Theory of Gravity Disproven

[Maddad]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
No, I haven't lost my mind. Not yet at least. These are Christian pseudo scientists who thing that you do not fall; God pushes you down. They want this taught in school as an alternative to the theory of gravity.

Will somebody plese put these bozo's out of their misery and send them to meet their confused maker?

[SolusLupus]

You do realize that that's a joke article, right? Also, I very much doubt suggesting for someone to be killed, even in jest, is a good thing on these boards...

[Wolverine]

You do realize that that's a joke article, right?

What he said ^^^

[Wolverine]

bozo's

FWIW: since I'm a militant apostrophist (http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/), it is my duty to inform you that the apostrophe is never used to denote plurality.

[Nowhere Man]

ToSeeked (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=455276)

Fred

[grant hutchison]

FWIW: since I'm a militant apostrophist (http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/), it is my duty to inform you that the apostrophe is never used to denote plurality.Cripes. I'd better mind my p's and q's around you.

Grant Hutchison

[Enzp]

I think we ought to round up all these apostrophists and abreviate them.

[HenrikOlsen]

FWIW: since I'm a militant apostrophist (http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/), it is my duty to inform you that the apostrophe is never used to denote plurality.

Then you'll probably like this:


It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it is.
If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's.
It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.

[Maksutov]

Cripes. I'd better mind my p's and q's around you.

Grant HutchisonYour "p's" what? And your "q's" what? What is it that those two letters possess?

Wolverine's not the only militant on an apostrophistionary crusade around here. It's second nature to some of us in its simplicity and necessity.

Enzp, well, some of us could use a little contraction, it's true. http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/4879/iconbiggrin1kg.gif

[grant hutchison]

Your "p's" what? And your "q's" what? What is it that those two letters possess?The Oxford University Press style-book, among others, prescribes an apostrophe for the plurals of letters and words used as objects in themselves, to improve "reading clarity", which should after all be the object of the exercise. (I think if we had a vote on it, you'd get more yes's than no's. :))
And the current vogue for banning apostrophes in the plurals of numbers ("1980s") and abbreviations ("CDs") is relatively recent: people who went to school in the 1960s and before were taught this as the correct usage, and might take unkindly to miltant apostrophists telling them otherwise.

But my old English teacher would have cringed at "bozo's", too, even if she didn't know what a "bozo" was!

Grant Hutchison

[swansont]

I just read Eats, Shoots & Leaves. Now my seventh-sense is heightened — I see dead punctuation, almost everywhere I look.

[Candy]

Why do I follow swansont's posts? :wall:

[grant hutchison]

I just read Eats, Shoots & Leaves.Ah. Check what it says about apostrophes for plurals, if you still have it to hand: my recollection is that the guidance was very similar to the OUP's.

Grant Hutchison

[swansont]

Ah. Check what it says about apostrophes for plurals, if you still have it to hand: my recollection is that the guidance was very similar to the OUP's.

Grant Hutchison

I don't, as my sister wanted to read it. But I think it's right that letters and years should have the apostrophe (p's, q's and 1980's). It's what I recall from the book.

[Maksutov]

The Oxford University Press style-book, among others, prescribes an apostrophe for the plurals of letters and words used as objects in themselves, to improve "reading clarity", which should after all be the object of the exercise. (I think if we had a vote on it, you'd get more yes's than no's. :))The "yes's" what and the "no's" what? http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif Meanwhile the Oxford University Press style book (et al) has never been at the forefront of promoting clear language over antiquated and confusing rules.

And the current vogue for banning apostrophes in the plurals of numbers ("1980s") and abbreviations ("CDs") is relatively recent: people who went to school in the 1960s and before were taught this as the correct usage, and might take unkindly to miltant apostrophists telling them otherwise.That's funny. This "militant apostrophist" went to school in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, and was fortunate enough to have had English teachers and professors who admitted that many of the established rules of the language were arbitrary and confusing. One thing they definitely advocated was not using apostrophes to indicate plurals. They also advocated making the language as clear as possible.

But my old English teacher would have cringed at "bozo's", too, even if she didn't know what a "bozo" was!

Grant HutchisonBrava for your old English teacher! :clap:

[Grey]

I don't, as my sister wanted to read it. But I think it's right that letters and years should have the apostrophe (p's, q's and 1980's). It's what I recall from the book.I believe that Strunk and White says the same thing, as well as recommending the same for abbreviations in general. And it is a clarity issue, since if I say "mind your ps and qs", it looks more like I'm talking about a "ps" and a "qs", whatever those are.

