# A bunch of Apostrophe's



## Mr Tea (Jan 10, 2005)

Did you notice the misused apostrophe in the title? Of course you did! Unless you are the person who penned the recent 'New Year Update!' mailout to MACOSX.COM members, in which case you might well have missed it.

Sorry to be a pedant, but the phrase "Lot's of great people, all fanatical about Mac's" should not have any apostrophes in it. The only place you need an apostrophe before the final 's' is the possessive form (showing that something 'belongs' to someone or something else - eg, "Jim's Macs"; "The Mac's USB port").

Some authorities (the NYT) consider it acceptable to place an apostrophe in a plural when a set of initials is being pluralised (eg, DVD's, WMD's) citing legibility as the reason for this deeply questionable practice, but at least they are consistent in their usage. A phrase like "Lot's of rumors" has no punctuational logic at all - if you're going to stick an apostrophe in "lot's", then at least go the whole hog and stick one in "rumors" as well.

This has been a public service announcement.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jan 10, 2005)

*HEAR HEAR!*

A man after my own pedantic, anally retentive heart!  ::love::  ::love::  ::love:: But where do you stand on the thorny issue of the Oxford Comma?


----------



## Gerard McLean (Jan 10, 2005)

A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.
"Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.
"I'm a panda," he says, at the door. "Look it up."
The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.
"*Panda*. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."

From the jacket of _Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The zero tolerance approach to punctuation_  by Lynne Truss. 

Should be required reading by ANYONE who sends out email broadcasts. Especially soccer coaches and programmers.

Amazon.com 

G.


----------



## Gerard McLean (Jan 10, 2005)

Ah, the Oxford comma. Eats, shoots, and leaves. Even more entertaining 

G.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jan 10, 2005)

Gerard McLean said:
			
		

> From the jacket of _Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The zero tolerance approach to punctuation_  by Lynne Truss.



I once made the mistake of reading that book in a café. I was asked to leave by a waiter who said that my laughing out loud was disturbing the other patrons!


----------



## Mr Tea (Jan 10, 2005)

To my eternal chagrin, CaptainQuark, I was entirely unaware of the term 'Oxford Comma' until I read your reply to my post. Fortunately, this is 2005, I am online, and there is Google. Within seconds, I had access to 54,988,046,221 potential sources of information with which to rectify my ignorance (truly we live in an age of wonders); I made straight for the horse's mouth, where I found a clear (if somewhat partisan) explanation.

So, in answer to your question, yes: I wholeheartedly embrace the Oxford Comma (but sometimes have to wash my hands afterwards).


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jan 10, 2005)

Mr Tea I'm disappointed! You bad, bad man! The Oxford Comma is an evil, wicked and nasty phenomenon, the use of which should be punishable by death. It is, in fact, almost as evil a crime as splitting the infinitive!


----------



## Mr Tea (Jan 10, 2005)

CaptainQuark said:
			
		

> You bad, bad man!



What!? *splutter* Parentheses at dawn, sir!

You can take away my livelihood, sell my family into slavery, but I will never, never accept that the Oxford Comma should be universally proscribed.

While such a comma would be extraneous, egregious even, in simple constructions such as "ham, egg, and chips", I am entirely certain that confusion (and, quite possibly, indigestion) would result if the final comma were to be lost from "aperitifs, seafood bisque, wild Scottish smoked salmon dressed with lemon and coriander sauce, and egg custard".

Linguistic sophistication sometimes requires a level of fine-tuning that only the Oxford Comma can provide  although I accept that those who live a simple, monosyllabic intellectual life are probably better off without it.

Despite your unseemly suggestion that I should face execution without appeal for defending this unfairly maligned sub-spieces, I feel that I owe you a debt of gratitude for bringing the matter to my attention. I shall make it my business to use at least one a day from now on, constructing lists of such byzantine complexity that only a well-placed 'Oxford' can render them comprehensible, and that's a promise.


----------



## Randman (Jan 10, 2005)

If written correctly, the Oxford comma is never needed. If a sentence has a possibility of being less than crystal clear, it should be rewritten. Yes, I'm a grammar and spelling Nazi myself, though I do confess to a lapse here and there.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jan 10, 2005)

Oh I do like to discuss such delicate issues with a person who obviously DOES have a clue about that of which he speaks!

As a designer, typesetter and copy editor of books, I have this argument fairly often with authors who, while experts in their own particular fields, are often only semi-literate. It is unfortunate, though, that I am trying to piece together a valid argument against such an abomination at the end (for us UK types  I notice that the former colonials across the pond are waking up, though) of a long and tiring day of dispensing invaluable advice to my Mac-using colleagues on this eminent forum, as I am struggling even to remember my own name, and can't think of the perfect, killer argument to put my point indisputably across.

