|
Post by Twoddle on Mar 2, 2012 22:21:05 GMT
Simple -- Twoddle -- ? Accurate, jolly useful, and very helpful, yes, but simple? Tone What could be more simple than '"It's" is short for "It is". In all other circumstances use "Its".'? (OK, I missed "It has", but that wasn't a part of the question.) We then had a load of ever more complicated and confusing stuff about "hi's", "her's" and I don't know what else. A serious point: when someone asks a straightforward, easily answered question in the "Quick Language Questions" section, shouldn't we give as simple and straightforward an answer to it as possible, without excessive and unnecessary guff afterwards? It just confuses the poor blighter who asked the question.
|
|
|
Post by hubertus on Mar 3, 2012 10:30:32 GMT
Thanks, Twoddle. I'll tell the children this is easy stuff. Just to ease them into it, though, Ill do quantum theory with them first. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Mar 3, 2012 16:54:36 GMT
Thanks, Twoddle. I'll tell the children this is easy stuff. Just to ease them into it, though, Ill do quantum theory with them first. ;D One remains puzzled. Which bit was complicated?
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Mar 3, 2012 17:07:40 GMT
None of this is that complicated--if you're paying attention! hubertus: I'm confident that you know how to use the apostrophe in all its uses. Use your teaching skills to pass that along to the children. If you cast its use as some insurmountable feat, you'll create a fear of the apostrophe in them before they even get started. As I've contended before, the apostrophe is a word-level item, like a letter. After that, it's a matter of spelling, which I'm sure you're already teaching anyway. The hyphen is similar--is there the fear of the hyphen as well? Other punctuation (period, comma, dash, colon, semicolon, etc.) are sentence-level items. Some other symbols (e.g., @ or &) are word equivalents. "Teach the children well."
|
|
|
Post by hubertus on Mar 3, 2012 19:39:28 GMT
Hi Dave, Twoddle et al.
I think the apostrophe of omission is easy to learn. I am persuaded that these can be learnt parrot fashion like other spellings.
Its the apostrophe of possession which is difficult because its position in singular and plural forms isnt logical: ie before or after the 's'.
Then there are the forms in plural words like children, people etc.
Not to mention days, months and years which can be possessive.
And furthermore, you can always argue that a possessive form is actually adjectival and therefore dosent require an apostrophe.
The latter concept is particularly difficult to grasp and there is often no consensus even amongst people who study these things..
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Mar 3, 2012 20:52:46 GMT
>Simple -- Twoddle -- ? Accurate, jolly useful, and very helpful, yes, but simple? Tone What could be more simple than '"It's" is short for "It is". In all other circumstances use "Its".'?<'Twas a joke. Sorry. Tone
|
|
|
Post by hubertus on Mar 3, 2012 22:37:46 GMT
By the way, Dave, I am even more fearful of the hyphen than the apostrophe. The rules of the apostrophe are relatively fixed, apart from obsolescent omission cases like 'phone and photo'.
There appears to be no consistency in the use of the hyphen. This kind of arbitrariness ought to be settled once an for all.
Again, my solution would be to eschew them altogether ;D.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Mar 4, 2012 11:36:38 GMT
>Simple -- Twoddle -- ? Accurate, jolly useful, and very helpful, yes, but simple? Tone What could be more simple than '"It's" is short for "It is". In all other circumstances use "Its".'?<'Twas a joke. Sorry. Tone I must have had my mind elsewhere at the time; I should recognise Tone jokes by now!
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Mar 4, 2012 11:59:25 GMT
By the way, Dave, I am even more fearful of the hyphen than the apostrophe. The rules of the apostrophe are relatively fixed, apart from obsolescent omission cases like 'phone and photo'. There appears to be no consistency in the use of the hyphen. This kind of arbitrariness ought to be settled once an for all. Again, my solution would be to eschew them altogether ;D. I can't see the problem. In 99% of examples, the possessive apostrophe rules are easy to understand; I had no trouble learning them as a child and I don't suppose children today are any dimmer than I was. Place the apostrophe immediately after the "owner" or "owners": what could be easier? As to the hyphen, it's a most undervalued and under-used punctuation-mark (or word-level symbol). Like the possessive apostrophe, it exists to clarify meaning, not to confuse, and should be used a great deal more than it is. "Reenter", "Cooperate", "Deemphasise", "Coworker" - they're all liable to mispronunciation unless hyphenated; and the hyphen is invaluable, although rarely used, to show which words are linked to each other. "Basic level entry" is the first, but not very good, example to springs to my enfeebled mind. Is is entry at the basic level, or is it a level entry of the basic kind? No, Hubertus, apostrophes and hyphens are not to be eschewed; they are to be encouraged, promoted, and used whenever appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Mar 4, 2012 14:22:24 GMT
>No, Hubertus, apostrophes and hyphens are not to be eschewed; they are to be encouraged, promoted, and used whenever appropriate. <
Hear, hear!
(Or even, said very quickly, hear-hear!)
Tone
|
|
|
Post by hubertus on Mar 4, 2012 15:09:03 GMT
I can't see the problem. In 99% of examples, the possessive apostrophe rules are easy to understand; I had no trouble learning them as a child and I don't suppose children today are any dimmer than I was. [Twoddle]
If the rules are so easy to learn, why do so many people have difficulty, even on this forum, with the possessive-adjectival dichotomy?
I dont like unnecessary hyphens. I like them in the example above, where there is no intention to create a new word. And where a mental picture can be created on the page, for instance, in, 'It was a drink-fuelled act.'
In earlier times, the prefix 'un-' was often hyphenated. This use has fallen out of fashion with time. I hope the same happens with the hyphen in 'co-worker' etc. Coworker looks unfamiliar at first, but it is easy to understand from context.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Mar 4, 2012 16:35:15 GMT
If the rules are so easy to learn, why do so many people have difficulty, even on this forum, with the possessive-adjectival dichotomy? Because they weren't taught correctly at school? Nor do I, but I do like necessary ones. And I don't like "dont": it isn't a word and it has no meaning. "Wont" is a word, but not the same one as "won't", which has an entirely different meaning. Possessive apostrophes are important: they help with written communication. "Coworker" seems to mean "colleague", which I prefer, although I'll admit that "co-worker has been in existence for several centuries. To me, "coworker" means nothing; I understand what a cow is, but am unfamiliar with an "orker".
|
|
|
Post by hubertus on Mar 4, 2012 17:15:24 GMT
OK, OK. I dont have strong feelings about hyphens because they can be learnt relatively easily like other spellings.
That whole theme was a bit of a distraction for me.
The argument regarding the possessive apostrophe is in danger of coming down to gainsaying. I remain to be convinced of the worth of distinguishing singular and plural forms in writing, other than to conform with convention.
On a more consensual note, I withdraw, unreservedly, my objection to hyphens and apostrophes of contraction. I've modified my behaviour accordingly.
Thanks sincerely for your posts.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Mar 4, 2012 21:00:27 GMT
>Coworker looks unfamiliar at first, but it is easy to understand from context.<
And I'm to presume that "cooperate" means skillful in the art of making barrels?
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Mar 4, 2012 21:53:32 GMT
Don't be put off by a bit of robust debate, Hubertus. None of it's meant to be taken personally!
|
|