[swansont]

I believe that Strunk and White says the same thing, as well as recommending the same for abbreviations in general. And it is a clarity issue, since if I say "mind your ps and qs", it looks more like I'm talking about a "ps" and a "qs", whatever those are.

As I recall, a similar "clarity" argument was made in the book.

[grant hutchison]

Meanwhile the Oxford University Press style book (et al) has never been at the forefront of promoting clear language over antiquated and confusing rules.Have you looked at one recently? The emphasis is very much on producing as clean-looking a page (through reduction of punctuation marks) as is compatible with easy reading. The mad old rules are long gone.

One thing they definitely advocated was not using apostrophes to indicate plurals. They also advocated making the language as clear as possible.They sound very sensible. I'd have liked to know if they felt there were any conflicts between those two rules, and if so what resolution they suggested. The problem with something as messy as language is that most simple proscriptive rules will get you into clarity trouble somehow. I think a rule that requires me to write "ps and qs" or "yeses and noes" is a fine example of that.

Grant Hutchison

[Ken G]

P.S.-- Please don't impede the p's purities by pluralizing it ps, or pees, to appease the peers.

[Maksutov]

Have you looked at one recently? The emphasis is very much on producing as clean-looking a page (through reduction of punctuation marks) as is compatible with easy reading. The mad old rules are long gone.Excellent. About time they caught up.

They sound very sensible. I'd have liked to know if they felt there were any conflicts between those two rules, and if so what resolution they suggested. The problem with something as messy as language is that most simple proscriptive rules will get you into clarity trouble somehow. I think a rule that requires me to write "ps and qs" or "yeses and noes" is a fine example of that.

Grant HutchisonIf I recall after all these years, such things as "ps" and "qs" would have been QED. Otherwise they'd have been "p.s." and "q.s.". Regarding "yes" and "no", the recommendation was to form the sentence such that the result was something like, "There were many instances of "yes" and "no" in the voting.", rather than attempt to pluralize words that were not amenable to pluralization.

[hhEb09'1]

P.S.-- Please don't impede the p's purities by pluralizing it ps, or pees, to appease the peers.It appears to me that "p"s is preferred in some prefectures. Perhaps p's is an abbreviation for 'p's.

[Maksutov]

P.S.-- Please don't impede the p's purities by pluralizing it ps, or pees, to appease the peers.Nothing but pee pee, so we see. Or porridge hot and cold, three days old.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/566/iconwink6tn.gif

[grant hutchison]

Regarding "yes" and "no", the recommendation was to form the sentence such that the result was something like, "There were many instances of "yes" and "no" in the voting.", rather than attempt to pluralize words that were not amenable to pluralization.Ah. But doesn't that seem to be exactly the sort of arbitrary proscription your teachers so despised? After all, in the real world of spoken and written English, words are treated as objects and dropped into the plural quite regularly. No if's or but's about it.

Grant Hutchison

[grant hutchison]

Perhaps p's is an abbreviation for 'p's.But surely the elided apostrophe would be marked by an apostrophe?

Grant Hutchison

[DrChinese]

P.S.-- Please don't impede the p's purities by pluralizing it ps, or pees, to appease the peers.

LOL

[pumpkinpie]

P.S.-- Please don't impede the p's purities by pluralizing it ps, or pees, to appease the peers.

"Peers" as in equals, or as in the ones who pee? I suppose that would have to be peeers. :lol:

[Wolverine]

I don't mean to spoil anyone's fun, but would it be too much to ask for folks to remain above toilet humor? :hand:

[pumpkinpie]

I'm sorry.

[Gillianren]

Would it help to capitalize "P" and "Q"? As in, mind your Ps and Qs? (Yes, I most frequently see the apostrophe, and I tend to use it myself in such situations. But it makes me most unhappy to do so, because it just encourages the so-called Greengrocer's Apostrophe.)

[SolusLupus]

You're all weird.

[grant hutchison]

Would it help to capitalize "P" and "Q"?
Aaaaargh. Nonononono. Then you completely conceal the essential mirror symmetry of "p" and "q" that underlies the meaning of the metaphor!

Well. Yes, okay, it does help.

Grant Hutchison

[Taks]

i started to post this earlier but hit X instead of "submit" (don't ask, i don't know the answer)... anyway...

apparently ps and qs is from medieval times in the local drinking establishment. apparently when some of the lesser clientele (most, i'd assume) went to fisticuffs the bartenders would tell everyone to "mind your pints and quarts." i suppose it was simply reduced to "ps and qs" since "pints and quarts" is far too difficult for the average drunkard to understand. too many syllables, i suppose.

i make no claims about the veracity of the previous paragraph, and i'm in no mood to research. i got my processor working today so i'm not looking for anything too technical (like complex web browsing, understanding "pints and quarts", etc.) for the afternoon.

