Banana's

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:02 am

I was just writing a post on the "What is EFL?" thread, and realized that I didn't know how to type "do's and don'ts" (I had actually first and unconsciously typed "do's and dont's" - second apostrophe in the wrong place

).

After checking several dictionaries, it generally seems (with the exception of the CADE) as if the standard, approved way to write it is firstly, as "dos and don'ts" (MS DOS?!), with "do's and don'ts" more a variation that is listed only secondly (or not at all in e.g. COBUILD3).

I presume that most of us would however prefer to write "do's" (it makes more sense visually), even if we might start seeming like those greengrocers (not greengrocer's!) who scrawl "Banana's - 50p a pound" on their scraps of cardboard in the marketplace.

Interesting eh (said in self-deprecating ironic voice)...ah well, look on the bright side, although you can't ever get back those two minutes you just lost in reading this, at least you now have the satisfaction of knowing why this thread is titled "Banana's"!

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 4:14 pm

Do continue to look into the interesting vagaries of English.
Don't get too crazy, or bother to publish your findings here.

Larry Latham

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:34 pm

The Apostrophe Protection Society cites this as a misuse of the apostrophe and even gives a real world example, which you can see at the bottom of this page:
http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/examples_1.htm

Before anyone asks, no I'm not a member.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:25 pm

In the 1970s it was much more common to use the apostrophe in these kind of plurals:
Do's, 1970's, TV's, p's and q's
The habit has slowly gone out of use and people are beginning to frown on it: - so much so that I gave up using the apostrophe in these cases a few months ago, even though I had been doing so for nigh on thirty-five years (it hurt a little, but much less than giving up smoking after thrrty-five years - the apostrophe is less addictive than nicotine).

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:30 am

Thanks for the link to the APS page, lolwhites! (I was aware of the existence of the APS, but hadn't realized they'd gone cyber!). Some of those misuses are really quite "bad", aren't they! No excuse, really...

The most high exalted Chairman of the APS, John Richards, is getting a bit too prescriptive and nutter-like about LESS "versus" FEWER, though, isn't he? (Under the "More Problems!" part given on the APS homepage).

From my NODE CD-ROM:

USAGE: In standard English less should only be used with uncountable things (less money, less time). With countable things it is incorrect to use less (less people and less words); strictly speaking, correct use is fewer people and fewer words. See also usage at few.

USAGE: Fewer versus less: strictly speaking, the rule is that fewer, the comparative form of few, is used with words denoting people or countable things (fewer members; fewer books; fewer than ten contestants). Less, on the other hand, is used with mass nouns, denoting things which cannot be counted (less money; less music). In addition, less is normally used with numbers (less than 10,000) and with expressions of measurement or time (less than two weeks; less than four miles away). But to use less with count nouns, as in less people or less words, is incorrect in standard English. It is perhaps one of the most frequent errors made by native speakers of English, although in written sources the error is found less frequently (around 8 per cent in the British National Corpus).

I guess "less" will become the all-round default of choice eventually.

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 3:26 am

Spotted this on the ELT News website (in the interview with Michael Swan and Catherine Walter). Do you think the use of the apostrophe here is a mistake?

Dictionaries are being made available over the Internet and students can now practice their English from a variety of interactive English-learning Web sites. What role can technology play in the teaching and study of grammar?

MS & CW: Unpopular as it may have been recently, practice of forms is important for the development of fluency in a foreign language. (We seem to accept that musicians need to practise scales, and learner drivers need to practise coordinating the different pedals, but there is a certain resistance to language learners' needing to practise forms.) Anything that can make practice of forms more attractive will help learners to develop fluency more readily. Some people are more willing to spend time on a game-like activity on a computer than in a classroom; for these people, technology can be a real boon.

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 3:31 am

I presume you are referring to "...a certain resistance to language learners' needing to practise forms..."

Which do you prefer:

"...a certain resistance to my needing to practice forms..."

or

"...a certain resistance to me needing to practice forms..."

(I didn't think it was wrong btw.)

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 3:44 am

Wow quick reply there Lori!

Yes, I was referring to the bit you zeroed in on (I hope it is the only apostrophe in the quote!).

Hmm I'd probably go for "me" (analagous to "them" or "us"), but "my", "their" and "our" would all be okay too in my book (but perhaps more "formal", ah, the vagueness-but-usefulness of that word!

).

Are you suggesting that a preference for a "possessive adjective" (I use scare quotes cos that may not be the term others would use) over a proform would somehow make one more likely to endorse the use of the apostrophe here? (I'm trying to figure out what I just meant then myself!

).

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:05 am

"...a certain resistance to language learners' needing to practise forms..."

Well...I dunno. You guys are probably more technically proficient than I am, but here's how I see it.

Either is perfectly OK (meaning observing "correct" form), but the exact meaning is slightly different in each case.

If you take the quote as it stands, the apostrophe, it seems to me, indicates a possession of something. I believe that something is the gerund form, "needing", an identifying verbal noun form. Perhaps it could be paraphrased by saying that the language learners have a need to practice.

On the other hand, if you remove the apostrophe, then "learners" becomes a simple plural, and the "needing" becomes a participial verb form. Now the sentence focuses on the action of practice. "The learners need practice."

What do you think?

Larry Latham

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 8:13 am

That sounds about right to me, Larry! And there you were thinking Lorikeet and I were technically proficient?!

I was thinking of making the language learners singular: "a language learner", and dropping the s (and any need for an apostrophe or nay), to solve the "problem".

But I like your "...to language learners having to need to practice...", wordy though it is!

How about "...to the need for learners to practice..."?

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Oct 05, 2004 1:20 pm

In Lynn Truss' excellent book Eats Shoots and Leaves she states that do's is written with the apostrophe.