Athletic's Website

[ugarte]

[quote CowbellGuy][quote ftyuv][quote Beeeej]The Chicago Manual of Style's rule amuses me - they agree with me except when the proper is Jesus or Moses, then it's just s-apostrophe.[/quote]

AP style distinguishes between voiced and unvoiced final Ss.[/quote]

That's the policy I've always followed. Either is correct. But I think we can all agree that what's in the subject name isn't correct for any form of written English.[/quote]
Unless it is referring to this.

[ftyuv]

[quote ugarte][quote CowbellGuy][quote ftyuv][quote Beeeej]The Chicago Manual of Style's rule amuses me - they agree with me except when the proper is Jesus or Moses, then it's just s-apostrophe.[/quote]

AP style distinguishes between voiced and unvoiced final Ss.[/quote]

That's the policy I've always followed. Either is correct. But I think we can all agree that what's in the subject name isn't correct for any form of written English.[/quote]
Unless it is referring to this.[/quote]

The AP style also says that people have a right to be called whatever they wish, and that you shouldn't print their name in a way other than what they want unless you have good reason (such as them lying about their name).  I would assume the same applies to institutions.  So if Sam wants his name to appear as S'sam, you do it, and if the A's want their name to appear as the A's, you do it.

[Trotsky]

This has been a really long off-season...   ::snore::

[KeithK]

[quote Beeeej]It's just never made the slightest bit of sense to me to say, "Okay, it's apostrophe-s if it's a singular, and s-apostrophe if it's a plural, but if it's a singular or collective or proper that ends in s, go ahead and spell it s-apostrophe even though it's not plural and even though you pronounce it like it's s-apostrophe-s."  Plus, even those who use s-apostrophe for some singulars, collectives, and propers don't use it for others; there's often no consistency, just "whatever feels right at the time."[/quote]You expect sense here? In a written language that seemingly for no other reason than pure laziness drops letters and replaces them with apostrophes? Maybe if we put the "e" back in the genitive case it would be easier tio have a rule that seems to make sense.

[ugarte]

[quote ftyuv]if the A's want their name to appear as the A's, you do it.[/quote] Not the point I was making, actually. Look at the jersey on the page. The team goes by both "A's" and "Athletics".

Jason Kendall's page would be an Athletic's website no matter how odd it is that the A's render their name with an apostrophe.

[ftyuv]

[quote ugarte][quote ftyuv]if the A's want their name to appear as the A's, you do it.[/quote] Not the point I was making, actually. Look at the jersey on the page. The team goes by both "A's" and "Athletics".

Jason Kendall's page would be an Athletic's website no matter how odd it is that the A's render their name with an apostrophe.[/quote]

Hm, I don't see a jersey on that page.  But point taken, and good catch.  Btw, their apostrophe in the "in '06" of the top-left image is backwards.

To add another, unrelated pet peeve of prescriptivism (P3 as we call it), I really dislike when cashiers call out, "Can I help who's next?"  Hmph.

[jtwcornell91]

[quote ugarte][quote ftyuv]if the A's want their name to appear as the A's, you do it.[/quote] Not the point I was making, actually. Look at the jersey on the page. The team goes by both "A's" and "Athletics".

Jason Kendall's page would be an Athletic's website no matter how odd it is that the A's render their name with an apostrophe.[/quote]

I could swear that there was a convention (which I don't follow) of using an apostrophy to pluralize letters, as in "Mind your p's and q's."  Using an apostrophe in the plural of the letter A prevents it from being mistaken for the capitalized form of the word "as".

[Jacob 03]

I could swear that there was a convention (which I don't follow) of using an apostrophy to pluralize letters, as in "Mind your p's and q's."  Using an apostrophe in the plural of the letter A prevents it from being mistaken for the capitalized form of the word "as".

this convention did exist, and still prevails.  if it has waned in recent years, it is probably due to backlash (i believe the aformentioned truss tome goes into this).  the apostrophe after single letters presumably led to the placement of apostrophes with scores of abbreviations and acronyms where it had no place.  people annoyed by this took a polar, minimalist apostrophe stance and eliminated the mark whenever possible in their own writing.  one would think those willing to point out and harp on incorrect punctuation (...spelling...grammar...word choice...) would be able to react more moderately. as this thread (and all its forebears) has proven, however, perfect adherence to some style rules does not indicate an even competent embrace of the balance of them.