:)

taks

[Grey]

apparently ps and qs is from medieval times in the local drinking establishment. apparently when some of the lesser clientele (most, i'd assume) went to fisticuffs the bartenders would tell everyone to "mind your pints and quarts." i suppose it was simply reduced to "ps and qs" since "pints and quarts" is far too difficult for the average drunkard to understand. too many syllables, i suppose.It's one of several possible explanations, though nobody really knows for sure. Here (http://www.word-detective.com/042805.html#ps%20and%20qs) are a couple alternatives, if you don't like that one. ;)

[grant hutchison]

It's one of several possible explanations, though nobody really knows for sure. Here (http://www.word-detective.com/042805.html#ps%20and%20qs) are a couple alternatives, if you don't like that one. ;)Yes, my yelps to Gillianren about obscuring the symmetry between "p" and "q" was a reference to the stories about handwriting and typesetting.

The pieds and queues story (in which French dancing masters urged their pupils to watch out for their feet and wigs) always struck me as very odd, since French for "wig" is perruque, while as far as I know queue means "queue" or "tail" or "ponytail" or "cue" or "tail-end" or [something rude]. Maybe the meaning was different in the days when there were French dancing masters, but it seems to me that they should have been urging attention to pieds et perruques.
"Mind your p's and p's"?

Grant Hutchison

[rahuldandekar]

You're all weird.

I second that. :p

I normally use the 's for plural when there's something that would make another or a plausible word when plural-ed (lol did I just coin a word?) withoout the apostrophe. Like ps and qs. p's and q's reads better. Even in a normal word ending with s, I suppose. It would be queer to place a double s there for the plural. (I'm tlking about words which don't have plurals already.)

And what's this about it's, our's and your's? I don't use the apostrophe in ours and yours, but the one in it's signifies an i. We don't use it when saying "It broke its own toys."

I hope I'm right. :think:

[phunk]

"It's" is a contraction for "it is".

"Its" is a possesive pronoun, they don't get an apostrophy. For example ours, yours, his, its, hers, and theirs all don't have an apostrophy.

[SolusLupus]

Okay, so we've all proved that aliens, such as p and q, have all gotten rid of gravity as we know it.

(What? It makes more sense than all of your posts combined!)

[HenrikOlsen]

And what's this about it's, our's and your's? I don't use the apostrophe in ours and yours, but the one in it's signifies an i. We don't use it when saying "It broke its own toys."
It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it is.
If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's.
It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.
--

[Maddad]

FWIW: since I'm a militant apostrophist (http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/), it is my duty to inform you that the apostrophe is never used to denote plurality.Actually, that view is not quite universal. While I was incorrect to use the apostrophe in the word bozo (an unusual mistake for me; thanks for pointing it out), you use an apostrophe to indicate plural when you're dealing with acronyms or numbers. I understand that the web page you cited disagrees with that, but I've seen other pages that say use the apostrophe. Grant Hutchison and others have said something like that.

[Wolverine]

Heresy. :cry:

[grant hutchison]

Heresy. :cry:No. Dogma. :) It's all written down in the standard texts.
You and Maksutov are the heretics, turning up with your rational notions to trouble our minds.

Grant Hutchison

[HenrikOlsen]

Actually, that view is not quite universal. While I was incorrect to use the apostrophe in the word bozo (an unusual mistake for me; thanks for pointing it out), you use an apostrophe to indicate plural when you're dealing with acronyms or numbers. I understand that the web page you cited disagrees with that, but I've seen other pages that say use the apostrophe. Grant Hutchison and others have said something like that.
To quote The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary:
Appendix 3
Punctuation
Apostrophe
.
.
.
3 Sometimes used with 's' to form the plural of a letter, a figure or an abbreviation

You decide yourself if you want to use it, both are legal. Personally I find that if you don't use it when pluralising a letter, it can cause ambiguities that disturb reading by requiring extra parsing.

[Gillianren]

No. Dogma. :) It's all written down in the standard texts.
You and Maksutov are the heretics, turning up with your rational notions to trouble our minds.

Grant Hutchison

It isn't either! Allow me to mention On Writing, by William Safire, and of course Eats, Shoots and Leaves as just two places where the wretched pluralizing-numbers-and-abbreviations apostrophe is frowned upon! Also note that in the dread Monique's PMs thread, it is mentioned that several reputable sources decry the construction "PM's," and I was considered an apologist for suggesting it to be merely optional. I haven't checked my Strunk & White yet (I'm not sure where it is), but I assure you, my other authorities are firmly on the side of leaving out that apostrophe.

