I'm sure there are some forum members watching this programme:


BBC4 on 2:

The Pedant's Revolt (http://www.radiotimes.com/ListingsServlet?event=10&channelId=105&programmeId=29339703&jspLocation=/jsp/prog_details.jsp)

If I'd known it was on I would have studied it closely.

I'm always keen for more ways to be pedantic.

Joe

If they were then they'd know they were watching The Pedants' Revolt :P

id of watched it two. I luv program's like that me I do, their so informetive :hihi:

Just to be pedantic, there is no need for either the apostrophe or the brackets in the title.

Sorry, but that is not pedantic enough!

All varieties are OK, but with different meanings:

The Pedants Revolt = a statement of happening. The pedants are revolting.

The Pedant's Revolt = the revolt of a single pedant.

The Pedants' Revolt = the revolt of more than one pedant.

In this case, the author of the programme has titled it The Pedants' Revolt so no contest.:D

To be super-pedantic, the term 'pedant' could be used in its singular form but to imply plurality. For example, we could talk about the 'emergence of the artist in the 19th century', meaning the emergence of artists rather than any particular artist - likewise with the pedant. Also, to be hyper-pedantic, I was referring to the title of the thread, not the title of the book.

Originally posted by cgksheff
The pedants are revolting.



There's no need to be insulting.

Originally posted by tim_rutter
There's no need to be insulting.

Yeah, but they are, aren't they, though?

Incidentally, why do so many redundant apostrophes find their way into the signs and letterheads used by tradesmen? And why, when an apostrophe is justified, is it usually in the wrong place? One of life's little mysteries.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Incidentally, why do so many redundant apostrophes find their way into the signs and letterheads used by tradesmen? And why, when an apostrophe is justified, is it usually in the wrong place? One of life's little mysteries.

When you look at it, there are several rules that need to be understood to get apostrophes' in the right place. This could confuse some people.

For example why doesn't "its" require an apostrophe? As in "its hat".

I think it all says something about the state of our education system.

Check out this minefield of potential errors: They're putting their hats over there.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Incidentally, why do so many redundant apostrophes find their way into the signs and letterheads used by tradesmen? And why, when an apostrophe is justified, is it usually in the wrong place? One of life's little mysteries.

Its coz they aint got no edikashun innit :P

I think it's because everyone knows about the existence of the apostrophe and vaguely knows it goes before or after an 'S' at the end of a word, so a lot of people randomly litter them around, in the vain hope that some at least will land in the correct place. :D

StarSparkle :)

Probably it can be attributed to the relatively low priority given to grammar in schools these days, whereas a generation ago it was accorded high importance in English classes.

Here you go!

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45608

"Bagpiper outside Sainsbury's on't Moor"

Originally posted by tim_rutter


For example why doesn't "its" require an apostrophe? As in "its hat".

Because "its" is not a contraction of "it is", as opposed to "it's" which is.

:)

Originally posted by amhudson119
Because "its" is not a contraction of "it is", as opposed to "it's" which is.

:)

however it does refer to something belonging to it.

The cat's hat. It's hat. It is, as they say, an exception that makes a mockery of the rule.

It's really weird, but I've just had a déjà vu moment....on another forum I belong to, someone started a thread called "Pedants Corner", which started off with everyone being pedantic about this and that, and then someone noticed the mistake in the title of the thread (made by the most pedantic member of all). After that, it seemed that nearly all the postings seemed to be about the aberrant apostrophe in other members' postings...it all became quite silly in the end:wink:

Originally posted by tim_rutter
however it does refer to something belonging to it.

The cat's hat. It's hat. It is, as they say, an exception that makes a mockery of the rule.
"its", theirs" "hers" and "yours" are exceptions to the rule, as there are in other rules of the English language, such as the "i" before "e" except after "c" rule:hihi:

Originally posted by tim_rutter
however it does refer to something belonging to it.

The cat's hat. It's hat. It is, as they say, an exception that makes a mockery of the rule.
It goes on the end because it's possessive.

The cats' hat = as in the cats's hat
Its' hat = as in Its's hat...

Should Lickszz have an apostrophe too ?:hihi:

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
It goes on the end because it's possessive.

The cats' hat = as in the cats's hat
Its' hat = as in Its's hat...

Should Lickszz have an apostrophe too ?:hihi:

what? :confused:

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
It goes on the end because it's possessive.

The cats' hat = as in the cats's hat
Its' hat = as in Its's hat...

Should Lickszz have an apostrophe too ?:hihi:

This is probably the most common grammatical error in the English language - even our learned and erudite friend JoeP gets it wrong all the time.

For the record: a possessive apostrophe is NEVER correct for its.

eg. the dog wagged it's tail - is wrong. The dog wagged its tail - is correct

The only time an apostrophe should be used here is when writing a contraction of it is - i.e. It's hot today - is correct.

