Well, technically speaking, the English alphabet contains only one letter “A” and one letter “I”. So if you’re filing something “under” a letter, then you’d want the singular.
OTOH, if you’re filing something with other somethings that begin with the same letter, then you’d want to pluralize it.
Well, that’s pretty much the definition of apposition.
The Authors Guild does not use an apostrophe, and you’d think they’d know.
The lack of an apostrophe in terms like Authors Guild or Teachers Union makes more sense if you think of the terms as meaning a guild composed of authors rather than the guild belonging to authors or a union composed of teachers rather than the union belonging to teachers.
No, that’s not what I mean at all. I understand the distinction quite well. What I mean is that I’m not concerned with that distinction in this particular discussion, though many people here get really worked up about it. Of course people say “rule” when they want you to believe that something is either “correct” or not, and, indeed, they are imposing some kind of standard, wherever they get it from. All I’m really saying is that whether it’s a rule or a guideline, it’s not naturally generated the way spoken language is. It’s “prescriptive” in one way or another. On this point I’m just not concerned with the motivations or reasoning of those doing the prescribing, understanding full well that what they prescribe has no real natural “privilege”; I do think it behooves a writer to be aware of them, though.
There seems to be a trend to accept plural possessive apostrophes (and for singulars ending in sibilants) so that they more simply 'reflect" speech (i.e., reflecting syllabification)–whatever, that’s great. I’m not concerned with the “legitimacy” of any particular change, as long as I know who accepts it and who doesn’t.
But writing isn’t mathematics, and editing one’s writing isn’t a cop-out, it’s part of the creative process, and if difficulties are encountered, then the words should certainly be changed. I’d want my words to be clear and concise, without ambiguity and superfluous punctuation.
And if I were quoting verbatim, I’d certainly use the apostrophes, and without shame, since they aren’t my words.
Did you perhaps miss the part where I said I was agreeing with you?
Yes, I know English isn’t math. I’m not sure how that is contrary to my point. Precisely because English isn’t math, it is useful to know how to punctuate those sorts of sentences, because sometimes those are exactly the sentences we want, even if recasting may make them more tidy punctuation-wise. It may be for reasons of tone or prosody, or even clarity. At some point, most writers, I would think, would come across the need to use a plural letter, even if it’s just in expressions like “minding your p’s and q’s” or “dotting your i’s and crossing your t’s.” This is why recasting the sentence is a cop-out of an answer to me.
In the specific sentence cited above (about Idiot Abroad), I agree that recasting is the better option, unless you are specifically using the phrasing to affect colloquial speech patterns, or something like that. But one shouldn’t avoid pluralizing single letters because one is afraid or doesn’t know how to punctuate it.
Why is spoken language more natural or less prescriptive than written language?
But the process is equivalent. You weren’t changing the original sentence to be more clear and concise; you were changing it to avoid a difficulty in the punctuation.
To me, this is the same as saying if you don’t know how to spell a word, you should just substitute a different word. And I disagree, if you think the original word was the word you wanted to use, you should look up how to spell it rather than substitute in a less appropriate word.
Don’t forget also to teach your students always to capitalise the word “I” when used as a “proper noun pronoun” to refer to oneself. Or is that one’s self? We’re talking about teachers of college juniors and seniors here.
I don’t have my copy of the ACS style guide in front of me, but I remember that ΔG[sup]‡[/sup]'s is the preferred plural of ΔG[sup]‡[/sup]. I can pull up the actual passage tomorrow if anyone really wants to know.
Dr, this is not 'Nam. This is grammar. There are rules.
Has the whole world gone *crazy *? Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules ?! You put an apostrophe to indicate a plural, and you are entering a world of pain. A world. Of pain.
As stated above, certain style guides will recommend an apostrophe for plurals in certain specific instances.
For example, here is the Associated Press Stylebook’s rule:
My rule of thumb is if even Shakespeare broke the rule at times, the problem is the rule. I’m not saying it’s applicable in this case but that’s my opinion.