(Bung a couple of Oxford Commas into THAT lot and see if it makes sense!)   

I'm glad to see that you have not, at least, split the infinitive  or am I just tempting fate?


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jan 10, 2005)

Ooops!  ::ha::  A quick glance at your profile _after_ having posted my most recent outburst, tells me that I may have offended you  an 'author/illustrator'  by calling authors illiterate. No offence intended.


----------



## Randman (Jan 10, 2005)

I not stupid. 

 But I do find it ironic that apostrophe was capitalized (or capitalised for you non-zee/zed fans out there) in the title of this thread complaining about poor grammar. 

My thinking is if you can leave something out, be it a comma, other punctuation of even an extra word (such as "that") without sacrificing the meaning, you should do so. Brevity and conciseness of thought without all of the "extra-strength, free and complimentary, new and improved, silly and redundant" verbosity that makes up too much of the damn language these days (daze?).


----------



## Gerard McLean (Jan 10, 2005)

CaptainQuark said:
			
		

> I once made the mistake of reading that book in a café. I was asked to leave by a waiter who said that my laughing out loud was disturbing the other patrons!



You were probably pausing inappropriately long between laughs. Or perhaps you paused just before the last laugh of the chapter, making that laugh an Oxford laugh. You should perhaps re-order your laughing and pausing as to make your laughing meaning crystal clear.

I find it amusing that nothing quite sparks up a discussion board like the use or misuse of the English language.


----------



## bobw (Jan 10, 2005)

crap,, now ah have t'git a dickshunary t'see whut all these trimenjus wo'ds mean, as enny fool kin plainly see


----------



## brianleahy (Jan 10, 2005)

> I was asked to leave by a waiter who said that my laughing out loud was disturbing the other patrons!



Similar story:

Some years back when I was in college, I took a summer job doing data-entry at a clinic.   The lunch room at the clinic had a book-lending shelf; people brought in paperbacks and left them there for others to read at their leisure.  So one day while eating my brown-bag lunch, I picked up "Side Effects" by Woody Allen and began to read.

Several times I nearly laughed my ham-and-cheese out through my nose.   I tried to keep my laughter down, but it was very difficult.   I did finally attract some attention and was questioned about who I was and what I was reading.  As a temp, they didn't immediately recognize me.


In fact, as I recall it was a mental-health clinic.....


----------



## ScottW (Jan 10, 2005)

you'll know'hat, i Don't understand's whatch'a talk'in about! I go college,


----------



## Arden (Jan 10, 2005)

bobw said:
			
		

> crap,, now ah have t'git a dickshunary t'see whut all these trimenjus wo'ds mean, as enny fool kin plainly see


 j00r a11 3h 5uxx0rz!1!!!1!!!1!~!  1 b3 4 1337 h4xx0r!!!1!!!1!!!11!!one!!


----------



## brianleahy (Jan 10, 2005)

An apostrophe catastrophe!


----------



## Mr Tea (Jan 10, 2005)

CaptainQuark said:
			
		

> I'm glad to see that you have not, at least, split the infinitive  or am I just tempting fate?


I didn't want to needlessly antagonise you. Oops. ::ha::


			
				Randman said:
			
		

> I do find it ironic that apostrophe was capitalized (or capitalised for you non-zee/zed fans out there) in the title of this thread complaining about poor grammar.


Good catch  after a fashion. In truth I should have capitalised 'bunch' as well, seeing as it _was_ the title (but not 'of', of course).


----------



## g/re/p (Jan 11, 2005)

The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe


----------



## MDLarson (Jan 11, 2005)

This thread, is hilarious, and, I'm forwarding the URL, to my wife, who, is a tech-writer...  lol


----------



## CaptainQuark (Jan 11, 2005)

Mr Tea said:
			
		

> I didn't want to needlessly antagonise you. Oops. ::ha::



*AAAAAAARRRGGGHHH!!!* 

Typical bleedin' author - "It's my book/post, so I'll write *what* I want, *how* I want it, and copy editors and good English be damned!"

 

Why do I bother?

 

(Note the correct use of the comma before the first 'and', there.  ::angel:: That's NOT an Oxford Comma, but a comma indicating a separate, but integral part of the sentence. Had I used an Oxford Comma before the SECOND 'and', that sentence would not have made sense!)


----------



## Arden (Jan 11, 2005)

Wow, this is worser than high school English!


----------



## Mr Tea (Jan 11, 2005)

Cap?

You still conscious?

Don't blow a gasket there, old chap. I'm sure we can all learn to live together in peace and harmony, just like folks with different religious beliefs do.

 ::angel::


----------



## Arden (Jan 11, 2005)

You obviously haven't been to the Middle East in the last 60 years...