[Beeeej]

Wow... the way you talk about it, you'd think there was blood running in the streets or something.

(Excuse me, "street's.")

Seriously, though, I accept and follow the convention with single letters because of the potential for confusion, but I've never understood the reasoning behind using it with numbers - e.g., the 1990's - so I don't.  Am I really the only moderate not taking a violent, reactionary stance on this?

[Jacob 03]

well, if what i wrote insinuated street violence, beeeej, then mea culpa.  i should have been more specific that the real result was pedantic ramblings by those in the quasi-know on hockey message boards...unless you and whelan want to go duel over the convention.

[Beeeej]

What, I'm not allowed to use hyperbole?  B-]

Proud Member of the International League of Pedants:

http://www.goats.com/archive/020826.html

[David Harding]

[quote Jacob 03]

I could swear that there was a convention (which I don't follow) of using an apostrophy to pluralize letters, as in "Mind your p's and q's."  Using an apostrophe in the plural of the letter A prevents it from being mistaken for the capitalized form of the word "as".

this convention did exist, and still prevails.  if it has waned in recent years, it is probably due to backlash (i believe the aformentioned truss tome goes into this).  the apostrophe after single letters presumably led to the placement of apostrophes with scores of abbreviations and acronyms where it had no place.  people annoyed by this took a polar, minimalist apostrophe stance and eliminated the mark whenever possible in their own writing.  one would think those willing to point out and harp on incorrect punctuation (...spelling...grammar...word choice...) would be able to react more moderately. as this thread (and all its forebears) has proven, however, perfect adherence to some style rules does not indicate an even competent embrace of the balance of them.[/quote]To me the argument for using an apostrophe with a single letter follows to abbreviations.  It states that this is where the random collection of letters ends, that the s is not one more letter in the abbreviation that should be read as an s.

[billhoward]

[quote Jacob 03]

I could swear that there was a convention (which I don't follow) of using an apostrophy to pluralize letters, as in "Mind your p's and q's."  Using an apostrophe in the plural of the letter A prevents it from being mistaken for the capitalized form of the word "as".

this convention did exist, and still prevails.  if it has waned in recent years, it is probably due to backlash (i believe the aformentioned truss tome goes into this).  the apostrophe after single letters presumably led to the placement of apostrophes with scores of abbreviations and acronyms where it had no place.  people annoyed by this took a polar, minimalist apostrophe stance and eliminated the mark whenever possible in their own writing.  one would think those willing to point out and harp on incorrect punctuation (...spelling...grammar...word choice...) would be able to react more moderately. as this thread (and all its forebears) has proven, however, perfect adherence to some style rules does not indicate an even competent embrace of the balance of them.[/quote]

The convention many of us use is the commonsense one which I believe evolves from AP Style: Use an apostrophe if there'd be confusion without or if it replaces characters. Thus:

1990s
'90s <-- though the Grey Lady New York Times uses 90's
p's and q's
Oakland A's
P's and Q's <-- probably but some would say the uppercase P is enough to distinguish but then again it might be in a series of consonants and syllables such as "How many A;s and B's did he get last semester?"
A'S and B'S <-- in an all capitals phrase

[KeithK]

Law.com addresses this critical issue: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1161002121409

[ftyuv]

Lol.  Well, I think too many Ss together looks bad, as do too many s's -- to say nothing of too many S's.  That's why I omit the second.  One particularly bad hole in the author's logic is the attempt to tie English spelling and pronunciation:

The surprisingly popular practice of omitting the final "s" in all s-ending words is ... completely illogical. Indeed, the use of an additional "s" accurately reflects proper pronunciation.

One word:  ghoti.  :-)

Plus, what if you want to pluralize "that's"?  It's bad enough if you have to write that's', but it'd be really terrible if you'd have to endure that's's!