(And, yes, Lonewulf, we're all weird. Well, duh. But at least this is a techncial argument to which I can contribute.)

[ToSeek]

This seems to be a more appropriate place for what this thread has become, unless someone wants to argue that grammar is a science. ;)

[Swift]

This seems to be a more appropriate place for what this thread has become, unless someone wants to argue that grammar is a science. ;)
Heck, its more this (http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm) than a discussion of grammer. :p

[Van Rijn]

Heck, its more this (http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm) than a discussion of grammer. :p
No it isn't!

[farmerjumperdon]

FWIW: since I'm a militant apostrophist (http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/), it is my duty to inform you that the apostrophe is never used to denote plurality.

Actually, I just read that it is used for plurals when using numerals & acronyms; such as "I wish I had rolled 6's on that last turn." Or "I wish all the designers of VRU's would take a course in conversational English."

Why don't you just TELL me to go away?

[grant hutchison]

... I assure you, my other authorities are firmly on the side of leaving out that apostrophe.For "p's and q's"? I suspect not.

The "heresy" I'm accusing Wolverine and Maksutov of is the one perpetrated in Wolverine's original post:... the apostrophe is never used to denote plurality.(My bold.) Most source of "dogma" (style manuals and the like) still give specific counterexamples to that claim, such as "p's and q's" and "yes's and no's".
My point was that one can't plausibly cry "heresy" when pushing an extremist minority view: I cry "heresy" right back.

Grant Hutchison

Edit. PS: FWIW, I agree with you about apostrophes for plural numbers and abbreviations; you'll notice I've omitted them in several posts. The current dogma decries them, as you say.

[Gillianren]

Fair enough. While I'm reasonably sure that Safire did a column on which particular sets of "p" and "q" we're minding, I am not at all sure in which book he did it or even if I own the book in question, so I really couldn't say what his opinion is. I'm also sure that the question never comes up in Eats, Shoots and Leaves. And, again, I can't find my Strunk & White to tell you what they say. Ergo, all of my authorities are useless, useless, I say!

[grant hutchison]

I'm also sure that the question never comes up in Eats, Shoots and Leaves.I direct your attention to page 45 (of the hardback, at least) in the section about apostrophes: "plurals of letters" and "plurals of words" are both illustrated as acceptable usages.
(Given the ongoing discussion on this thread, I riffled through a copy in my local bookshop this afternoon. :))

Grant Hutchison

[rahuldandekar]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rahuldandekar
And what's this about it's, our's and your's? I don't use the apostrophe in ours and yours, but the one in it's signifies an i. We don't use it when saying "It broke its own toys."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oxford University Press, Edpress News1
It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it is.
If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's.
It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.



Thanks, Henrik. :)

BTW, Here's one link that you may find useful: Grammar and Style notes (http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/).

Good, this one is better placed in Off-Topic. ;)

[Gemini]

Your "p's" what? And your "q's" what? What is it that those two letters possess?

Wolverine's not the only militant on an apostrophistionary crusade around here. It's second nature to some of us in its simplicity and necessity.

Enzp, well, some of us could use a little contraction, it's true. http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/4879/iconbiggrin1kg.gif

Pints and Quarts

[Gillianren]

Pints and Quarts

Yes, that's one of the four explanations possible. (I myself tend to lean toward the moving type version; most of the rest seem a little, well, silly. "Pieds and queues?")

If you want real fun, look up as many sources as you can find for what "the whole nine yards" means. (For the record: once again, there is no definitive answer, no matter what you've been told.)

I grudgingly bow to the apostrophists in p's and q's. I still think it'll promote more greengrocers' apostrophes, a thing we hardly need--the Albertsons flier this week is promoting apples, including "Gala's."

[SolusLupus]

So, about this gravity thing... it seems to be still around for me?

Anyone else?

[Gillianren]

So, about this gravity thing... it seems to be still around for me?

Anyone else?

A little too well, I think.

[SolusLupus]

A little too well, I think.

A friend of mine, who weighs in at 300 lbs. or so (or higher, I forget actually), used his weight to his advantage, actually. He would do chin-ups, and he said that lifting 300-400 lbs. is pretty darn good at building up the muscles.

He also makes sure to eat foods that oxygenate his blood better, amongst other things to keep himself healthy at that weight. He refused to lose weight.

[Candy]

Pints and Quarts
Pints, please. http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/nahrung/a015.gif

[Gillianren]

A friend of mine, who weighs in at 300 lbs. or so (or higher, I forget actually), used his weight to his advantage, actually. He would do chin-ups, and he said that lifting 300-400 lbs. is pretty darn good at building up the muscles.

