Apostrophe crimes

[djewesbury]

If data is released only to those paying a subscription, could that be a private publication?

I don't think so. Once you have the data it has been released and made public, regardless of whether you paid for it. Private subscription is a red herring.

[djewesbury]

Hang on, wasn't Daniel deposed in a bloody coup yesterday? Now here he is expanding his remit into possible examples of tautology. Has the world gone mad?

That's why I have my head under my arm. Whoooooooooo!

[PhilW]

I'm sure some data is only published internally, as opposed to publicly, even if accessible via freedom of information requests or similar; other data might be published internally, or to a known list of approved recipients but not be available more widely for security reasons.
{sackcloth} for the misspelling.

[djewesbury]

I'm sure some data is only published internally, as opposed to publicly, even if accessible via freedom of information requests or similar; other data might be published internally, or to a known list of approved recipients but not be available more widely for security reasons.
{sackcloth} for the misspelling.

What is the meaning of publishing, then, as opposed to circulating a memo or collating a spreadsheet to email to everyone? I have not just 'published' my module guides for the courses I'm teaching this semester; but the university has published its prospectus. An internal report is not 'published'.
(The Chilcot Enquiry Report has not been published, although Tony Blair has been told what it says.)

[djewesbury]

And while the court is in session:

I am all Appled-up but I think JDAW has one of those old fashioned Windows thingies and AHB has one of those dreadful Blackcurrents.

Dreadful indeed.

[jdaw1]

The BBC reports on a pedant: Wikipedia's grammar vigilante.

[jdaw1]

Trolls and hackers are some of the most interesting people Mr Bartlett meets. Trolling, trying intentionally to upset people by posting inflammatory comments online, can be sophisticated and politically motivated, a way of pushing people’s boundaries to unlock ideas. One troll, Zack, explains how he joins an online forum, deliberately makes basic grammatical and spelling mistakes, waits for someone to criticise his writing and then locks them into a conversation about politics.

[djewesbury]

How distasteful. Thank goodness we don't do that sort of thing.

[DRT]

One bottle is better than none. But a miserable strike rate for two large branches of Tesco's (putting my neck on the line with that take on the plural possessive form).

Sent upstairs for a ruling from the third umpire.

Case for the prosecution: Unlike their rivals "Sainsbury's", Tesco do not use a possessive in any of their branding as demonstrated in the case of "Tesco Finest" v "Sainsbury's Taste the Difference". "Two large branches of Tesco" would be a more accurate description, the s on branches adequately demonstrating the plurality of the phrase.

What does the defendant have to say for himself?

[djewesbury]

Turnbull, where you paying attention when we covered this in Third Form? Or were you making catapults as usual?
I refer Your Honour to a ruling made several thousand pages ago.
(Summary: the possessive is not part of the name, any more than it is in a form such as the grocer's. The implied part of speech here is the noun 'shop'.)

[DRT]

"Tesco's branches" I could accept, but the possessive is redundant in your statement.

Would you like some Tesco Finest sausages for your last breakfast?

[djewesbury]

No. The possessive is not redundant. The possessive implies another word. The fact of the brand name is irrelevant. You have supplied no proof, no working out and you haven't formatted your bibliography properly.
Branches of Tesco's [shop]. There is no case to answer.

[djewesbury]

Meanwhile, as you sit here wasting the court's time, the very worst recidivists are out and about, terrorising the forum.

im surprised no one has mentioned yet is the '83 Cockburn

I have never had one that wasn't tainted and will never buy one. It's poor reputation is thoroughly deserved in my view.

[jdaw1]

I was too slow.

FYI, DRT’s most recent folly was here.

[LGTrotter]

One bottle is better than none. But a miserable strike rate for two large branches of Tesco's (putting my neck on the line with that take on the plural possessive form).

Sent upstairs for a ruling from the third umpire.

Case for the prosecution: Unlike their rivals "Sainsbury's", Tesco do not use a possessive in any of their branding as demonstrated in the case of "Tesco Finest" v "Sainsbury's Taste the Difference". "Two large branches of Tesco" would be a more accurate description, the s on branches adequately demonstrating the plurality of the phrase.

What does the defendant have to say for himself?

Surely there is no need for an apostrophe at all. Is Tesco being possessive? I thought it was just more than one branch of Tesco?

Show with workings. And no swearing or sledging.

[DRT]

Surely there is no need for an apostrophe at all. Is Tesco being possessive? I thought it was just more than one branch of Tesco?

Correct.

[DRT]

Meanwhile, as you sit here wasting the court's time, the very worst recidivists are out and about, terrorising the forum.

im surprised no one has mentioned yet is the '83 Cockburn

I have never had one that wasn't tainted and will never buy one. It's poor reputation is thoroughly deserved in my view.

I was simply following Daniel's new style of inserting apostrophes randomly where they serve no useful purpose. I think I made my point.

[djewesbury]

Nice try Derek. Now don your sackcloth.

[DRT]

Nice try Derek. Now don your sackcloth.

You can give me it tomorrow once you've finished wearing it.

[flash_uk]

Turnbull, where you paying attention when we covered this in Third Form? Or were you making catapults as usual?
I refer Your Honour to a ruling made several thousand pages ago.
(Summary: the possessive is not part of the name, any more than it is in a form such as the grocer's. The implied part of speech here is the noun 'shop'.)

A similar case was brought before this court some time back, here.

[LGTrotter]

where you paying attention

[djewesbury]

where you paying attention

Et tu?

