The practice of good grammar and spelling on the internet are akin to maintaining good hygiene habits in real life. When I see someone who consistently writes a sentence like “U definately masterbated in teh refridgerator’s” is akin to being in close proximity of someone who has not wiped since sixth grade and has the crusty jeans to prove that fact.
I was always taught that to form the possessive of a word ending in s, you just add an ’ - no extra s, ever.
Perhaps this is a British thing…
Otoh, even they can’t get it right. There’s a tube station in London which has both these signs along the platform: St. James’s Park and St. James’ Park.
“English as She is Spoke” comes to mind. [sigh]
In case anybody gets the wrong impression, no it’s not a British thing, it’s just the way you were taught, and IMHO you were badly taught.
I HATE that…and yet I find myself doing it once in awhile now…I see it so much I think it is sneaking into my damn brain.
Jakekellym, it’s populace, not populous. Condescending, not condecending.
raisinbread, we say proximity to, not proximity of.
Heh, just felt nitpicky, it often comes over me when I see people ranting about spelling and grammar.
Nobody’s talking about the s pos or pos s. The Australian Style Manual calls for the pos s when a proper name ends in ‘s’. Thus we have Dickens’s novels. We use the s pos when we use Biblical or ancient names. Thus it is Moses’ law. We use the s pos when we write a sentence such as ‘The riders’ mounts were all black’.
I know Gaudere’s law is gonna bite me in the arse with this post 
I think the use of the non-word “gonna” kinda sealed your fate, Prima. Though you did spell it right! 
This problem bugs me too and, as an editor, I come across it more frequently than apostrophe misuse in professional writing. In most cases I find the author applies the punctuation to add emphasis to a word or to indicate a company name/product.
Nah, gonna’s slang. I can use gonna in an terribly ironic sense can’t I? Errrr, or shall I just say I was being post-modernist?
The Chicago Manual of Style disagrees with you on that. They eschew apostrophes even when puralizing letters, numbers, symbols:
Ts, 8s, and *@*s.
Hmmmm. :looks at Prima’s earlier post… :
Aha! Gaudere’s Law strikes again:
"I know Gaudere’s law is gonna bite me in the arse with this post 
"
Where’s the period??? Had you not invoked Gaudere’s Law on yourself with that final sentence, you would’ve gotten off Scot-free. Don’t you hate it when that happens?
This is one place I part ways with Chicago Style. Although for numbers I much prefer “1980s” to “1980’s,” the problem with apostophizing letters is that it can cause confusion or slow comprehension. Imagine this sentence: “A’s made up over half the grades given out this semester.” Without recasting (which is a cop-out, since this is a perfectly fine sentence) Chicago Style would give us this monstrosity of comprehension “As made up over half the grades…”
Um…that should be “the problem with NOT apostrophizing THE PLURALS OF letters,” of course.
Well you could always enclose the letter within quote marks, thus:
"A"s made up over half the grades…
Nor on spelling, since it’s grammar. What I find strange is that some of the people on this board who speak English as a second or third language actually have a better grasp of spelling and grammar (not to mention a larger vocabulary) than some native speakers. And having enjoyed an “American Education” (at least for a few years) I can see what might be the cause of this. In my opinion the American masses are being dumbed down more and more.
What frightens me is how often I see spelling and grammar errors now in respected publications like “The Washington Post” and “The New York Times”. Judging from the type of error, it doesn’t look like they are typos. The things I have come across seem to be caused by spell-checking programs, since they almost always seem to include some weird alternative spelling for a word. Something like: “After reeking havoc on his enemies, they whaled in pain”. Don’t they have enough money to pay some decent editors anymore? I seriously don’t remember seeing this many errors in respected newspapers when I was growing up. And you definitely don’t see this kind of errors in respected newspapers from other countries, like the “London Times” or “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung”, for example.
Oh, and please no nitpicking how my post has sentences started with “and”, and “oh”, or dangling participles and that crap. If I was writing for the “Times” I would write differently than I do here. But “grammer”? And the whole “your, you’re”, “there, they’re”, “lose, loose” thing. This just makes me sad sometimes.
I’m sorry to disabuse you, but the Times of London exhibits a fair few grammatical and spelling mistakes these days. Its quality has dropped significantly since Murdoch took over.
That could very well be true, since I haven’t read the London Times in ages. Rupert’s influence might well be the cause also. So, I guess the British are now being dumbed down also? Oh woe the anglo-saxon culture
Who care’s?
Maybe you’re think of the possessive apostophe for a plural? E.g. The Students’ Union ?
I’ve noticed this trend. I think that EASL students learn things the right way the first time around, while American native-English speakers must “unlearn” all of their bad habits. Sometimes there is resistance.
I’m sorry to see that I’m posting the first dissenting opinion. Language policing is really a type of elitism; we in the upper classes invent baroque and arbitrary rules that only our children could possibly have the leisure time to learn, thereby distinguishing us and reinforcing our belief that we deserve our priveleged place in society. I’m always dismayed to see how easily people fall into this trap.
Language and grammar have no ‘rules’. (btw, I purposely left the punctuation out of the quotes because I think that’s a ridiculous convention). They are evolving, malleable tools of communication. People, including Americans, speak and write as well today as they ever did. The only thing revealed by the prevalence of unconventional grammar is that literacy and access to captial (businessess, presses, etc) has democratized, allowing those outside the lineage of the American aristocracy to influence how English is used.
Now, grammatical ambiguity is a problem. Some of the examples cited in the above posts lead failures of communication – did the writer really mean possessive or plural? But in general, if you can understand what is being conveyed, then there is no grounds for criticism.
Steven Pinker has a great book called The Language Instinct on how language is used and how it evolves with use.