Spelling and Apostrophes

Cave_Troll

Active member
[gmod] This Topic was split from https://ukcaving.com/board/index.php?topic=22942.0 which was a discussion about posting messages to this Forum and browser spell checkers. Cave_Troll didn't start this new Topic and is not a Grammar Nerd. :)
[/gmod]



well for a start the word "pre-decimalization"  spelt with a z is American English, so i'd not be surprised if your browser spell checker suggested the British English spelling
 

langcliffe

Well-known member
Cave_Troll said:
well for a start the word "pre-decimalization"  spelt with a z is American English, so i'd not be surprised if your browser spell checker suggested the British English spelling

Not quite so simple, unfortunately. The Oxford English Dictionary and Fowler recommend the 'ize' ending, although national paper style guides prefer the 'ise' ending. The 'ise' ending is more common in British English, but not by much. Personally, I use 'ise'.
 

Fulk

Well-known member
According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, p. xvi (in my edition):

?Many verbs end with the suffix -ize or -ise. The form -ize has been in use in English since the 16th century, and, despite what some people think, is not an Americanism . . . . For most verbs of this class either -ize or -ise is acceptable; this dictionary has used -ize spellings, with -ise given as an equally correct, alternative spelling.?

Actually, with regard to US spelling in my opinion estrogen is much better than oestrogen, fetus is much better than foetus, hemorrhage is better than haemorrhage . . .
 

Cave_Troll

Active member
Then set your browser spell checker to American English.

As mentioned this would appear to be the settings on your browser and nothing to do with UKCa
 

Fulk

Well-known member
OK, thanks for that advice; I've switched off the spell-checker. Let's see if it will accept pre-decimalization. Eureka . . . thanks again.
 

Fulk

Well-known member
Well, obviously a spell checker has its uses, but I find that on this forum, it can be a damn nuisance because it often doesn't recognize the names of caves, and tries to change them.
 

TheBitterEnd

Well-known member
Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a quay and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
It's rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
It's letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.
 

Chocolate fireguard

Active member
Ian Ball said:
I would quite like a spell checker  :-[

I think that when I first started to uze this forum there was a spell checker and I consulted it a lot - I felt that it was up to older people to maintain standards in the face of ignorance and lasiness. A lozing battle I think.
I believe it did the English spellings, but I can't be sure because obviously even I would never have made the ize miztake.
 

Fulk

Well-known member
Dont you think its a funny thing about apostrophes, do we really need em, cos Im thinking wed get by perfectly well without em.



Did you understand that last sentence, even though I omitted 7 apostrophes (and even though it was a bit contrived)?



Seriously ? do we need apostrophes?
 

mudman

Member
Fulk said:
Dont you think its a funny thing about apostrophes, do we really need em, cos Im thinking wed get by perfectly well without em.



Did you understand that last sentence, even though I omitted 7 apostrophes (and even though it was a bit contrived)?



Seriously ? do we need apostrophes?

If we read written English exactly as spoken, then perhaps not. Yes, I can understand your sentence above but it does require extra thought to 'hear' it as it was intended. I know from the context that you mean a contraction of 'them' and not 'Emma' but it could be a poorly constructed bit of English referring to not needing some poor lass rather than the apostrophe at the beginning.
Without them, you have to read beyond the word to understand how that word should be spoken. With 'cos' it is pretty clear this replaces 'because' but Im could be a contraction of 'Him'or 'I'm' with the real meaning only becoming clear when you reach 'thinking.' This can cause you to have to track backwards through a sentence to replace a previously read word with another that is different when read to yourself with the correct inflection. Apostrophes makes written English easier to read and 'hear' efficiently, so yes, I vote for keeping them.  :tease:
 

Chocolate fireguard

Active member
Language (including spelling & punctuation since we started writing things down) has always evolved, otherwise a lot more people in Europe would be able to understand each other. But if you are going to teach kids how to write you have to give them a set of rules governing SPAG that are accepted at the time of teaching - the alternative would be to suggest that any old combination of letters (or even any sort of marks on a sheet of paper) will allow them to communicate with others.

