The message
from "BAC" contains these words:


"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Brian" --- 'flayb' to respond contains these
words:


I find all abuse of English quite amusing, [and thank whoever for
spell-check] as there seems to be no way to alter, once an adult. We
seem
to learn by example, from peers and parents, rather than education.

That depends on the quality of teaching. Grammar teaching was so
forcefully ingrained at my school, I doubt if any pupil of my vintage
misuses apostrophes, texts messages in lower case only, or could bring
herself to say "Lots of teachers gave Janet and I a Detention".


Whilst at school, we were taught that it was incorrect to put an 's' after
the 'possessive' apostrophe in the case of plural words ending in 's'. Hence
we would put, for example, the squirrels' nuts (meaning the nuts put out for
the squirrels);

correct

not the squirrels's nuts;

agreed

certainly not the squirrel's nuts,
which latter would mean we were asserting the squirrel (singular) was nuts.

Not necessarily. It could mean that, but it also means " the nuts of
a (single) squirrel".



Janet

In article , Pam Moore
writes
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:59:59 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:


The correct use of apostrophes hasn't changed, there are just more
people abusing them.

Who has read Eats, shoots and leaves? (to bring in a gardening link!)
Quite entertaining for those of us fussy about such things.
While we are on the topic of grammar, I would ask if anyone is as
infuriated as I am by the number of people who say "somethinK" and
"anythinK".
Anyone know why?

Isn't it just Birmingham/Black country accent?

Also the frequency of "I'm SAT" for "sitting" and I'm STOOD" for
"standing". Many radio and TV reporters are guilty here.
Is it just language eveolving or is it because they don't teach
grammar any more?

Greater tolerance of regional dialects, perhaps, as in the Yorks 'it
were' or 'us' instead of 'my'
--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:21:33 +0000 (UTC), "Mike"
wrote:

" eveolving " or is it because they don't teach
grammar any more?

Pam in Bristol

ore spelin


You'm right mate! I missed that 'un. smeemeyes yer no!

Pam in Bristol

The message
from Pam Moore contains these words:


Is it just language eveolving or is it because they don't teach
grammar any more?

I think it's both. But smart people still need to know how to
manipulate language very precisely, both to avoid and create ambiguity
:~)

Janet.

Mike wrote:
"Dah" wrote in message
...

"I'm staying while 5 o'clock." would puzzle many. ("I'm staying until 5
o'clock.")

. . . and caused serious injuries to the poor soul at the railway
crossing who obeyed the sign WAIT WHILE (until) SIGNALS ARE FLASHING



????????????????????????????

Pardon?

Please explain

Mike Crowe F.E.P.



Mike,

In many parts of the North, the word while used to be synonymous with
until, at least when I was in school. Consequently, instead of waiting
whilst the signals were flashing, warning that a train was approaching,
the poor soul waited while (until) they were flashing and proceed to
cross the tracks. It was a schoolteacher who related the anecdote to
enlighten us to the confusion of the words.

To further confuse the issue, "while" was reduced to "well".

Hope this helps.

The message
from David Rance contains these words:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:

"Squirrels's nuts" for "the nuts of the squirrels" is also correct,
though not so often used;

Really? I'd like to verify that. Can you give me your source for that?

If I could unforget - probably Miss Burbridge, around 1955.

Hmm, I'm not sure she was correct. I don't think you'll find it in any
book on English usage.

I have several, but Fowler seems still to be in store. The apostrophe
doesn't appear (on a quick look) to be mentioned in Plain Words by Sir
Ernest Gowers, and other English Language books are reposing with Fowler
innit.

--
Rusty
horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from Dah contains these words:

To further confuse the issue, "while" was reduced to "well".

Or in this case, unwell?

--
Rusty
horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co full-stop uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

"Tim C." wrote in message
news:1129561140.eecddb593ab15e2568d51622d28817a6@t eranews...
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:56:14 +0100, Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:

"The squirrel's were on the lawn" is wrong, and always has been,

Except as in:
Where are the nuts?
The squirrel's are on the lawn.

Hello everyone,
No the squirrels's are on the lawn, at least this morning they were/was.
the nuts have been buried.
I must admit I got it wrong abouit where the little squiggle went in words
not plurals I remember now.
must have been all that chalk going around at school affecting my memory.
I dont need chalk and blackboard now , i use my fingers and if i need any
more i count on my toes.
regards
Cineman,
(can spell, cant type)




--
Tim C.

