

The Use of the Apostrophe in the English Language - someperson
http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/apostrophe/

======
elblanco
Lame, didn't even cover the clusterf*k that is the apostrophe and year ranges.

1990s vs. 1990's vs 90s vs 90's vs '90s vs '90's

or the could've, could have, could of corrupted homophone disaster.

Like most things in English, apostrophes kind of have a standard, basic, rule
concept (used before an s when making a possessive), then the rest is common
exceptions (contractions, plural form possessives) and options (decade ranges)
which are only options to certain people and necessary to others, except for
the very specific exceptions (plural single letters, quoted plurals, quoted
possessives, possessive and plural, words naturally ending in s, glottal
stops, un-lettered syllable accents, clicks, silent but looks cool), which
nobody remembers correctly except those being pedantic and never seem to
really muss up anybody's understanding of the meaning.

Anybody who thinks they know all the apostrophe rules most likely doesn't.
Even <http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe> which captures some of the
complexity mises a bunch of these cases and inserts one I've never seen -- the
quoted single letter plural.

The only rule you have to remember is this, "what are the grammar rules that
your readers will be assuming are the rules, follow those for comprehension."

~~~
stcredzero
To paraphrase Spaceballs: Bad grammar will always win because readers are
dumb!

------
stcredzero
_In the decade since, Slashdot has provided a bottomless well of bad writing,
couldn't-care-less editing, and profound ignorance of virtually every aspect
of the real world. It has set the standard for moronic prose, and deserves
being remembered as we try to meet and exceed the abysmal benchmark it has
made_

Ironically, it is considered a bastion of knowledge by many today. Most of
that is due to the depths to which the net has sunk in general. That said, it
is a source of real knowledge and insight. When something egregious enough is
posted, a real expert is often driven to post an informative reply from their
personal experience.

------
vorg
No problem with rules 1 (its, it's) and 4 (pronouns never use apostrophe). Re
rule 2, most contractions can be confused with other words, and look very
wrong, if the apostrophe is omitted, but a few (e.g. youre, mustnt) still look
OK. Re rule 3, some plural possessive nouns look OK without the apostrophe
(e.g. "horses hooves" for "horses' hooves"). I'd never skip the apostrophe for
a singular noun though (e.g. horse's hooves). Re rule 5 (Plurals never use
apostrophe), when the word is an acronym or capitalized, I'd put an apostrophe
in (e.g. the four B52's, I've received 7 RSVP's so far).

------
RyanMcGreal
Still my favourite commentary on the abused apostrophe:

<http://www.reddit.com/comments/65hz7/>

------
chanux
The oatmeal has it with nice graphics.

<http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe>

But is it just me or the possession example doesn't match with the recap?

~~~
shrikant
Bob the Angry Flower holds forth as well - <http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif>

------
byoung2
There is a lot of confusion about the possessive form of singular proper nouns
that end in "s". I've seen it both ways and have never found a consistent
pattern in American English. Historical figures usually just get an
apostrophe, and normal people get an apostrophe and an "s". Example: "Jesus'
desciples" vs "Chris's bicycle". There are exceptions to even this rule,
however, such as "Zeus's infidelity". For regular nouns, it seems more
consistent ("for goodness' sake" but never "for goodness's sake"). Does anyone
know a concrete rule for this?

~~~
nethergoat
It's a stylistic choice, so opinions vary, but the simplest guide I've found
is to simply check the intended pronunciation. If you would pronounce the 's
as its own syllable, include it (e.g., "Chris's"); it not, don't (e.g.,
"Mephistopheles'").

------
moomba
Looks like a typo in Rule 3. Should say, "Possessive nouns never use an
apostrophe." This point is alluded to in the body of the rule.

------
hackermom
I personally never had problems with the rules. They are quite clear to me,
apart from that one common pitfall: its vs. it's, which is probably the most
common pitfall people never memorize. I still don't want to put blame on the
English language, but rather on lack of attention from the student - there is
just no excuse for ignorance.

~~~
CWuestefeld
I never got what the confusion is over the possessive form of "it". I mean,
nobody ever writes "hi's" or "her's"; why would they want to do so with "it"?

One rule he alluded to but didn't make explicit is over the possessive form of
words already ending in "s". We know that one does _not_ add an "s" if the
word is a plural form that already ends with that letter.

What he doesn't directly address is _singular_ words that end in "s". For
example, my first name is "Chris". I've seen many people refer to "Chris'
stuff", but I believe this is incorrect. Because my terminal "s" was not the
result of pluralization, I'm still entitled to a possessive "s": "Chris's
stuff".

~~~
hackermom
That's actually the correct way - at least so say all of the old (and most
new) books on English grammar. If the word ends with a written S, you don't
add another one after the "possessive apostrophe".

Some teachers go the extra mile by saying that this rule also goes if the word
ends with any consonant pronounced with an S sound; "Alix' room"; but not if
it ends with a pronounced S sound followed by a silent vowel; "Belize's
beaches". I personally follow this rule.

~~~
hugh3
That's the rule (not sure about the X thing, that just looks wrong). Where I
really get confused is the correct pronunciation for that. If it was "Chris'
stuff" I'd probably put in an extra "es" sylalble at the end of "Chris" just
to make it clear. On the other hand if you're talking about, say, "Jesus'
stuff" then saying "Jesuses" sounds silly.