In all instances, I rely on rule 41. “You are free to do as you like. You need only face the consequences.” If there is a style guide that you are bound to follow then do so. If there are no constraints, punctuate and capitalize as you see fit, with the understanding that your audience is going to draw certain conclusions, warranted or otherwise from your choices. Then it’s up to you whether you’re willing to live with it.
I’m the one in pain, because this attitude is common and dead wrong.
Grammar has rules. Plurals are not part of grammar. Plurals exist that are regular - word, words; irregular - child, children; and idiosyncratic - octopus, octopi, octopuses, octopodes. And that’s not talking about the need - which exists in written language but not in oral language - to figure out way to pluralize numbers, letters, abbreviations, proper names, and all the other variations of semantic information. There are guidelines that serve to help writers unfamiliar with particular plurals, but these aren’t rules; there are too many exceptions and too many disagreements among style books, many of which provide multiple examples of apostrophes being used in plurals.
Even so, virtually everybody who talks about the language insists that using apostrophe’s in plural’s ain’t good nohow. It’s not proper English; it’s not even colloquial English. It’s bad, and not in a Michael Jackson way. Descriptivists have to admit that it is widely used and not limited to the illiterate or uneducated: the usage shows up everywhere, from menus to newspaper articles. That hasn’t overcome the widespread hatred of the usage. Some solecisms are widely used without ever making it into proper language. Ain’t is the prime example.
My guess is that the confusion stems from possessives. If you’re unsure of English and its forms, especially if you’re not a native speaker, you might look at a sentence that includes “the articles mistakes” and wonder where the apostrophe goes in articles and whether that means another apostrophe is also needed in mistakes, as balance or conformity or something. After you use it once, especially if nobody comments, it must be easier to use the next time, and then regularly.
That’s an explanation, not an absolution. It’s wrong. Explaining why is not as simple as saying, “it’s against the rules.” No actual rule has been broken. A collective agreement has. And that makes all the difference in the world.
Come to think of it, in Dungeons & Dragons your rogue wants to join the “Thieves Guild”, not the “Thief’s Guild”. And similarly, the Seattle Mariners get dressed before the game in the “Mariners Clubhouse”, while the Seahawks get dressed in the “Seahawks Lockerroom”.
You see, france actually has “rules” for the french languages. English has none. As has been seen here, there are a set of guidelines, and the guidelines after contradict one another. Yes, in general apostrophes are not used to indicate a plural (all the guidelines agree), but as pulykamell and other have shown there are certain limited exceptions.
This is why Dr. Drake may be going too far- if he limits his stringent house-rules to what all the guidebooks and usages agree is clearly wrong, then fine. But there are so many exceptions in limited cases. For example “Teacher’s Union” can be Ok, altho I’d agree generally not preferred.
Shakespeare wrote at a time when spelling and grammar had not yet been regularized. And regularization occurred precisely because people began to recognize its utility in a world where an ever-greater percentage of the population was literate.
The conventions of spelling and grammar and usage are, in many ways, arbitrary and historically contingent, and they do change over time. But they are not infinitely mutable, and there are very decent, practical reasons for following them.
At the very least, as others have suggested in this thread, you should know the rules and conventions so that you can make an informed decision about when (and whether) to ignore them for literary purposes. Getting them wrong through simple ignorance, which is the sort of thing the OP was talking about, is just that: ignorance. It can quite easily be corrected, and if it is, then it will, in the long run, make everyone’s life easier.
And of course, they should be penalised for any errors, I never said any different. Disproportionate penalties are never a good idea.
“You’ve done a great job this year Dr Drake, but I see from out records you were 6 minutes late on the 12th January, so you can’t be considered for a pay review.”
And what if he had met with his supervisors at the beginning of the year and been told: “you are required never to be late; we will excuse one lateness but a second one will quash any pay raise”?