Comments on: Apostrophe Question http://www.dummies-for-destruction.co.uk/random/2010/02/apostrophe-question/ Dummies For Destruction - A drop of blood in a sea of piss Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:46:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: lyle http://www.dummies-for-destruction.co.uk/random/2010/02/apostrophe-question/comment-page-1/#comment-165887 lyle Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:41:07 +0000 http://www.dummies-for-destruction.co.uk/random/?p=6991#comment-165887 Well I don't need loads, and these were packs of five, so not too bad. Last year we got them from another company, and they were fucking disastrous, so went for Homebase this year, see what happens. Next year I'll probably get them from yet another place. We're just seeing which ones come up with the best results. Well I don’t need loads, and these were packs of five, so not too bad.

Last year we got them from another company, and they were fucking disastrous, so went for Homebase this year, see what happens.

Next year I’ll probably get them from yet another place. We’re just seeing which ones come up with the best results.

]]> By: Blue Witch http://www.dummies-for-destruction.co.uk/random/2010/02/apostrophe-question/comment-page-1/#comment-165885 Blue Witch Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:07:57 +0000 http://www.dummies-for-destruction.co.uk/random/?p=6991#comment-165885 Oh - and - regarding seed potatoes, don't you have any small garden centres near you? Many of them will let you pick and mix from open boxes so you don't have to be restricted to big nets which are probably more than you actually want of each type. Also likely to come from better sources than Homebase's... Oh – and – regarding seed potatoes, don’t you have any small garden centres near you? Many of them will let you pick and mix from open boxes so you don’t have to be restricted to big nets which are probably more than you actually want of each type. Also likely to come from better sources than Homebase’s…

]]> By: Blue Witch http://www.dummies-for-destruction.co.uk/random/2010/02/apostrophe-question/comment-page-1/#comment-165884 Blue Witch Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:05:05 +0000 http://www.dummies-for-destruction.co.uk/random/?p=6991#comment-165884 I agree with the gist of the above. It's from the same camp as 1900's etc, which is generally considered to be an outdated usage (though not incorrect), nowadays. I'd write it without, if that helps... ;) I agree with the gist of the above. It’s from the same camp as 1900′s etc, which is generally considered to be an outdated usage (though not incorrect), nowadays.

I’d write it without, if that helps… ;)

]]> By: i am algernon http://www.dummies-for-destruction.co.uk/random/2010/02/apostrophe-question/comment-page-1/#comment-165880 i am algernon Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:32:37 +0000 http://www.dummies-for-destruction.co.uk/random/?p=6991#comment-165880 It is actually considered to be correct, in some circles anyway. I'd argue that it is one of these things that prescriptive rules don't address adequately. There is an argument that apostrophes of this type can be used in plurals of letters and numbers, e.g. b's, d's and the 1960's. However, this, I think, causes an element of confusion with genitive markers (denoting possession), e.g. John's book, the dog's bowl. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/nouns/genmark.htm This is definitely not a contraction (compression as you called them) as when you expand the contraction it is grammatically unsound. "There are literally hundreds is of(...)" It appears it is a cardinal number version of hundreds which has been apostrophized as 100's. It is correct. Though, personally, I'd prefer 100s, 1960s and so on. When no apostrophe marking is present in plural letters however, it does look a mess, e.g. bs, ds, as? Apostrophes, not worth the hassle half the time. It is actually considered to be correct, in some circles anyway. I’d argue that it is one of these things that prescriptive rules don’t address adequately. There is an argument that apostrophes of this type can be used in plurals of letters and numbers, e.g. b’s, d’s and the 1960′s. However, this, I think, causes an element of confusion with genitive markers (denoting possession), e.g. John’s book, the dog’s bowl.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/nouns/genmark.htm

This is definitely not a contraction (compression as you called them) as when you expand the contraction it is grammatically unsound.

“There are literally hundreds is of(…)”

It appears it is a cardinal number version of hundreds which has been apostrophized as 100′s. It is correct. Though, personally, I’d prefer 100s, 1960s and so on. When no apostrophe marking is present in plural letters however, it does look a mess, e.g. bs, ds, as?

Apostrophes, not worth the hassle half the time.

]]>