He also makes sure to eat foods that oxygenate his blood better, amongst other things to keep himself healthy at that weight. He refused to lose weight.

I'm a girl; biology does not favor me doing chin-ups, even if I had somewhere to do them. While I'm certainly not 300 pounds, I'd still rather lose the weight. It'd be better for my knees and back, or so people keep telling me.

[SolusLupus]

I'm a girl; biology does not favor me doing chin-ups, even if I had somewhere to do them. While I'm certainly not 300 pounds, I'd still rather lose the weight. It'd be better for my knees and back, or so people keep telling me.

Probably would be. I dunno.

[Tobin Dax]

I forgot to post this yesterday (though it's not quite an apostrophy argument).

A prof here sent out his the birth announcment for his twins a few days ago, and the first line is "The Name's Twins." (Name is singular, and has been changed to protect the innocent-well, me anyway.) They didn't pluralize the last name, just made it possessive. :( The use of "the" indicates that they meant it to be plural (though I'm tempted to use a new nickname for him around the department). I'm not great at english, necessarily, but I know better than that! Arrgh! So many people have seen this, but I wonder how many will catch it.

BTW, since I don't remember, should it be "Names's Twins" or "Names' Twins"?

[HenrikOlsen]

You mean as in The Johnson's Twins.
The twins are plural, the one who got them is still singular.
Getting twins doesn't split you in two.

[Gillianren]

No, but said twins belong to a family, which is (presumably) made up of more than one person in this situation.

The rule is as follows--first, you pluralize the name. "Names," to use your pseudonym for them. Now, since the thing that owns it is plural, you put the apostrophe (you keep spelling it wrong, you know, despite the literally dozens of correct spellings in this thread) after the "s." Thus, it would be the Names' twins.

[Tobin Dax]

Thanks, Gillian. That's what I thought was correct.

As for the spelling mistake, well, oops. I should know better than that. Wish I could find an "embarrassed" smiley.

[HenrikOlsen]

No, but said twins belong to a family, which is (presumably) made up of more than one person in this situation.

The rule is as follows--first, you pluralize the name. "Names," to use your pseudonym for them. Now, since the thing that owns it is plural, you put the apostrophe (you keep spelling it wrong, you know, despite the literally dozens of correct spellings in this thread) after the "s." Thus, it would be the Names' twins.
Ok, I get that explanation, I didn't catch that at first as danish doesn't have a construction like "The Johnsons" for saying the Johnson family.

Incidentally, I tried to find a single case of me actually using the word apostrophe and only found one, spelled correctly.

Edited to add: :doh: I hadn't noticed Tobin Dax's spelling as it was on the previous page. As for the embarrassed smiley, I find the DOH smiley works just as well:)

[Gillianren]

Ok, I get that explanation, I didn't catch that at first as danish doesn't have a construction like "The Johnsons" for saying the Johnson family.

Incidentally, I tried to find a single case of me actually using the word apostrophe and only found one, spelled correctly.

Edited to add: :doh: I hadn't noticed Tobin Dax's spelling as it was on the previous page. As for the embarrassed smiley, I find the DOH smiley works just as well:)

I forget who it was--probably George Bernard Shaw--but someone once said that English makes up for in obscurity what it lacks in charm. However, I find that construction to be a useful one. (I've a great-great grandfather, or somewhere in there, who was Danish. Once he learned English after moving to America, he never spoke the language again. This, plus the fact he's been dead a really long time, means my Danish is very bad indeed. Or, you know, nonexistant.)

[stoneybone]

p stands for pints and q stands for quarts. alcohol was on credit and one should never go beyond ones means.

[Grey]

p stands for pints and q stands for quarts. alcohol was on credit and one should never go beyond ones means.Yes, if you read the link I provided, that's one of several proposed explanations. Most linguistic experts agree that there's no definite evidence for any of them, though some are more plausible than others.

More importantly, though, welcome to the board!

[swansont]

I'm a girl; biology does not favor me doing chin-ups, even if I had somewhere to do them. While I'm certainly not 300 pounds, I'd still rather lose the weight. It'd be better for my knees and back, or so people keep telling me.

But it does, seemingly, for pushups. Lower center-of-mass means less torque necessary, and, depending on physique, not as far to go until you touch the ground. I never understood why some programs called for the girls to use their knees as the contact point with the ground.

[Gillianren]

But it does, seemingly, for pushups. Lower center-of-mass means less torque necessary, and, depending on physique, not as far to go until you touch the ground. I never understood why some programs called for the girls to use their knees as the contact point with the ground.

To put it delicately, some of us girls have definite impediments when it comes to pushups. (Some things hurt when you squish them against the ground, you know.)