Hello my friends hello (neil diamond the jazz singer)

Well Mr. W Sheakespeare would have understood the dialect of a place near
where I live,

The local dialect in the black country is reputed to be as close to old
anglo saxon as we can make out.
Even Dr. Carl Chinn speaks black country but with a Birmingham accent.
and the spelling of some words used are usually written phonetically
hence
Wem bay be gooin t shaps
We are not going shopping
I dare say if I started typing as They talk arand heya there would be a "lot
of letters to the editor" about the misuse of the english language.
BUT what is the correct version of the english language, yours or mine or
the academics who designed an almost mathematical formulae for setting
letters in the correct order.
My view is that english is still evolving, after nothing stays the same, or
we would all have webbed feet, or fins according to Darwin
Now shall we discuss the use of TXTing language???
Not tonight I have just done 12 hour shift and am too tired( thank goodness
says everyone)
If your still awake and have read this far.
I bid you a fond goodnight and happy gardening weather tomorrow, just seen
time, I meant TODAY
Kindest regards
Cineman

"Harold Walker" wrote in message
...

"Pam Moore" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:59:59 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:



Is it just language eveolving or is it because they don't teach
grammar any more?

Pam in Bristol

There is little question that language is still evolving....I wonder what
Sheakspeare would thing of todays English....I really wonder what
authority has the absolute right to state what is proper and what is
not....is the spelling of color incorrect.....perhaps spelling is a
different subject from grammar but never-the-less an indicator of
change...for better or worse.....H

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:57:10 +0100, Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:

The message 1129561140.eecddb593ab15e2568d51622d28817a6@teran ews
from "Tim C." contains these words:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:56:14 +0100, Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:

"The squirrel's were on the lawn" is wrong, and always has been,

Except as in:
Where are the nuts?
The squirrel's are on the lawn.

Nut-picking, I see...

splitting hare's?
--
Tim C.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:03:00 GMT, cineman wrote:

...must have been all that chalk going around at school affecting my memory.
I dont need chalk and blackboard now ...

You probably have been doing too much grocery shopping, and reading the
signs. ;-)
--
Tim C.

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:37:06 +0200, martin wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:02:05 +0200, "Tim C."
wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:56:14 +0100, Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:

"The squirrel's were on the lawn" is wrong, and always has been,

Except as in:
Where are the nuts?
The squirrel's are on the lawn.

Miasma by proxy? :-)

:-) That's me.
--
Tim C.

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
k...
The message
from David Rance contains these words:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 Jaques d'Alltrades wrote:

"Squirrels's nuts" for "the nuts of the squirrels" is also correct,
though not so often used;

Really? I'd like to verify that. Can you give me your source for
that?

If I could unforget - probably Miss Burbridge, around 1955.

Hmm, I'm not sure she was correct. I don't think you'll find it in any
book on English usage.

I have several, but Fowler seems still to be in store. The apostrophe
doesn't appear (on a quick look) to be mentioned in Plain Words by Sir
Ernest Gowers, and other English Language books are reposing with Fowler
innit.


Although absent from 'Plain Words', it was in one of Gowers's other works,
'ABC of plain words'. He wrote "There is no universally accepted code of
rules governing the formation of the possessive case of words ending in s,
but the most favoured practice seems to be not just to put an apostrophe at
the end of the word, as one does with an ordinary plural (strangers'
gallery), but to add another s - Mr Jones's room, St. James's street, not Mr
Jones' room, St. James' street."

But he wrote that circa 1950, and, lately, I have noticed the additional s
creeping into wider usage. Hence my original question as to what currently
constitutes 'most favoured practice'.

"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "BAC" contains these words:


"Janet Baraclough" wrote in message
...
The message
from "Brian" --- 'flayb' to respond contains
these
words:


I find all abuse of English quite amusing, [and thank whoever
for
spell-check] as there seems to be no way to alter, once an adult.
We
seem
to learn by example, from peers and parents, rather than education.

That depends on the quality of teaching. Grammar teaching was so
forcefully ingrained at my school, I doubt if any pupil of my vintage
misuses apostrophes, texts messages in lower case only, or could
bring
herself to say "Lots of teachers gave Janet and I a Detention".


Whilst at school, we were taught that it was incorrect to put an 's'
after
the 'possessive' apostrophe in the case of plural words ending in 's'.
Hence
we would put, for example, the squirrels' nuts (meaning the nuts put out
for
the squirrels);

correct

not the squirrels's nuts;

agreed

certainly not the squirrel's nuts,
which latter would mean we were asserting the squirrel (singular) was
nuts.

Not necessarily. It could mean that, but it also means " the nuts of
a (single) squirrel".



True. Many thanks.

"Cereus-validus......." wrote in message
.. .
Ah, this must be the troll, goodbye.


--
Chris Thomas
West Cork
Ireland