[PhilW]

With England on it's current run of form and with Scotland determined to lose by any means, fair or foul, it could be an interesting game. The two titans of disaster going head to head. I have seen Boycott's response, but not yet 's Boycott, aka Mr Jwewsbury's. Still traing up his gran with a stick of rhubarb to take over the captaincy I suppose.

For the apostrophe, with several other punctuation and spelling crimes also taken into account.

[jdaw1]

Comments should be limited to max 80 chars, preferably less.

[PhilW]

Comments should be limited to max 80 chars, preferably less.

n<=80 required, n<80 preferred. What is the crime?

[flash_uk]

Comments should be limited to max 80 chars, preferably less.

n<=80 required, n<80 preferred. What is the crime?

Fewer?

[djewesbury]

No wonder you can't use the correct word, there isn't a mathematical symbol for it.
Signed,
The Campaign for English Words Written in Full and Not Abbreviated or Replaced with Mathematical Symbols.

[PhilW]

No wonder you can't use the correct word, there isn't a mathematical symbol for it.
Signed,
The Campaign for English Words Written in Full and Not Abbreviated or Replaced with Mathematical Symbols.

Welcome to the glass house.

[djewesbury]

That's another rubbish argument from the math-bots. Contractions are words; not abbreviations. Language is not an if-and-not operation, but that's a pretty clear one.
Process that, Metal Mickey.

[PhilW]

That's another rubbish argument from the math-bots. Contractions are words; not abbreviations. Language is not an if-and-not operation, but that's a pretty clear one.
Process that, Metal Mickey.

You are campaigning for words to be written in full. Surely "isn't" should be "is not"?
And what on earth is an "if-and-not" operation?

[djewesbury]

Words are words. Abbreviations are acronyms, symbols, or shortenings that don't (DON'T) make a word speakable in the English language. F'rinstance, the abbreviation of the name Thomas to Thos., a habit we have thankfully long since deplored.
I don't know what one of them is, I don't speak Number.
Look, why don't we just make a rule that you lot stop writing <= and that kind of thing when you're meant to be criticising one another's English? You have your own places for that sort of thing.

[djewesbury]

Either that, or start a new thread where you can all speak to one another in symbols and the rest of us don't have to go there. You could have an additional log-in to make sure it's Over 18s only.

[PhilW]

I still don't think writing "isn't" qualifies as "written in full", since it is a contraction of two words.
If contractions are accepted to be words and abbreviations are not, then would asking for words to be written in full not be a tautology, on the grounds that anything not written in full is an abbreviation rather than a word anyway?

>18 or >=18 ?

[DRT]

why don't we just make a rule that you lot stop writing <= and that kind of thing when you're meant to be criticising one another's English?

+1

[PhilW]

Buy me a couple of mackeral fillets and I'll try to behave.

[djewesbury]

Thanks Derek. By doubling our numbers I feel you've made our case at least ½ as strong.
He exhales, reaches into the drawer that he has opened in his desk, withdraws a revolver and shoots himself.

[DRT]

Thanks Derek. By doubling our numbers I feel you've made our case at least ½ as strong.

I think it's fewer than that.

[djewesbury]

[PhilW]

Comments should be limited to max 80 chars, preferably less.

n<=80 required, n<80 preferred. What is the crime?

Fewer?

Would you really say "preferably fewer" (than 80)? I would have thought "preferably less" (than 80) was more natural, and am surprised if that is deemed incorrect.

[djewesbury]

Your surprise notwithstanding (get him a chair someone, all the lubricant has drained out of his cognitive unit), you are incorrect. It's a very simple rule. When referring to nouns of number, the word used must be fewer. When referring to nouns of mass, less is the only choice. Why is that a surprise? What grammatical difference is there between '80 characters or fewer' and '5 items or fewer'?
Your punishment is to wear a sackcloth fan-belt for the next 24 of our Earth hours.

[PhilW]

What grammatical difference is there between '80 characters or fewer' and '5 items or fewer'?

None, and I would have expected both to be "less". Ah well, time to buy more lubricant.

[djewesbury]

'5 items or less' is where the whole less / fewer debate began for many people. So much so that M&S changed their signs to read 'fewer'. There are apparently some people called 'descriptive grammarians' who argue that the rules of grammar are whatever people think they are. They believe that the 'prescriptive' usage comes only from a dated personal preference. I am not a descriptive grammarian.

[jdaw1]

Fewer?

Indeed, fewer.

[flash_uk]

Going on past form, I expect to disagree with everything everyone says, but hopefully that will enable me to have a better idea of mine own.

[djewesbury]

This was intentional. Don the sackcloth that is thine own.

[jdaw1]

his opponents counter

his opponents position

his opponents counter

A glimpse at a mis-punctuated youth.

[djewesbury]

Well done for reporting yourself. Three Hail Marys and One How's Your Father should do it.

[DRT]

Well done for reporting yourself. Three Hail Marys and One How's Your Father should do it.

I see no need for the random capitalisation of the word one. Go to the back of the class.

[djewesbury]

Well done for reporting yourself. Three Hail Marys and One How's Your Father should do it.

I see no need for the random capitalisation of the word one. Go to the back of the class.

I can't while you're sitting there.

[DRT]

Well done for reporting yourself. Three Hail Marys and One How's Your Father should do it.

I see no need for the random capitalisation of the word one. Go to the back of the class.

I can't while you're sitting there.

You can sit on my knee