----------



## Randman (Jan 12, 2005)

Bad Mr Tea, sneaky but bad. I like it.


----------



## michaelsanford (Jan 17, 2005)

If I may take from my university studies and add to that:



> "Come inside," it says, "for CD's, VIDEO's, DVD's, and BOOK's."
> 
> If this satanic sprinkling of redundant apostraphes causes no little gasp of horror or quickening of he pulse, you should probably put this book down right now [...] for any true stickler, you see, the sight of the plural word "Book's" with an apostraphe in it will trigger a ghastly private emotional process similar to the stages of bereavement, though greatly accelerated"


Eats, Shoots and Leaves : the approach to zero tolerance punctuation, Truss L., Gotham Books (Penguin Groups) 2003

  You must be one of those people...(ssh, I am too)

 "It's" is just as bad: people seem to have a problem with genitive case markers in English. Well, with the one (regular) genitive case marker.


----------



## TommyWillB (Jan 17, 2005)

Mr Tea said:
			
		

> To my eternal chagrin, CaptainQuark, I was entirely unaware of the term 'Oxford Comma' until I read your reply to my post. Fortunately, this is 2005, I am online, and there is Google. Within seconds, I had access to 54,988,046,221 potential sources of information with which to rectify my ignorance (truly we live in an age of wonders); I made straight for the horse's mouth, where I found a clear (if somewhat partisan) explanation.
> 
> So, in answer to your question, yes: I wholeheartedly embrace the Oxford Comma (but sometimes have to wash my hands afterwards).


lol

 There is the answer to that other question that's been bugging me ever since childhood: http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutother/tomato?view=uk


----------



## michaelsanford (Jan 17, 2005)

Yeah I thought it had to do with seeds too but I never remember for sure. Is a hot pepper a fruit ? I guess so since it has seeds...some people eat them as fruit (my Hungarian friend's grandfather for example )


----------



## Pigumon (Oct 12, 2006)

Mr Tea said:


> Sorry to be a pedant, but the phrase "Lot's of great people, all fanatical about Mac's" should not have any apostrophes in it.



I'd say the Mac apostrophe can be used because Mac is an abbreviation of Macintosh.  So the apostrophe indicates the abbreviation.  ' = intosh

But you can argue that Mac is its own word now, it's probably tradmarked as Mac too... so the apostrophe is unnecessary.

I just think it's really sad how the majority of us feel it's unnecessary to learn.


----------



## Pigumon (Oct 12, 2006)

CaptainQuark said:


> Typical bleedin' author - "It's my book/post, so I'll write *what* I want, *how* I want it, and copy editors and good English be damned!"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cap (and also Randman), There are very specific instances when an Oxford Comma is necessary.  It's not just a comma thrown in whenever the word "and" appears.  To quote AskOxford:

"It is so called because it was traditionally used by printer's readers and editors at Oxford University Press. Sometimes it can be necessary for clarity when the items in the list are not single words:

These items are available in black and white, red and yellow, and blue and green."

The last comma is an Oxford Comma.  It separates the group "red and yellow" from the group "blue and green".  If that comma was not there, then your item would be 4 colors and not 2!

But I agree, and I'm completely guilty of this, that using it before the only "and" in a sentence is unnecessary.   Now that I've looked at that, I'll probably stop doing it. I just always get the feeling that I'm combining the last two items.  Like "We serve pork, beef, beans and rice."  It really feels to me that the beans and rice are one item.

Mmmm, pooork.


----------



## dlloyd (Oct 12, 2006)

Uhhh, way to bring up a long-dead thread for your first two posts... ;-)


----------



## CaptainQuark (Oct 13, 2006)

Pigumon said:


> "It is so called because it was traditionally used by printer's readers and editors at Oxford University Press. Sometimes it can be necessary for clarity when the items in the list are not single words:
> 
> These items are available in black and white, red and yellow, and blue and green."



AHA! A fellow pedant! OK then  how about this one? If you're quoting verbatim from a written text, the second paragraph should be prefixed with opening quotes!

But the example quoted is a good example of probably the only acceptable use of a comma before "and".

Oh  and welcome to the forum, btw.


----------



## Natobasso (Oct 13, 2006)

You know what I hate even more? (No one in this post has done this, but thought I would just vent anyway!) When people confuse and misuse the words your and you're. Argh.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Oct 13, 2006)

Errr&#8230; shouldn't you be saying that such errors are less frequent when rendered in InDesign rather than QuarkXPress?


----------



## Natobasso (Oct 13, 2006)

Well, that actually goes without saying...


----------



## Pigumon (Oct 13, 2006)

wow, i didn't even notice the dates!

But the use of proper grammar and punctuation is never dead!


----------



## CaptainQuark (Oct 13, 2006)

True, but I wish the illiterati were!


----------

