Ahem. If the possessives in question are in the plural, then the apostrophes
should follow the letters 's' - in which case both would indeed be correct.
But I see nothing to suggest what is possessed by the alleged possessives,
which means they are respectively nominative and accusative which should not
have any apostrophe! At my most charitable, while the first is indubitably
nominative, I could accept the second as a possessive/attributive, albeit
leaving unspoken that portion of the roos which is attacked by wedgies.
Not mentioned so far is the use of an apostrophe to indicate abbreviation -
and in that case "Wedgies also attacks 'roos".
I'm shocked that this still has to hammered home. I'll be setting some
homework if standards don't rise.
Piers
-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Trask [mailto:christrask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: 18 November 2013 13:31
To: Olympus Camera Discussion; olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] A bit of a tease to start the week
>
>Andrew wrote
>>*>
>>*> On 18/11/2013, at 5:59 PM, Ian Manners wrote:
>>*>
>>*> Wedgie's also attack roo's.
>>*> Which apostrophe is incorrect? :-)
>
>Both, assuming the sentence is complete.
>
Actually neither. Both words are plurals, but with the apotrophies
they become possessives. At least you won't deplete the world excess of
apostrophes.
Chris
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|