The Flying Apostrophe

[Don Petter]

There is a convention (rule if you like) here. If the thing you're talking about is shared by two people that are regarded as one entity, you only need one apostrophe (Gilbert and Sullivan's operas). So I think Margaret and David's house is OK. Only if the two protagonists are clearly separate need you use two apostrophes (the DOT's and the Department of Education's budgets).

Whoa! Pedants unite! I thought you could only have one protagonist?

[jean]

...Does anybody have an idea whether or not the words were actually spoken in full, or if they were spoken isn't/shouldn't/don't but were written out because that was the literary convention?

We can't know, but the convention of not writing the abbreviated versions of could've, would've and so on is only just being broken - in the meantime, could of and would of are taking hold!

[Beef Oven!]

Either is correct.

Ee-ther or Eye-ther? I go for the latter.

[ahinton]

and what about this........................

'we are going to Margaret and David's house for dinner'

should be, in reality....

'we are going to Margaret's and David's house for dinner'

but the latter, although correct, does seem rather clumsy. But I always apostrophise both names.

But would the correctness or othewise of that not depend to some extent upon whether the house in which Margaret and David live is solely owned by either one of them or whether jointly owned? and, for that matter, if the latter, whether that ownership is on a joint tenants or tenants-in-common basis?

[Pabmusic]

Ee-ther or Eye-ther? I go for the latter.

So do I. Obvious, isn't it?

[ahinton]

Ee-ther or Eye-ther? I go for the latter.

We've already had potatoes and tomatoes (though not yet potaytoes or tomaytoes), so let's Carl the whole thing Orff...

[Beef Oven!]

But would the correctness or othewise of that not depend to some extent upon whether the house in which Margaret and David live is solely owned by either one of them or whether jointly owned? and, for that matter, if the latter, whether that ownership is on a joint tenants or tenants-in-common basis?

But sadly true!

[Pabmusic]

Whoa! Pedants unite! I thought you could only have one protagonist?

Well, once maybe. Suppose I say deuteragonists instead.

[Beef Oven!]

So do I. Obvious, isn't it?

Yes, obviously not wanting a ruler whacked around yer head!!

[ahinton]

Vice-President Dan Quayle

An interesting example not least because the plural of quail is neither quail's nor quails (speaking of which, the long-established fraternity between the French and the Scots is neatly illustrated by the French exclamation "o caille!")...

[Pabmusic]

Yes, obviously not wanting a ruler whacked around yer head!!

Not a blackboard wiper thrown across the room?

[Don Petter]

We've already had potatoes and tomatoes (though not yet potaytoes or tomaytoes), so let's Carl the whole thing Orff...

Is it De Temporem Fine ...

[ahinton]

Nuff said!

The Sydney Grew approach would be not to abbreviate at all but to use the whole word and replace the apostrophe with a hyphen, viz. "tele-phone", "æro-plane" and "tar-mac" - which is even more bizarre.

[muzzer]

In a similar vein is the errant comma. This from an estate agent's brochure - "Now, Bloomsbury Gardens continues this tradition, with a...". I was led to this by a far more absurd subordinate clause on an advert from the same people on the tube that, try as I might, I cannot recall.

[ahinton]

The mistake that's really annoying me at the moment is "your" instead of "you're".

In day's of your, no on would have mistaken "your" for "you're". would he/she?...