The apostrophe has been on its' way out for decades, and when used is often misplaced. I cant' get upset about it's demise. But I do think there is an amusing take on apostrophes (combined with poor spelling) in the toilet of a caving hut in the Dales.

It remains true that first impressions are important and if the first contact a prospective employer has with you is a badly constructed, misspelled and poorly punctuated letter then it is likely to be the last contact.
A spellchecker will sort out most of the spelling mistakes, construction is flexible (it can add impact) but if you are able to stick those apostrophes in the right place you will have an advantage over many people.




 

Fulk

Well-known member
Actually, I?m something of a pedant and I quite like many of the quirks of the English language (although I prefer US spellings such as anemia, hemorrhage, fetal to their UK equivalents).
But when it comes to apostrophes, one could make out a good case for their abolition.
Consider, for example, ?The boys were playing football? ; it?s quite obvious that ?boys? here is plural, so no problem. But in the phrase ?the girls ball? it?s equally obvious that ?girls? is possessive, although there is, of course, a potential problem as to whether it means girl?s or girls?; I suspect that in most cases, the context would make it clear. When speaking, does one say ?The girl apostrophe s ball?; I think not, yet the meaning is probably clear. Similarly in ?Petes ball? it is pretty obvious that Petes is possessive. Do we really need apostrophes to indicate possession? Perhaps not.
Consider, then, words like aren?t, can?t, isn?t?, don?t; there arent (!) (to the best of my knowledge) English words arent, dont or isnt, though there are, of course, cant and wont. So why is the apostrophe needed? I imagine that in any situation where ?cant? is meant, it would be pretty obvious that it means ?tilt? or ?politician speak?, and not ?cannot?, while it's pretty obvious what 'I had a glass of red with my tea, as is my wont' means.

Again, I would guess that for the most part the context would make quite clear that ?its? means ?of it? or ?it is? ? with or without an apostrophe (even a wrongly used one ? how often have you come across ?it?s? used as the possessive of it?).
So ? Im not actually advocating that we do away with apostrophes, just posing the question, and being a bit of an iconoclast. I daresay that if we did away with them, wed soon get used to it. (I mean, wed in the previous sentence obviously means ?we would? rather than 'someones nuptials'.)

After all, for example, weve got used to 'hopefully' meaning 'I hope that' as opposed to its earlier meaning 'full of hope'.

Mind you, I dont like the way 'literally' is going; so often these days people just stick in 'literally' for no obvious reason ? no reason at all, really. Once upon a time 'literally' meant just that ? that was exactly how something happened. Nowadays, you're likely to hear, say, 'It was literally raining cats and dogs'. Oh yeah? There really were Pekes, Poodles, Persians and Pekinese pouring out of the sky? Well, I suppose Hurricane Henrietta couldve (clever, huh) lifted the roof off of the Battersea Cats and Dogs Home, sucked all the poor critters up into the sky, and literally rained them all down on King's Cross or some other goddam place in London . . . . . . but I don't think it's very likely.
 
How dare you conflate fetus (good) with anemia (ugly) and other monstrosities...
https://separatedbyacommonlanguage.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/foetus-and-foetal-and-bit-on.html

Next you'll be letting writers think that they can spell neutropenia with an ae.....
 

Ian Ball

Well-known member
I've spent a few decades trying to understand the apostrophe, I won't lie and say I fully understand it now, but if we stopped using it, I would be most put out!
 

Kenilworth

New member
Apostrophe misuse is more common than ever in the US. Even proffessionally made commercial signs often use them in non-possesive plurals. Signs in the Guadelupe Mtns. National Park say bus'es only. Another very common mistake is made when indicating a non-possessive decade, 1880's or 80's instead of 1880s or '80s. Using letters instead of numerals would partly solve that problem, but then people would need to learn to use hyphens. Punctuation isn't terribly complicated, but people read and write less than they used to and get out of practice. Plus the things that people do read, even when proffessionally edited, are likely to contain errors, adding to the confusion.

I take note of improper use, but only to the extent that it reveals something about the writer. I try to write "properly" unless I want to deviate for some expressionistic reason.
 
Top