Hi, Two nations divided by a common language, I think.
I'm certainly aware of the use of the apostrophe to indicate contractions. What we are taught is that there are 2 main uses for the apostrophe: to indicate possession, and to replace missing letters in contractions. There are one or 2 exceptions, and other fairly minor uses. The Oxford Guide to Style gives OK'ing, KO'd, OD's, SOS'ing as examples. For the record, I don't 'insist upon concrete rules of usage', and I'm in no way 'kind of ignorant of the multitudes of variation in such usage'. Issues like this are a matter of degree, and to some extent of culture. We already see the influence of text messaging on the way people write and spell. There are people who defend -'s as a plural using exactly your arguments who will get hot under the collar about CUL8R etc. Nobody can be 100% consistent in this. LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE WRITE ALL IN CAPITALS. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE BEFORE OTHERWISE MILD-MANNERED PEOPLE GET ANNOYED AT THAT and consider also all those people whove given up on punctuation and speling altogether and defend themselves with the claim that hey their getting thr msg across so fuck off dude its all about comunicatn anyway and you know what im saying without me having to follow all your rules whydoweevenbotherwithspacesbetweenwordsitworkedjustfinefortheromansitcanworkjustfineforussogetoffofmycase The important thing is to know when it is and isn't suitable to use something in different circumstances. One thing I think we can be fairly sure about is that you cannot go wrong if you stick to 'the rules'. But you can go wrong if you adopt the 'anything goes' approach. Imagine an undertaker addressing a grieving widow with "Yo, bitch! Where's the stiff?". Perhaps there are some cultures where this would be acceptable, but an undertaker would be ill-advised to use it in all circumstances. Bob Friday, October 31, 2003, 3:47:04 PM, you wrote: > Aaaaargh*, see why I started using MXen. Bob was there on > rec.photo.equipment.35mm back in 1992-93. :) > The problem with that thinking, Bob, is that the apostrophe is also used when > leaving out letters: don't, o'clock, and MX's instead of MXes. Further the New > Heritage Dictionary indicates that it is proper to form plurals of acronyms by > adding 's to them. That makes two common usages that say MX's is proper. > My experience with those who insist upon concrete rules of usage is that they > are kind of ignorant of the multitudes of variation in such usage. There are no > concrete rules, only generally accepted usage. The Oxford references always > seems to try and be too rigid in their definitions. > I usually use "Strunk and White" as my style manual as I like their simplified > style. What I seldom use is what my school teachers taught me as I have > discovered that they basically didn't have a clue and thus tried to reduce > communications to stupid and conflicting rules. > The only real rule in writing english is clear communication. If my readers > understand what I meant then my style is good, if they do not then my style is > bad. Since I am not a college professor nor a lawyer, impressing the reader with > my erudition is quite far down on my writing style list. > * Did I get the right number of a's? Or is that as, or aes, or... Oh, never > mind! ;) > (For anyone who cares the Oxford American Dictionary says "a's" or "as", the New > Heritage Dictionary says "a's") > ---
