Why Martin Lewis’ is correct grammar! Blog discussion

withabix

toots66 wrote: »

I was taught that if the noun ended in an s then only an apostrophe was required. As Martin and others have said, s's just looks wrong. The giant Lewis's sign overlooking Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester really wound me up. Pubs with Banks's outside make me not want to drink there.

Saying that so-called 'classical' names such as Jesus do not need an s after the apostrophe but other names do is pure confusion. But that's the English language for you!

I disagree. Ending words with s' looks wrong ....and as Noddy Holder says in the adverts....Never mind your pleases and thankses, I'll have a pint of Banks's....

Although this is along the same lines as 'spelling rules', such as 'I before E except after C'....which has so many exceptions that the rule is in fact wrong!

silvercar

Take your wife's name - problem solved.:)

dangermike

Just for fun, if you know your apostrophes, try these:

• Covered in beeswax, they looked into each others eyes.
• Janes at her wits end - fifty years womens rights up in smoke.
• The Archdeacon of St Pauls congregation couldnt be happier.

When no one knows the rule, or when no one knows which rule to use, maybe it's time to change the rule.

The branding and local usage argument always overrides any apostrophe rule, though, so Martin can call his site whatever he likes without breaking grammar.

Even that can get complicated when no one can agree the local usage.

'Since the early 1950s, the station name has been spelled with an apostrophe on the tube map although the name of the local area is generally spelled without. Prior to the 1950s tube and rail maps show the station name without the apostrophe and on the station buildings the name has variously appeared with and without the apostrophe. Oddly, the name of the local area has always been shown with an apostrophe on Ordnance Survey maps, and also by A-Z, but other mapmakers do not use one.'
(From Wikipedia, Earl's Court tube station)

MeToo

toots66 wrote: »

I was taught that if the noun ended in an s then only an apostrophe was required. As Martin and others have said, s's just looks wrong.
!

toots66 states s/he was taught that (eg) the moss' colour is correct.
By whom? And who taught that teacher?
Is it a question of mis-education (ie combination of mis-teaching and mis-learning?) or of intellectual laziness or an attempt at adjustment to something simpler?
　
I am old enough to recognise the moss's colour as both looking and sounding correct.
However, I am young enough in mind to change - with the times - and beyond
　
I believe the orginal possessive apostrophe was to replace a - then considered - over-the-top e .. as in the doges owner to the dog ' s owner.
　
We now type more than write. For an apostrophy we have to key and extra shift stroke.

If ignorance rules then for that reason and sheer simplicity get rid of the damned apostrophe.
If its use looks wrong to half the readers, either way, would all readers agree that it should be banned ?
Incidently, the very early poster- whom I think should know better -
(MSE Judy’s grammar masterclass,)
... confirmed member of the Eats, Shoots and Leaves brigade, to go through the grammar issues:
"It’s grammar..
so it all gets worse.
BAN IT
When typed on a PC an ARE YOU SURE? warning should come up !

But then.. Mr Lewis uses the appreviation apostrophe a great deal - it sounds conversational.
Life's too short (or) lifes too short .. ?
Over to u the jury...
　
　
　
　

jonthedog

I have to own up to being one of those grammar fiends writing in to complain about this a couple of years ago, thinking I was helping out by pointing out the error. To me "Martin Lewis' Money Saving Expert.com" reads "Martin Lewiss (possessive 's' emphisized) Money Saving Expert.com" which sounds bad, to my ears anyway.

I hadn't realized you were aware of this and decided to forgo the extra 's' anyway for the sake of branding...explaination accepted, after all, the masthead isn't designed to be read out. You may as well get rid of the apostrophe entirely, though.

MilkyJoe

alared wrote: »

The whole standard of English and grammar has well and truly gone "down the swannie".

Could this be anything to do with "texting" or the continuous government interference in the education system?

Only today, I read that the old adage "i before e except after c" is to be no longer taught.

I`m afraid that today`s pupils are not as well educated as people were in the 50/60`s.
People of that era can at least compose a letter and count without the use of a calculator.

Rogue apostrophe!

nzseries1

MilkyJoe wrote: »

Rogue apostrophe!

Unfortunately MilkyJoe, while instinctively I would agree with you, I have read in many places that an apostrophe after an abbreviation is okay.

Here's one such place:
http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/apostrophes_show_plural_of_abbreviations.htm

EDIT: Now I've read right to the end of that source, I don't agree with some of its later examples! Oh no, now I don't know what to think! :-)

That page I've linked to says that:
He sent 3 SOS's between midnight and 6 a.m. is okay, but
He had 4 CCJ's against him. is not. How bizarre.

Okay, that's enough arguing with myself!!

MilkyJoe

nzseries1 wrote: »

Unfortunately MilkyJoe, while instinctively I would agree with you, I have read in many places that an apostrophe after an abbreviation is okay.

Here's one such place:
http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/apostrophes_show_plural_of_abbreviations.htm

EDIT: Now I've read right to the end of that source, I don't agree with some of its later examples! Oh no, now I don't know what to think! :-)

That page I've linked to says that:
He sent 3 SOS's between midnight and 6 a.m. is okay, but
He had 4 CCJ's against him. is not. How bizarre.

Okay, that's enough arguing with myself!!

I always thought thought you only used apostrophes where it might cause confusion.

nzseries1

MilkyJoe wrote: »

I always thought thought you only used apostrophes where it might cause confusion.

Makes sense. Although then of course you have the situation where what's confusing to one person isn't considered confusing to another! Then you could argue either way

You know, now I think about it, I'm not sure I ever learned this sort of stuff in school.

nzseries1

MeToo wrote: »

Incidently, the very early poster- whom I think should know better -
(MSE Judy’s grammar masterclass,)
... confirmed member of the Eats, Shoots and Leaves brigade, to go through the grammar issues:
"It’s grammar..
so it all gets worse.
BAN IT　

MeToo, are you saying that "It's grammar..." is incorrect?
I disagree with you, it is correct in that case.
The full sentence was:
It’s grammar purists who would say technically our logo is incorrect
"It's" here is a contraction of "It is".