Forum Moderators: open
I was going to add "och aye"
This is not a misspelling but a different language and being married into the "Auld Alliance" you should know that ;)
Ps ..I have to admit to having feminised "bon" to "bonne" in a post last night due to exhaustion and "grape and grain" ..but I did remember the following ^ which is actually depreciated .
Is that something to do with Al Gore?
On the other hand, many folks haven't a clue how to use apostrophes, and often throw one in when using a plural, non-possessive noun. E.g., someone on another forum recently complimented those who had offered helpful advice as
true pro's
It's even crazier when people use an apostrophe to form the plural of their own name, e.g., "The Smith's will be there." (They tend to use to very same--and still incorrect-- form for the plural possessive: "We're meeting at the Smith's house.")
Even better: potatoe's
Even though an apostrophe shouldn't generally be used in plurals, some style guides suggest that they should be used for clarity.
For example; to denote a collection of letter A's.
One point which does seem to differ between guidelines is whether the pen belonging to Marcus is Markus's Pen or Markus' Pen.
One point which does seem to differ between guidelines is whether the pen belonging to Marcus is Markus's Pen or Markus' Pen.
I would go with Marcus's pen. According to the first rule in Strunk & White's Elements of Style (and frankly the ONLY thing I remember from having to read the book in high school!), the "s" should be added in almost every case. They give the example, "Charles's book". The only exceptions they allow are some archaic names whose last two syllables each end with a sibilant and hence would become overwhelming if we added another (examples: Moses', Jesus', Isis', Ramses'). IOW, if you can add the "s" and still pronounce the word (and be able to stop!), add it.
Grammarians' rules can at times get a bit silly--trying to force logical consistency on a language where it has no interest in such.** But this one always struck me as eminently sensible and, better than that, easy to put into practice.
**Sometimes they win. Thus, on "logical" grounds, "proper English" disallows the double negative found in many other languages, even though it can be rhetorically effective, and properly used need not lead to confusion.
I can't believe I actually fell off the wagon and then noticed too late! Oh where for art thou lovely spell checker!
While on the subject of spelilng [sic! or sick?], I think you'll find that it's "wherefore"
And just slightly off the subject, I think you'll find that "wherefore" does not mean "where" (as in your example, and as many now try to use it), but "why".
("Wherefore art thou Romeo?" has nothing to do with his location. It is bemoaning the fact that he's a Montague, of the family Juliet's [the Capulets] is feuding with. IOW, "If only you could have a different family name!")
If it helps, it's the equivalent of German "wofuer" (probably not a fat lot of help, eh? oh well!) Maybe English will help more -- the "where" in 'where+preposition' compounds means "which" or "what"; compare "whereof", meaning "of what, of which". (See also "whereupon", "whereat".)
