Re: OT - Pat'n'Tony's potatoes

Linda Fox wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 20:15:06 +0100, Marjorie
<dontusethisaddress@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There's generally a reason for a rule, and it's worth thinking about the reason before you change or abandon it. What you suggested above was making a new, alternative rule for apostrophes. It's still a rule and would still have to be taught and explained, which could be quite complicated.

Do we have no optional cases at all then? <thinks> Yes, we do, isn't
James' or James's optional? If it's considered optional (or possibly
forgivable or is it forgiveable?) to insert an apostrophe in a plural
to stop menus apparently rhyming with venus if you see it out of
context, does that really mean the beauty of the language of
Shakespeare and Milton and the King James Bible is being eroded?

Well, there are books to clarify the rules, and the rule at present is that it's "James's" (Hart's Rules, if you want chapter and verse). The reason is, I think, that this is usually how we say it, which is the rule of thumb for most of these things.

At the moment, it isn't optional to write "menues", and I fear it's too late to change that one. It was just a wild flight of fancy on my part. :-)

There are, of course, some gradual shifts going on all the time. For instance, I can still remember books (and not just children's ones) in which "to-day" and"to-morrow" were normal. Hyphens are often temporary, and the tend to vanish as the new compound word becomes familiar; at some stage in this process it will be up to the writer or publisher to decide on a hyphen policy for certain words. Publishers' "house style" guides usually cover this sort of thing, aiming to make things consistent within their publications, and people like Al and me are employed to apply the rules in a way that keeps the meaning clear and (as far as possible) the expression elegant.

It is possible to be both pragmatic and beautiful, I'm sure it is.

Of course it is. But unless people are vigilant and really care about this, it won't necessarily happen. We may lose either the clarity or the beauty of our language, or even both. You only have to look at other internet forums (and I stick resolutely to the English plural here) to see how garbled and unclear and ugly English can become when it's carelessly used. Everyone who's commenting in this thread has a similar wish to see our language thrive without losing its clarity or beauty, and the things that divide us are tiny ones, but we're in a minority in caring at all. Most people in the UK understand less about how English works than many second-language English speakers around the world, and don't care about it either. That's why I'll still oppose "avocado's", which I find neither beautiful nor clear.

--
Marjorie
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Try to calculate Your choroscope by substracting 6 years from
    ... making horoscope in a way I suggested that it is better. ... ignored partly for that reason and partly for the reason I gave above. ... If english is not your first language then good on you for posting here. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor
    ... community is under the influence of more than one language - the form ... there isn't any reason why it would be uniformly ... (One might wonder how you think English has ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: elementary Sanskrit blunder by Harvard professor
    ... community is under the influence of more than one language - the form ... there isn't any reason why it would be uniformly ... (One might wonder how you think English has ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: why still use C?
    ... only discussion of the language itself ... Of the people who have replied to you, I consider Jack ... subjects, easily rectified, and without any reason ... have caused him to associate your nonfluency with English ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: Speculative linguistics(*)
    ... most of the apostrophes that are found in sf is that they ... reason") to avoid apostrophes. ... But 'good reason to avoid apostrophes' is not (in my ... language) the same as 'good reason not to use apostrophes ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
Loading