# This is a friendly pitting: Apostrophes and plurals **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 7, 2010, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880 "2010-07-07T18:07:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/41 "2010-07-09T14:06:39Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > True, but I prefer the following: > > When is it its? When it isn’t it is. > When is it it’s? When it is it is. It’s is it is. Its isn’t it is. > [@Chefguy](#): > > It’s in the place of “it has” or John’s in the place of “John has” may be common usuage, but it’s lazy English and technically improper (particularly the latter use). Well, yes. That’s what contractions are. Lazy English, or rather, informal English. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/42 "2010-07-09T14:29:28Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > It only marks possession per se in as much as the genitive morphology of English became elided. You’re going to have to be more explicit here. Because I can’t figure out what you’re trying to say; it seems like you’re propounding the myth that the possessive _'s_ is a contraction of _his_. > [@](#): > > No, they’re not equivalent. But its application for other elisions (_he’s_, _she’s_, etc.)–and more importantly–situations where sibilant possessives are necessary for clarity in speech and require some kind of demarcation in print (_The Jones’ cat_, i.e, “The cat of the Jones family”) show that it’s about notating phonology in general. > > The style guides of renown which say it’s better to write “Jones’” than to write “Jones’s”–even though most people will pronounce it the same–are probably what lead to people violating the very rules they promote–_the distinction isn’t phonetic_. > > And that’s the reason why it’s wrong for a person to write “_address’_” but correct for a person to write “_Jones’_”. Can you try to say this again with different words? The style guides I use (and I’m puzzled as to whether they claim to be of “renown”) prefer _Jones’s_ as the possessive. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/43 "2010-07-09T14:35:59Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > It’s is it is. Its isn’t it is.Well, yes. That’s what contractions are. Lazy English, or rather, informal English. I like that, too. Cleaner and simpler. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Surb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@The\_Surb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Surb)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/44 "2010-07-09T14:38:32Z")
When you are done tilting at this windmill, can you please pit using “of” in place of have? I see that all the time, would of, could of, should of. I just want to scream “no you dumbfuck, it’s would have, could have, should have!” ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/45 "2010-07-09T14:40:43Z")
I’ll do that when I start finding too many examples of it on the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/46 "2010-07-09T15:08:26Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > The style guides I use (and I’m puzzled as to whether they claim to be of “renown”) prefer _Jones’s_ as the possessive. As do I. Thanks. - A guy named Jones P.S. If there was one than more Jones, it was the Joneses’ cat. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/47 "2010-07-09T15:14:26Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > We could write “There were bunch’s of carrots on the table” and no one would be worse for wear. Yes, we would, because that would introduce ambiguity and confusion. > [@acsenray](#): > > I’d prefer to get rid of existing apostrophes rather than authorizing more of them Again, terrible idea, because it would introduce ambiguity. > [@Chefguy](#): > > It’s in the place of “it has” or John’s in the place of “John has” may be common usuage, but it’s lazy English and technically improper (particularly the latter use). You know what pisses me off? People whose language study ended with their eighth grade English class who think they know fuck-all about linguistics and proceed to pompously announce what’s “right” and what’s “lazy.” If that went over your head, I just called you an ignorant idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/48 "2010-07-09T15:19:55Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Again, terrible idea, because it would introduce ambiguity. If we can handle that ambiguity in speech, we should be able to handle it in writing. As I pointed out, the other Germanic languages don’t need an apostrophe to go with their genitive _S_s. And at one time, English didn’t need it either. It was introduced through misconception and hypercorrection. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/49 "2010-07-09T15:57:04Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > If we can handle that ambiguity in speech, we should be able to handle it in writing. Spoken speech != written speech. People often confused them as a common entity. They’re not. They’re as dissimilar as, say, walking and driving a car. Speech is natural, it’s something we’re programmed to do. Written language is something we’ve invented, something artificial… Which is why IMO you can make much more cogent arguments for standardization in written language than in spoken. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/50 "2010-07-09T16:10:38Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Spoken speech != written speech. People often confused them as a common entity. They’re not. They’re as dissimilar as, say, walking and driving a car. Speech is natural, it’s something we’re programmed to do. Written language is something we’ve invented, something artificial… Which is why IMO you can make much more cogent arguments for standardization in written language than in spoken. This is just non sequitur sloganeering. There are plenty of cases in which written language mirrors the ambiguity of spoken language. In both cases, ambiguity is resolved by context. There’s no reason to believe that this couldn’t be accommodated by elimination of the genitive apostrophe. You also ignored my other arguments: 1. English has long had a genitive _S_, but the apostrophe was introduced at a much later stage. 2. Other Germanic languages with a genitive _S_ do not use an apostrophe in writing. ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2010, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/51 "2010-07-09T16:14:26Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > There are plenty of cases in which written language mirrors the ambiguity of spoken language. In both cases, ambiguity is resolved by context. There’s no reason to believe that this couldn’t be accommodated by elimination of the genitive apostrophe. > > You also ignored my other arguments: > > 1. English has long had a genitive _S_, but the apostrophe was introduced at a much later stage. > 2. Other Germanic languages with a genitive _S_ do not use an apostrophe in writing. Point taken. The ambiguity and confusion will be created especially for the first generation of people who make the switch. If I see “bunch’s” right now, my brain tells me to expect it to function as a possessive. When the following words don’t bear that out, I’m forced to mentally backtrack. It’s the same line of reasoning one uses in determining when to hyphenate compound modifiers, for example. You want the reader to be able to follow along in the sentence and correctly anticipate the general structure of what comes next. When that doesn’t happen, you’re creating impediments to comprehension. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/52 "2010-07-11T00:00:45Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > You know what pisses me off? People whose language study ended with their eighth grade English class who think they know fuck-all about linguistics and proceed to pompously announce what’s “right” and what’s “lazy.” > > If that went over your head, I just called you an ignorant idiot. Show me where I called it wrong, moron. There’s nothing wrong with common usage, but it got to be common usage because of laziness in how we speak the language. Shove your snarky bullshit up your ass. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/53 "2010-07-11T00:21:38Z")
Language has rules. But the rules are arrived at by consensus. The rules of written English say that the sentence “Monday’s are the worst day of the week” is incorrect. But suppose enough people broke that rule. At some point, using an apostrophed s to form the plural of Mondays would become the correct rule. It’s the same reason why the correct plural of beer is beers and the correct plural of deer is deer. Because that’s the way we do it. And it could change. In a hundred years, maybe we’ll write there are twenty-four beer in a case or a dozen deers in a herd. (True fact: the correct plural of eye used to be eyen. But enough people incorrectly used the word eyes that it eventually became accepted as correct.) ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/54 "2010-07-11T00:22:59Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > There’s nothing wrong with common usage, but it got to be common usage because of laziness in how we speak the language. “Laziness” is not a scientifically valid description of linguistic phenomena. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/55 "2010-07-11T17:41:53Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > “Laziness” is not a scientifically valid description of linguistic phenomena. Ah. Would you prefer “humanoid predisposition to inexactitude in the expellation of verbal communications”? Cuz that’s like all fucked up and whatever. And shit. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/56 "2010-07-11T21:16:54Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > Ah. Would you prefer “humanoid predisposition to inexactitude in the expellation of verbal communications”? Cuz that’s like all fucked up and whatever. And shit. That’s how language evolves, brah. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/57 "2010-07-12T03:35:23Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > It’s in the place of “it has” or John’s in the place of “John has” may be common usuage, but it’s lazy English and technically improper (particularly the latter use). Not to pick on this, but what authority says that apostrophe-s for “has” is technically improper? I’m familiar with a lot of stylistic and grammar proscriptions, but that’s one I don’t recalling seeing. I’ve never heard anyone have a problem with a sentence like “It’s been a long time since I’ve seen you” or “John’s been away for the week” ---
**Author:** ![needscoffee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/needscoffee/32/1076_2.png) [@needscoffee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/needscoffee)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 6:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/58 "2010-07-12T06:04:28Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Not to pick on this, but what authority says that apostrophe-s for “has” is technically improper? I’m familiar with a lot of stylistic and grammar proscriptions, but that’s one I don’t recalling seeing. I’ve never heard anyone have a problem with a sentence like “It’s been a long time since I’ve seen you” or “John’s been away for the week” You forgot to call him an “ignorant idiot”. Oh, wait, that was **Shot From Gun’s**. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/59 "2010-07-12T07:20:37Z")
I find _you’re_ particularly problematic. For some reason, I inherently type it for _your_ about half the time. I only catch it on a reread, and occasionally I don’t catch it at all. I’m still trying to find the balance between proofreading everything, and thus taking an hour on a two paragraph response, and just typing how I speak. And the latter is winning out. Also, if I notice a typo after I’ve submitted, I actually have been intentionally flaring up my OCD and not correcting it unless I think understanding is actually impeded. Though I’ll occaisonally splurge. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880/60 "2010-07-12T15:11:12Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I find _you’re_ particularly problematic. For some reason, I inherently type it for _your_ about half the time. I only catch it on a reread, and occasionally I don’t catch it at all. I’m still trying to find the balance between proofreading everything, and thus taking an hour on a two paragraph response, and just typing how I speak. And the latter is winning out. Confession of someone who types perfectly and is never caught by **Gaudere** : I type your instead of you’re all the time too. The difference is I spot it and correct it instantly without taking much more time than if I left it alone. I’m really, _really_ thankful that written communication is almost entirely done by computer these days. My handwriting is atrocious, and god help me if I’m writing in pen at any speed. I have a bad habit of only seeing mistakes after I make them, not before. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-is-a-friendly-pitting-apostrophes-and-plurals/545880.md?page=4)