5 ms·
The grocer's apostrophe (which I will argue should be called the grocers'(1) apostrophe, since there are many offending grocers) is the bane of my existence (1
by Brananarchy 2y ago
The grocer's apostrophe (which I will argue should be called the grocers'(1) apostrophe, since there are many offending grocers) is the bane of my existence
(1) My phone absolutely tried to correct that back to "grocer's"
- ttepasse 2y agoIf you want to make your existence slightly more irritating: Learn German and move to Germany. There the possessive s ending is written without an apostrophe - but there is an equivalent which then falsely writes the possessive with an apostrophe - the so-called Deppenapostroph (idiot's apostrophe).
- rob74 2y agoWhat annoys me most about German vs English is that German has lots of English loanwords ending in "y" (e.g. "Party"), but it's officially not allowed to use the plural form that would be correct in English, e.g. "Parties" - you have to write "Partys". As a bonus, you could try using "Party's", but that would be incorrect again...
- kqr 2y ago> which I will argue should be called I think you're missing the joke of the name!
- Brananarchy 2y agoI don't think it's a joke. The possessive plural is a disaster in American English
- Nevermark 2y agoWell, it is "a baker's dozen", right? Not "all the bakers' dozens". Since the phrase incorporates a reference to a single individual, as a representative concept for all bakers. So "the grocer's apostrophe" makes sense as a phrase referring to a typical individual grocer with a typical atypical apostrophe, standing in as a representative for all grocers and all their darned grocers' apostrophes.
- dmurray 2y agoMaybe it should be the grocer's' apostrophe, since there are many offending grocer's.
- zilti 2y agoAaaagh, make it stop!
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]