Apostrophe'''''s, when did the rot set in?

[DickyC]

From MSN News this morning:



Sub-editors. That's all you need. Someone to check stuff before it goes out.

[Frimley111R]

DickyC said:

From MSN News this morning:



Sub-editors. That's all you need. Someone to check stuff before it goes out.

Or even use Spellcheck!

[Amateurish]

From the front page of our school's weekly newsletter



One of the top 10 state school in the country...

[LunarOne]

Amateurish said:

From the front page of our school's weekly newsletter



One of the top 10 state school in the country...

That's all a bit Amateurish!

[RichB]

Frimley111R said:

DickyC said:

From MSN News this morning:

Sub-editors. That's all you need. Someone to check stuff before it goes out.

Or even use Spellcheck!

indeed

[Eric Mc]

DickyC said:

From MSN News this morning:



Sub-editors. That's all you need. Someone to check stuff before it goes out.

I hope that's not an example of Rowland White's actual spelling abilities. I like his books but they don't suffer from such appalling spelling.

[Penny Whistle]

Condi said:

London, London's or Londons - which should it be ? I vote for the first.

[LunarOne]

Penny Whistle said:

Condi said:

London, London's or Londons - which should it be ? I vote for the first.

It's a plural, so Londons. Versions of London could be described as Londons, just as versions of James Bond (either books, films or actor) can be called Bonds.

[jamesson]

Firebobby said:

Have you heard of comma's? I think you need to employ a proof reader before posting.

[paulguitar]

[DickyC]

[ric p]

All is good with the world when our Parish magazine in our South Somerset village runs an article like this!



The war is not lost yet.

[LunarOne]

ric p said:

All is good with the world when our Parish magazine in our South Somerset village runs an article like this!



The war is not lost yet.

I don't agree with Pam. CD's means belonging to the CD. CDs is the plural of CD. Also, it's 1960s or '60s if you wish to leave off the 19. It's not 60's unless referring to something belonging to the 60, which would hardly make sense. I suppose if talking about sockets in a set, you could say that the 14's flats are worn and it needs replacing.

Which reminds me. It's Black Friday and Halfords have a big sale on socket sets and garage tools.

[Wheelbrace]

It says the CD's cover/CD's covers.

i.e. the cover/covers that belong to the CD. So it is correct.

It also says 1960's fashion.

i.e. the fashion that belongs to the 60s. So that's correct too.

Sorry.

[RichB]

Wheelbrace said:

<clip>
It also says 1960's fashion.
i.e. the fashion that belongs to the 60s. So that's correct too.
Sorry.

I would write 1960 fashion if I was referring to the fashion of that particular year.

[Boleros]

Wheelbrace said:

It says the CD's cover/CD's covers.

i.e. the cover/covers that belong to the CD. So it is correct.

It also says 1960's fashion.

i.e. the fashion that belongs to the 60s. So that's correct too.

Sorry.

Only if the fashion belonged to the year 1960. The 1960s are the 1960s, one might argue is should be 1960s' fashion, non?

[Wheelbrace]

Boleros said:

Wheelbrace said:

It says the CD's cover/CD's covers.

i.e. the cover/covers that belong to the CD. So it is correct.

It also says 1960's fashion.

i.e. the fashion that belongs to the 60s. So that's correct too.

Sorry.

Only if the fashion belonged to the year 1960. The 1960s are the 1960s, one might argue is should be 1960s' fashion, non?

I made a mistake.

The article says 1960's fashions. (Fashions of 1960)

1960s' fashions. (Fashions of the 1960s)

So I say that the article is correct.

If it were only one fashion from the 1960s it would be 1960s' fashion.

No?

Edited by Wheelbrace on Friday 24th November 17:36

[LunarOne]

Wheelbrace said:

Boleros said:

Wheelbrace said:

It says the CD's cover/CD's covers.

i.e. the cover/covers that belong to the CD. So it is correct.

It also says 1960's fashion.

i.e. the fashion that belongs to the 60s. So that's correct too.

Sorry.

Only if the fashion belonged to the year 1960. The 1960s are the 1960s, one might argue is should be 1960s' fashion, non?

I made a mistake.

The article says 1960's fashions. (Fashions of 1960)

1960s' fashions. (Fashions of the 1960s)

So I say that the article is correct.

If it were only one fashion from the 1960s it would be 1960s' fashion.

No?

I think when one says 1960s fashion, 1960s is referring to the decade as an adjective and fashion doesn't need to be pluralised.

[Wheelbrace]

LunarOne said:

Wheelbrace said:

Boleros said:

Wheelbrace said:

It says the CD's cover/CD's covers.

i.e. the cover/covers that belong to the CD. So it is correct.

It also says 1960's fashion.

i.e. the fashion that belongs to the 60s. So that's correct too.

Sorry.

Only if the fashion belonged to the year 1960. The 1960s are the 1960s, one might argue is should be 1960s' fashion, non?

I made a mistake.

The article says 1960's fashions. (Fashions of 1960)

1960s' fashions. (Fashions of the 1960s)

So I say that the article is correct.

If it were only one fashion from the 1960s it would be 1960s' fashion.

No?

I think when one says 1960s fashion, 1960s is referring to the decade as an adjective and fashion doesn't need to be pluralised.

What if there were two distinct fashions from the same time?

The decade's fashions?

Edited by Wheelbrace on Friday 24th November 18:48

Edited by Wheelbrace on Friday 24th November 18:50

[LunarOne]

Wheelbrace said:

LunarOne said:

Wheelbrace said:

Boleros said:

Wheelbrace said:

It says the CD's cover/CD's covers.

i.e. the cover/covers that belong to the CD. So it is correct.

It also says 1960's fashion.

i.e. the fashion that belongs to the 60s. So that's correct too.

Sorry.

Only if the fashion belonged to the year 1960. The 1960s are the 1960s, one might argue is should be 1960s' fashion, non?

I made a mistake.

The article says 1960's fashions. (Fashions of 1960)

1960s' fashions. (Fashions of the 1960s)

So I say that the article is correct.

If it were only one fashion from the 1960s it would be 1960s' fashion.

No?

I think when one says 1960s fashion, 1960s is referring to the decade as an adjective and fashion doesn't need to be pluralised.

What if there were two distinct fashions from the same time?

The decade's fashions?

In that case yes. It depends on the context.