Grammar Discussions

[anat0l]

having a disagreement with the marketing team here and thought let me ask the Grammar Buffs

xx_, world's ahead

where xx_ is the product name, I don't agree with the ' in "world's" but English is only my third language so I could be mistaken

I assume that marketing is wanting to say that their product is significantly ahead of the competition.

In which case, the apostrophe should not be there.

Don't forget that an apostrophe + s after a noun typically denotes ownership or is a contraction for "noun is...". It does not denote a plural (except in very, very rare cases).

 

[TheEmu]

having a disagreement with the marketing team here and thought let me ask the Grammar Buffs

xx_, world's ahead

where xx_ is the product name, I don't agree with the ' in "world's" but English is only my third language so I could be mistaken

No, you're not mistaken ozmille.
The apostrophe is definitely wrong: an apostrophe (') only denotes possession or a contraction, not plurality. More than one world ahead is what they are trying to say - plural rather than singular.
Worlds ahead is a very clumsy extrapolation of the expression: "streets ahead", meaning it is so far ahead of the opposition that it is more than one street/world ahead, it is two or more streets/worlds ahead - a simple plural: no apostrophe.

 

[get me outta here]

Quack!

[FONT=&quot]The project involved a large amount of duck tape and patience:

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/the-christmas-car-thats-lighting-up-canberra-20161222-gtgzeh.html

 

[MaxwellSmart]

Almost got me!

 

[anat0l]

Employees who have served for greater than one year of full time equivalent employment will, upon cessation of employment, be entitled to a severance of four weeks pay.

Is the bolded part (four weeks pay, for those without bolding) correctly written? If not, what is the minimum amount of correction required?

I was tempted to think it may be four weeks' pay.

 

[Hvr]

Employees who have served for greater than one year of full time equivalent employment will, upon cessation of employment, be entitled to a severance of four weeks pay.

Is the bolded part (four weeks pay, for those without bolding) correctly written? If not, what is the minimum amount of correction required?

I was tempted to think it may be four weeks' pay.

Why would you have an apostrophe? Surely it's a simple plural?

 

[anat0l]

Why would you have an apostrophe? Surely it's a simple plural?

I agree it looks awkward; the apostrophe in this case is not for a plural (is it ever?) but ownership (i.e. the pay is for four weeks). For example, the employees' salaries.

Nevertheless, it seems without the apostrophe it would not only be OK, it seems a lot more acceptable.

 

[andye]

I prefer the apostrophe as it replaces 'of' in four weeks of pay.

 

[Happy Trails]

I tend to go with the apostrophe, though the meaning is perfectly clear either way.
And not essential I suspect, but full-time is normally written with a hyphen.

 

[Danger]

Re: The totally off-topic thread



. . . . .

 

[anat0l]

I tend to go with the apostrophe, though the meaning is perfectly clear either way.
And not essential I suspect, but full-time is normally written with a hyphen.

Hyphens in compounds is something I struggle with and I'm not sure whether it is becoming fashionable to omit or even acceptable. For example:

• This ride is suitable for eight year olds (cf. eight-year-olds).
• He worked for six months on a part time (cf. part-time) basis.

 

[anat0l]

Re: The totally off-topic thread

View attachment 87014

. . . . .

I sometimes think whether the apostrophe is badly understood in mainstream media, or whether this is some sort of cop out ruse to avoid potential parsing problems when characters like quotation marks or apostrophes get involved in generated web pages.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Hyphens in compounds is something I struggle with and I'm not sure whether it is becoming fashionable to omit or even acceptable. For example:

• This ride is suitable for eight year olds (cf. eight-year-olds).
• He worked for six months on a part time (cf. part-time) basis.

I write 'part-time' with the hyphen, but wouldn't use it in the first example. In the latter it might be technically correct to use them, but as a courtesy to the reader I would leave them out.

 

[andye]

I spotted on the Ambassador Club website that one of my local restaurants has a subliminal wine list

 

[TheRealTMA]

I spotted on the Ambassador Club website that one of my local restaurants has a subliminal wine list

Extra sensory perception?

 

[whatmeworry]

An error I noticed a week or so ago.

 

[Warks]

Quack!

[FONT=&amp]The project involved a large amount of duck tape and patience:

[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]

[/FONT]http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/the-christmas-car-thats-lighting-up-canberra-20161222-gtgzeh.html

Have you seen "Duck Tape" brand duct tape in the two-dollar shops?

 

[get me outta here]

Oh, that must be the brand they used for this project ....

Have you seen "Duck Tape" brand duct tape in the two-dollar shops?

 

[Warks]

Duck!!!!!!

 

[Warks]

The underlined word is one that I am coming across more and more, albeit usually in sports journalism and commentary like below:

The Brisbane Heat skipper copped the ban for his side’s slow over-rate against the Perth Scorchers on Wednesday, but most Big Bash players and commentators are in agreeance that he should not be forced to sit on the sidelines

What's wrong with agreement?

But I googled 'agreeance' and found this:

Agreeance is a word that seems to be continually reinvented and recycled. The term first appeared in the 16th century and enjoyed its greatest popularity in the 18th and early to mid-19th centuries. Since then it has fallen into disuse.

So everything old is new again?