H
HeyBub
Flightless Bird
thanatoid wrote:
> "RJK" <nosuch@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:eAO7N$wlKHA.1824@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
>
>
>> I was taught, (in English at school), that the apostrophe
>> goes after the s to indicate that one is referring to a
>> subject, or an item, appearing earlier in the sentence.
>
> You were taught wrong. You DO realize that with their advanced
> knowledge and general success in life most grade and high school
> teachers would do better (both AFA performance AND income) as
> garbage collectors? (Well... make your own jokes here...)
>
>> Of course it is positioned between the t and s to indicate
>> abbreviation. That's what my English teacher taught, many,
>> ...many years ago ! And I'm sticking to it !
>> ...defiantly starting a sentence with the word "and"
>> !!!!!!
>
> Starting a sentence with and is not a problem. My original
> comment IS about a problem which I suggest you correct.
>
> The "its" and "it's" with your astounding new variation is NOT
> the same as e.g. "it belongs to the Richards's family" which is
> acceptable though clumsy and falling out of use.
Not to worry. According to the Law of Conservation of Apostrophes, for every
superfluous apostrophe found, an apostrophe is missing somewhere else.
> "RJK" <nosuch@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:eAO7N$wlKHA.1824@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
>
>
>> I was taught, (in English at school), that the apostrophe
>> goes after the s to indicate that one is referring to a
>> subject, or an item, appearing earlier in the sentence.
>
> You were taught wrong. You DO realize that with their advanced
> knowledge and general success in life most grade and high school
> teachers would do better (both AFA performance AND income) as
> garbage collectors? (Well... make your own jokes here...)
>
>> Of course it is positioned between the t and s to indicate
>> abbreviation. That's what my English teacher taught, many,
>> ...many years ago ! And I'm sticking to it !
>> ...defiantly starting a sentence with the word "and"
>> !!!!!!
>
> Starting a sentence with and is not a problem. My original
> comment IS about a problem which I suggest you correct.
>
> The "its" and "it's" with your astounding new variation is NOT
> the same as e.g. "it belongs to the Richards's family" which is
> acceptable though clumsy and falling out of use.
Not to worry. According to the Law of Conservation of Apostrophes, for every
superfluous apostrophe found, an apostrophe is missing somewhere else.