Originally posted by mojoworking
This is probably the most common grammatical error in the English language - even our learned and erudite friend JoeP gets it wrong all the time.
For the record: a possessive apostrophe is NEVER correct for its. eg. the dog wagged it's tail - is wrong. The dog wagged its tail - is correct
The only time an apostrophe should be used here is when writing a contraction of it is - i.e. It's hot today - is correct.

You can tell them until you're blue in the face ... no-one ever takes any notice :D

Actually, DonK, if a kindle of kittens was to share a hat, the cats' hat would be correct, possibly, (I think) :P

Originally posted by mojoworking
This is probably the most common grammatical error in the English language - even our learned and erudite friend JoeP gets it wrong all the time.

For the record: a possessive apostrophe is NEVER correct for its.

eg. the dog wagged it's tail - is wrong. The dog wagged its tail - is correct

The only time an apostrophe should be used here is when writing a contraction of it is - i.e. It's hot today - is correct.

That's kind of you to point out my flaws....I'll bear than in mind.

Usually my book editor or the editor of the magazine I'm writing the article for picks up on that stuff for me. :)

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Usually my book editor or the editor of the magazine I'm writing the article for picks up on that stuff for me. :)

Joe


That's what they're paid for:thumbsup::D!

Originally posted by sccsux
That's what they're paid for:thumbsup::D!

Exactly!! :)

Now I wouldn't want to put them out of work, would I?

So by committing the occasional faux-pas I stay in practice for 'professional' work!

:)

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
It goes on the end because it's possessive.

The cats' hat = as in the cats's hat
Its' hat = as in Its's hat...

Should Lickszz have an apostrophe too ?:hihi:

I hope you're joking...

Originally posted by JoePritchard
That's kind of you to point out my flaws....I'll bear than in mind.

Usually my book editor or the editor of the magazine I'm writing the article for picks up on that stuff for me. :)

Joe

No offence Joe, but in my experience I've found that most editors of half-way professional publications expect their writers to have a grasp of elementary grammar ;)

amhudson 119
I think what Mr. Rutter was getting at is that if you say e.g. ,

" The boy's football " , you obviously mean the football which belongs to the individual boy. However if you say ,

"Its engine is very new " , you mean the new engine belonging to the car [?].....but you don't use the possessive apostrophe. It may be to avoid confusion with the , "it is ---it's " usage ?

I have written many published papers in the academic fields of social science and science. In my experience, at this level, editors expect contributors to demonstrate a clear and concise written style, mastery of grammatical construction, syntax, clarity of expression etc. They also realise that human beings make the occasional error, and generally refrain from announcing to the world every little grammatical lapse they discover. They are usually mature professionals, who can tolerate a degree of error.

Sheffield Forum, on the other hand, has a few self-appointed, obsessive, and hypocritical pedants who leap on every typing error they encounter with glee. Rather than contribute interesting, witty and informative postings, they point out errors in a sort of 'clever Dick', smug way that belongs in the schoolyard. One particular poster [so conceited that he will not recognise my reference to him] does this regularly. He is lucky that we are separated by cyber space, because were we in some dark corridor, I would knee him full force in the groin.

Originally posted by mojoworking
No offence Joe, but in my experience I've found that most editors of half-way professional publications expect their writers to have a grasp of elementary grammar ;)

Offence taken! :)

My usage of English isn't that bad - I've always worked on the principle that if people pay me good money for what I write then I can't be doing things too horribly. I have to say the think I have most problems with, apart form the good ol' apostrophe, is punctuating dialogue. I have a world of pain when I write fiction. My perfect novel would probably be written about a closed community of mutes.

But yes, sometime I must sit down with an English Grammar book and learn how to become a true pedant!

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Offence taken! :)

You'd better put it back then, before anyone notices:D.

Originally posted by timo
One particular poster [so conceited that he will not recognise my reference to him] does this regularly. He is lucky that we are separated by cyber space, because were we in some dark corridor, I would knee him full force in the groin.

Go on timo old bean, name names! ;)

Mojo,
A gentleman would never reveal the identity of the aforementioned pedant on an open forum. Indeed, the pedantic Tomfool himself lacks the self-awareness to recognise a coded description of his unutterably crass and vulgar nature.

Rest assured, dear heart, that the reference is not to your good self. How could it be? I will forever be grateful to you for your immensely kind comparison of my written style to that of Viv Stanshall. I treasure your phrase, 'Timo is a hail fellow- well met in the tradition of Viv Stanshall and Stephen Fry'. Both are Gods in my world. Whilst I personally do not feel that I deserve such an accolade, I am touched that you do. Consider me a firm ally on this forum, old fruit!