not being delayed, or abandoned, no, they are being 'kicked to the curb'.

Oh, wait, we are already there.

Play, weigh, grey, etc....

Learn them. Use them. They are your friends.

THATS RIGHT. Butchering the Queen's English is a job for 'Muricans.

and even Anglo-Canadians, who, despite their concerted efforts to preserve Her Majesty's tongue in the New World, have nonetheless been forced to adopt various crude Americanisms into their lexicon.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
apostrophe's should be the norm

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
apostrophe's are far too many and wellness says should never be partaken of

Last edited Fri Mar 29, 2013, 08:29 AM - Edit history (1)

The apostrophe-s combination is a leftover of the genitive (possessive) case, which is almost extinct in English.

"Whose" is one of the few examples (maybe the only, I'm not going to search for all examples) where the genitive survives in English, and even now there are many who are employing "who's" even though that is a contraction for "Who is".

The strong masculine and strong neuter genitive in English used to be indicated by the ending -es. This form spread to other types of nouns and we have dropped the e out except for prounouncing possessives where we need to avoid consonant cluster (think Homer Simpson talking about Flanders', pronounced Flanderses, BBQ).

In light of this history, I'm perfectly willing to accept a change in usage away from the apostrophe. It works well for the Germans, who have a similar situation going on when they say "Monikas Hund" (Monika's dog) and other posessives.

This is what I will say if anyone gives me stuff about apostrophes again!

God, leaving the apostrophes out of my title really hurt. I hope they hurry.