English Grammar, Spelling and Vocabulary

[Anita Bensoussane]

While editing an article this morning I came across the term "do's and don'ts" and as I thought that the apostrophes looked a bit odd (I would have omitted the apostrophe in "do's") I checked it both online and in the Collins and seemingly it is correct!!!

In certain situations, an apostrophe can be used to aid clarity. The word "dos" looks somewhat strange because it's not a word we see very often. However, since it's coupled with "don'ts" I feel that the meaning is pretty obvious even without the addition of an apostrophe.

Sometimes, an apostrophe can be avoided in situations like that by rewording a sentence or by clarifying things in another way, e.g. by using quotation marks, italics or capital letters.

Your screenshot from the Cambridge Dictionary is interesting, John (Boatbuilder). The examples of sentences have probably been taken from a range of sources. What they show is that there's no hard-and-fast rule for some constructions. What's important is to express things as clearly as possible, and to be consistent within a text.

[Courtenay]

I like it, Nigel.

[dsr]

In certain situations, an apostrophe can be used to aid clarity. The word "dos" looks somewhat strange because it's not a word we see very often. However, since it's coupled with "don'ts" I feel that the meaning is pretty obvious even without the addition of an apostrophe.

Sometimes, an apostrophe can be avoided in situations like that by rewording a sentence or by clarifying things in another way, e.g. by using quotation marks, italics or capital letters.

Your screenshot from the Cambridge Dictionary is interesting, John (Boatbuilder). The examples of sentences have probably been taken from a range of sources. What they show is that there's no hard-and-fast rule for some constructions. What's important is to express things as clearly as possible, and to be consistent within a text.

I agree about the apostrophe. It's often used in plurals of numbers, eg. the 1960's. I think it looks better than 1960s. Personal preference.

Or the past tense of to ski, sometimes written as ski'ed. To avoid confusion with skied, past tense of to sky.

[Moonraker]

I agree about the apostrophe. It's often used in plurals of numbers, eg. the 1960's. I think it looks better than 1960s.

An apostrophe in 1960s (1960's) is wrong. Think of writing it - I love the records of the sixties. You wouldn't put an apostrophe there - sixty's or sixties' is incorrect.

When abbreviating a decade span, you could put an apostrophe before the numbers (facing the correct way) but NOT before the "s." A decade cannot possess anything! NOT 60's, but possibly '60s, or simply 60s.

[dsr]

An apostrophe in 1960s (1960's) is wrong. Think of writing it - I love the records of the sixties. You wouldn't put an apostrophe there - sixty's or sixties' is incorrect.

When abbreviating a decade span, you could put an apostrophe before the numbers (facing the correct way) but NOT before the "s." A decade cannot possess anything! NOT 60's, but possibly '60s, or simply 60s.

Sorry, Nigel, but you're applying strict logic to English grammar. I don't think that can reasonably be done.

Besides which, my own personal preferences is to apostrophise number plurals such as 1960's and there is no authority on earth that can stop me!!!

[Courtenay]

Besides which, my own personal preferences is to apostrophise number plurals such as 1960's and there is no authority on earth that can stop me!!!

If you were writing for a professional publication that had a style guide that stipulated that number plurals such as 1960s must be written without an apostrophe, that would stop you. (I've had articles published in magazines a few times, in print and/or online, and there is no getting around the style guide — including if the publication is US-based and insists on changing all one's Aussie spelling (mostly the same as the UK) to American spelling. )

[Courtenay]

I just saw another confusingly worded headline on the BBC's homepage — not as bad as some that have been shared here, but still a bit silly:

"Toxic smog engulfs Delhi skyline in drone footage"

Which had me thinking, for a few moments, "What? How can a skyline be engulfed in drone footage??"... before realising, oh yeah, they mean the drone footage shows the toxic smog engulfing the Delhi skyline.

Incidentally, when I clicked on the link, the headline under the actual video was "Delhi pollution: Smog rises over skyline in drone footage", which makes a lot more sense!

[GloomyGraham]

One of the things that has annoyed me in recent years has been the word 'lead' instead of 'led'.

It seems to be becoming even more common even in more reputable newspapers or websites.

You can LEAD someone down the garden path BUT
He LED them down the path

[Courtenay]

Oh yeah, that too. I remember about 15 years ago, one of my university lecturers — an American guy in this instance — got so tired of students' spelling and grammar mistakes that he sent us a whole list of no-nos, and that was one of the main ones: that the past tense of "lead" is spelled "led", and "when you use 'lead' pronounced 'lehd', you are talking about a type of metal!"

I don't think I had been making that mistake (being a stickler myself ), but it was a handy reminder, and I suspect he nailed why the confusion happens — because lead, as in the heavy metal, is pronounced the same as "led". Or it could even be that people are assuming it's the same as "read" (present tense, pronounced "reed") and "read" (past tense, pronounced "red"). But then, one thing's for certain — you don't look for consistency in the English language!!

[Boatbuilder]

I don't recall having ever seen 'lead' used in place of 'led'. It's certainly a word I have never used in that context and English language certainly wasn't my best subject at school. I guess it was because I spoke 'Scouse' in those days.

Here's another BBC blunder I found an image of on my computer from way back in 2010. I came across it yesterday whilst looking for something else.

[GloomyGraham]

DDefective Detective...

[Courtenay]

Oh dear, that reminds me — I have a very amusing book that's a collection of funny misprints in newspapers and the like, and this is one of the items featured in it (attributed to the Christchurch Star, no date given):

In an unfortunate error we were made to say last week that the retiring Mr South was a member of the defective branch of the local police force. Of course, this should have read 'the detective branch of the local police farce'.

[Anita Bensoussane]

I like it, though I wish they'd included a scan of the Christchurch Star cutting with the date to prevent sceptical people like me wondering whether two such amusing misprints could really occur so close together! Of course, the second error may have been made accidentally on purpose by a mischievous editor!

[Jack400]

It sounds rather like a sketch from the Two Ronnies.

[Katharine]

This was in a communication from English Heritage:

"Learn about the conservation works taking place to protect it from our team of experts."

I really hope that it is poorly worded, and not that the site in question needs protecting from the experts!