I’ve seen 'air on a g string.
The argument here is whether you can go letter-number-letter as part of a word. I’d say u21’s here. One of the rare cases where you use an apostrophe to make a plural.
Another would be…the student achieved straight A’s, or I didn’t like the way he crossed his t’s.
Noonan goes bang!
Thanks for raising the points, you’ve been able to convince me.
1 Like
So… “to the n’th degree”. Apostrophe or not?
What can I say - I’m a softie 
1 Like
I wouldn’t. I’ve never seen that with an apostrophe.
We were talking about plurals. Sounds like you have a lithp. Take it to the SWMNBN page.
None for me.
And despite what Noonan says, I’d stick with 1970s rather than 1970’s. I just don’t see any confusion, so it’s not needed. I would go with “crossing t’s” though, because there would be confusion.
On Shelton’s unwanted ‘of’, how about people putting one after any form of ‘comprise’?
A set comprises its sub-sets. It doesn’t comprise of its sub-sets. An alternative (not ‘alternate’, which means every second one) to ‘comprises’ is ‘consists of’. So when you write ‘comprises of’, you are effectively saying ‘consists of of’.
I’m happy with 1970s too. It’s really only single digits, and the numerical digit one I’d say is optional. It doesn’t LOOK wrong.
1 Like
Oh, and sub-sets don’t comprise a set. They constitute one.
It is strange to find a lawyer expressing rigid opinions about English grammar, given what strange, arcane, even bad English so many of our legal documents are composed in.
I am not a lawyer — but I am a linguist. Believe me, I know what I’m talking about — in three languages, of which English is one. Normally I charge for my advice…
The expression you are objecting to so strongly is a partitive genitive. It may be incorrectly used, but it is still a partitive genitive. The one important question is, does its usage in the sentence obscure the meaning which is being expressed ? If it does not, let it be.
Does a partitive genitive (of which, I’m afraid to say, I’ve never heard) have to be noun of a noun, because this case is adjective of a noun, unless you count big as a noun.
‘70’s
Or
‘70s
7’0s
For those interested, that ^^ is called an ‘ad hominem’.
3 Likes
I agree that many legal documents, including Acts of Parliament, I’m sorry to say, are very badly written: they are repetitive, use needlessly obscure and complicated words when simple ones are readily available, and in too many cases contain grammatical errors. However it’s not true of all of them: in the judgments of English judges you will often find some quite beautiful writing.
I do not agree with you that “big of a deal” is a partitive genitive because, as I explained above, a partitive genitive refers to a part of a whole (hence the name, I presume), and “big” is not a part of a deal, it’s a description of a deal. I suspect you’re maintaining that it is because the “x of a y” form is the same as the form of a partitive genitive; but that doesn’t make it one
I also do not agree that grammatical errors do not matter unless they obscure meaning. Language only has meaning because rules have evolved and been recognised and adhered to by users of the language. Letting every new error remain uncorrected leads eventually to chaos.
I do agree that there are some “rules” that are not rules of grammar at all, but merely stylistic preferences. I also agree that generally it’s desirable to observe the “rules” that are stylistic preferences because they make what is written more elegant and easy to read; and I also agree that where elegance, clarity and simplicity require such a “rule” to be broken, then it should be.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean when you say you’re a linguist. I’ve learnt four languages: English, French, Latin and German. I think I’m pretty good at English; for a non-native I’m also pretty good at French; I remember the basics and a lot of vocabulary from Latin, but unfortunately I’ve forgotten most of my five years of learning of German.
Just in case anyone is interested, here are the first two paragraphs from the judgment of Mr Justice Turner in the UK equivalent of our Supreme Court in the case of Pile v Chief Constable of Merseyside Police.
"Cheryl Pile brings this appeal to establish the liberty of inebriated English subjects to be allowed to lie undisturbed overnight in their own vomit soaked clothing. Of course, such a right, although perhaps of dubious practical utility, will generally extend to all adults of sound mind who are intoxicated at home. Ms Pile, however, was not at home. She was at a police station in Liverpool having been arrested for the offence of being drunk and disorderly. She had emptied the contents of her stomach all over herself and was too insensible with drink to have much idea of either where she was or what she was doing there. Rather than leave the vulnerable claimant to marinade overnight in her own bodily fluids, four female police officers removed her outer clothing and provided her with a clean dry outfit to wear. The claimant was so drunk that she later had no recollection of these events.
It is against this colourful background that she brought a claim against the police in trespass to the person and assault alleging that they should have left her squalidly and unhygienically soaking in vomit. Fortunately, because this appeal will be dismissed, the challenge of assessing damages for this lost opportunity will remain unmet."
6 Likes
You’ve looked up the definition of “partitive genitive” in some general source, probably via Google. Your definition is fine - as far as it goes. Come back to me when you’ve spent some years studying Comparative Linguistics, and you might then understand where I’m coming from.
Until then, whether you accept what I said about a single small point of grammar or not really doesn 't matter.
The “of” can be used in the passive voice of “comprise”:
A set consists of its sub-sets.
A set comprises its sub-sets.
A set is comprised of its sub-sets.
A set is composed of its sub-sets.
(There’s a partitive genitive hanging around here, too.)
Seven feet, zero seconds?
3 Likes
Yeah, it might be acceptable in the passive but: I try and avoid passive voice (which I consider clunky and inelegant)and it’s arguably tautological even when used that way. If you wanted to go passive, wouldn’t you just use ‘is composed of’?
1 Like