«

In article
<. net>,
Blinky the Shark <> wrote:

> Hywel Jenkins wrote:
>
> > Blinky the Shark wrote:

> >> What shouts out at me: all the instances of "photo's".[1] Plurals don't
> >> require apostrophes.
> >
> > You could argue that in this instance the apostrophe is correct as
> > letters have been omitted.
>
> If one wanted to appear dense, sure.
>

I dunno, HJ's was a clever enough point.... It never occurred to
me. In fact, come to think of it, with this particular word, it
might not be a bad choice. Must remember to stick in an apostophe
next time I use it to surprise the stickler brigade with a
subtlety.

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

> In article
> <. net>,
> Blinky the Shark <> wrote:
>
>> Hywel Jenkins wrote:
>>
>> > Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>> >> What shouts out at me: all the instances of "photo's".[1] Plurals don't
>> >> require apostrophes.
>> >
>> > You could argue that in this instance the apostrophe is correct as
>> > letters have been omitted.
>>
>> If one wanted to appear dense, sure.
>>
>
> I dunno, HJ's was a clever enough point.... It never occurred to

Except for one thing. "Photo" has become a word in its own right.

And you seem to have missed the *actual* clever suggestion that if an
apostrophe of contraction *was* required, then it would equally be
required for the *singular*: photo' (Because "graph" is just as much
clipped from the singular as it is the plural.)

> me. In fact, come to think of it, with this particular word, it
> might not be a bad choice. Must remember to stick in an apostophe
> next time I use it to surprise the stickler brigade with a

You misspelled "those who know how to spell".

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Coming Soon: Filtering rules specific to various real news clients

In article
<. net>,
Blinky the Shark <> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <. net>,
> > Blinky the Shark <> wrote:
> >
> >> Hywel Jenkins wrote:
> >>
> >> > Blinky the Shark wrote:
> >
> >> >> What shouts out at me: all the instances of "photo's".[1] Plurals don't
> >> >> require apostrophes.
> >> >
> >> > You could argue that in this instance the apostrophe is correct as
> >> > letters have been omitted.
> >>
> >> If one wanted to appear dense, sure.
> >>
> >
> > I dunno, HJ's was a clever enough point.... It never occurred to
>
> Except for one thing. "Photo" has become a word in its own right.
>

Yes, it is true enough - but not necessarily in every idiolect.
But not so true that it leaves no room for an intentional and
stuffily formal use of "'" in "photo's as a tease to the likes of
all Lords Fussiness.

> And you seem to have missed the *actual* clever suggestion that if an
> apostrophe of contraction *was* required, then it would equally be
> required for the *singular*: photo' (Because "graph" is just as much
> clipped from the singular as it is the plural.)

What makes you think I missed it? I did not. I liked it and
appreciated it. Perhaps I read it after replying to you? The
answer, of course, is that for an idiolect in which the formal
expansion of "photo" is "photograph", the singular "photo'" is
probably correct. What you miss, old son, is that this is not
necessarily so ridiculous.

>
> > me. In fact, come to think of it, with this particular word, it
> > might not be a bad choice. Must remember to stick in an apostophe
> > next time I use it to surprise the stickler brigade with a
>
> You misspelled "those who know how to spell".

I misspelt what? I know I misspelt "apostrophe" a while back...
MT-Newswatcher only underlines what it thinks are mistakes, it
cannot correct them. So I am off the hook, right?

--
dorayme