Apostrophe crimes

[RAYC]

I think that use of language can be more flexible than this.

For example, pregnancy is a binary state - a woman either is or is not pregnant. But you presumably would understand what was meant by a woman being "very pregnant", despite the fact that such phrasing does not fit literally alongside the binary concept.

[jdaw1]

The extent to which a pregnancy is showing, to which the phrase refers, is continuous.

[DRT]

A pint is almost exactly 56.8cl.

No, not an apostrophe crime. But ‟almost exactly” unacceptable.

{hanging-head-in-shame}

I seem to have some support on this one so I have removed my sack-cloth coat, torn the cow bell from my necklace and am holding my head up high.

RAYC and I seem to be just about precisely on the same page on this issue.

[jdaw1]

I have removed my sack-cloth coat, torn the cow bell from my necklace and am holding my head up high.

Writing in my capacity as your co-author, rather than contributor, don’t wash off the ashes.

[RAYC]

If we run short of port, we are only a moments walk away from Uncorked.

[PhilW]

One might drink about 2.8 bottles of port, and then say that the morning’s work is done.

Hmm. I'd agree that usage of "almost" is natural over any discrete range i.e. with a known limited precision such as integers or (as per previous suggestion) tenths; but if "almost" is not acceptable for non-continuous, then why is "about" any better? (consider if you had said "about 2.7362527" - would that vary your answer?).

I would argue that you had implicitly assumed a discrete series based on the stated precision (and that Derek was doing this same thing in his original "almost exactly 56.8cl").

[jdaw1]

Because ‟about” is perfectly acceptable when dealing with something continuous. I.e., if not arbitrarily assuming tenths.

[PhilW]

Would "about 2.736252776554776967667645540096" therefore also be acceptable?
I would have expected most people to argue that as being grim.

[jdaw1]

In the context of mathematically defined numbers like e^(π√163), where the ‟about” is actually important, I don’t mind that.

Obviously for numbers resulting from real-world measurement, 30 significant figures is unrealistic (roughly equivalent to quoting the width of the universe to the nearest millimetre).

[PhilW]

In that case would "Almost 2.736252776" not also be acceptable in the same context, meaning a number slightly less than 2.736252776 within a 'reasonable' range (whatever 'reasonable' means in the particular context, but in the same manner as whatever range 'about' would mean in the same context) ?

[jdaw1]

If the context suggests a ‘measurement error’, then ‟about” would remind the reader of that. No objection.

Few real-world measurements are more accurate than one part in a billion; but e^(π√163) is interesting only if computed to at least 32 significant figures.

[Glenn E.]

Hmm. I'd agree that usage of "almost" is natural over any discrete range i.e. with a known limited precision such as integers or (as per previous suggestion) tenths; but if "almost" is not acceptable for non-continuous, then why is "about" any better? (consider if you had said "about 2.7362527" - would that vary your answer?)

For me, it is the combination of "almost" and "exactly" that makes the phrase strange. "Almost" says this is not precise. "Exactly" says that it is.

I'd be fine with "almost 56.9 cl" or "just over 56.8 cl".

To reinforce Julian's point, if you bought 11 bottles of Port then "almost a case" works while "almost 12 bottles" does not. 11 bottles is a fraction of a case which is a proper measurement in its own right. If you're going to refer to a bottle count, then why say "almost 12" when you could have just said "11"?

[jdaw1]

For me, it is the combination of "almost" and "exactly" that makes the phrase strange. "Almost" says this is not precise. "Exactly" says that it is.

I'd be fine with "almost 56.9 cl" or "just over 56.8 cl".

To reinforce Julian's point, if you bought 11 bottles of Port then "almost a case" works while "almost 12 bottles" does not. 11 bottles is a fraction of a case which is a proper measurement in its own right. If you're going to refer to a bottle count, then why say "almost 12" when you could have just said "11"?

Thank you Glenn: I am not alone.

[PhilW]

For me, it is the combination of "almost" and "exactly" that makes the phrase strange. "Almost" says this is not precise. "Exactly" says that it is.

I'd be fine with "almost 56.9 cl" or "just over 56.8 cl".

To reinforce Julian's point, if you bought 11 bottles of Port then "almost a case" works while "almost 12 bottles" does not. 11 bottles is a fraction of a case which is a proper measurement in its own right. If you're going to refer to a bottle count, then why say "almost 12" when you could have just said "11"?

Thank you Glenn: I am not alone.

You're not really totally alone - "almost exactly" kind of grates on me too if I default to a mathematic and engineering context ("which is it, almost or exactly?"), but for colloquial use I don't mind it so much; any use of "almost" or "about" seems to be to be approximating from one degree of accuracy (whether continuous or discrete) to a less accurate representation (by definition discrete).

In scientfic or mathematic terms, any use of "almost" would likely need qualification itself anyway, i.e. what do you mean by almost (degree of accuracy, even if assumed to be to the number of significant figures quoted). I was therefore surprised that Julian was happy with "almost 25.7634" but unhappy with "almost exactly 25.7634" - I'd either be unhappy with both (scientifically) or ok with both colloquially.

Regarding Glenn's example, it does seem impracticable to use the 'almost' in the context of a discrete count; if you are only able to buy/consider for whatever reason in units of 'a bottle' then "almost X bottles" makes no sense. If a continuous unit were valid, e.g. you took a random container full of fluid and used it to fill as many bottles as possible, then being able to fill "almost 12 bottles" could make perfect sense, provided you are happy with the colloquial use in the first place?

[jdaw1]

Sloppy writing rather than an apostrophe crime:

! when the licence per hectare permitted for Port production, or beneficio, was cut dramatically to 85,000 pipes from its 2010 level of 110,000 pipes.

Only 85,000 pipes per hectare?

[RAYC]

Yes - I was rather thrown by that - caused me to google first "hectare" then "beneficio" to double check!

[RAYC]

Give yourself an extra few minutes to visit the (very) small square behind Berry's where the Embassy of Texas was based during their brief period of independance.

There's been a large number left to slide recently, but this was just one too many (albeit spelling rather than apostrophe crime). Perhaps AHB was just setting a trap to lure jdaw1 out of TPF retirement!

[jdaw1]

AHB often contributes by iPhone, for which reason I have been generous with him. Nonetheless, I’m happy to have a more assiduous new Deputy Sheriff.

[jdaw1]

JDAWs bottle

[jdaw1]

one of our countries great heros, King Alexander I of Scotland.

[Alex Bridgeman]

one of our countries great heros, King Alexander I of Scotland.

You were quicker off the mark than I was able to be.

[RAYC]

There are exceptions, such as some Colheita's which can improve with bottle age,

What are the rules here? Is there an amnesty for errors on FTLOP...?

[DRT]

There are exceptions, such as some Colheita's which can improve with bottle age,

What are the rules here? Is there an amnesty for errors on FTLOP...?

As there is no extradition treaty in place I cannot be convicted of a crime in another jurisdiction.

And I appear to have been accused of a crime I did not commit

[Glenn E.]

I cannot be convicted of a crime in another jurisdiction.

Multiple examples in this thread, including on this page, indicate otherwise.

[RAYC]

Berry's Own Crusted Port (bottled 2004)

Though, interestingly, not a mistake if Ronnie had instead stumbled across one of the ≤1983 BBR own-label ports, which were indeed labelled "Berry's Own Selection".

For some reason the apostrophe seems to have changed location between 1985 and 1987, since the 1985 labels (and subsequent labels) are "Berrys' Own Selection". (perhaps both Berrys started to select....!)

[apologies Ronnie - this was posted merely as a segue into a bit of trivia i noticed whilst re-arranging my cellar recently!]