On Monday 13 August 2012 09:03:38 Neil Bothwick wrote: > The confusion arises because, when used with a name, an apostrophe is > needed for a possessive.
The confusion arises because the apostrophe has two functions, which collide in its/it's. Who can tell /a priori/ which applies in any given case? You just have to know. There's no substitute for a decent education. > It is an understandable error... Indeed, which is why I don't usually rise to any particular bait. > ...unlike grocers' apostrophe's, which crop up everywhere and are far > more grating for me. Agreed, except that I think you mean greengrocers'. I also find that commas seem to be thrown at random into a piece of prose in the apparent hope that a few will land where they might do some good. Even Penrose is sometimes guilty of that. And don't start me on the egregious Oxford comma. Nor on the German insistence on separating the verb from the object with a comma, as though the action could proceed without something to act on. Even worse is the developing inability to distinguish between singular and plural. Not only that but the growing use of "stuff" shows an inability to distinguish even between what can be counted (number) and what can't (amount). I could find myself in despair if I weren't careful. -- Rgds Peter
