http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=food+of+shame&defid=2080159

Apparently dating from about mid-2000, evidently it means junk food. With only 666 Ghits I'm trying to decide whether it's worth pursuing

So have you heard it or what other criteria might you apply

Thanks all

I think others have made clear their opinions of the Urban Dictionary as a source. If you have any other worthwhile hits in Google by all means follow it up, but don't trust solely to what is given in the UD.

arnie: Of course you're absolutely right about that, hence the query

Quote: With only 666 Ghits

666? I get only 8, apart from Urban Dictionary.

Although the number at the top says 1 to 10 of xxx where xxx is between 300 and 450 depending on when I do the search there are only seven distinct hits shown in the list. (once you subtract urbandictionary from the search)

dale, you could easily check this kind of stuff for yourself instead of trusting the count at the top of the Google page to be right. It rarely is.

I wonder why you seem constantly to assume commonplace metaphorical usages of words are heralding breakthroughs in slang. With the number of English speakers that there are worldwide it's hardly surprising that some come up with the same word patterns. Half a dozen instances does not constitute a pattern of usage whatever it says on the urban <*spit*> dictionary.

I had never bothered to look at this site previously, but I see that just about anyone, literate or semi-literate, can enter any word or expression regardless of its pedigree.

I noted that there was no entry for "catapostrophe", a word I coined about four years ago to describe the egregious misuse of the apostrophe. So I've submitted it.

Now there's at least one good and useful word therein ;-)

quote:

catapostrophe

Well, Richard, it has caught on. There are 344 Google hits for it, though many are from either Wordcraft or OEDILF. Yet, here is one that's unrelated to those sites. Interestingly, the British seem to be so much more irritated by misplaced apostrophes than the Americans. I wonder why that is.

quote:

Interestingly, the British seem to be so much more irritated by misplaced apostrophes than the Americans. I wonder why that is.

I can't say I'd formed that opinion myself. I feel that the annoyance in in direct ratio to the literacy of the reader, regardless of nationality.

Not always... I consider myself literate, and they don't annoy me.

They always bother me. I am reading Eats, Shoots and Leaves now and roaring with laughter over all of the stories of misplaced apostrophes on signs all over the world. The image of Lynn Truss standing outside the movie theater holding up an apostrophe on a stick next to the place it should have been on the sign for Two Weeks Notice really tickles me! I don't think I'm such a raving intellectual, but dammit, if they contain no contractions or possessives, then there is no reason to sprinkle apostrophes over sentences like jimmies on a cake!

Wordmatic

I think Truss has a good point somewhere. "literacy is good" - I think that's her point. But it gets lost amid all the intense anger and contempt in that book. A possible change in orthographic standards is not worth that much anger!

I agree, Gooofy.

quote:

I feel that the annoyance in in direct ratio to the literacy of the reader, regardless of nationality.

I vehemently disagree, Richard. I have come to believe, after posting here, that the most literate are those who are much more relaxed about the "rules." The most literate (I am not including myself here) know the supposed rules, sure, but they know the history of the words and grammar and are able appreciate the changes that have occurred. Language Log is an excellent example.

On the other hand, I find the those who yell out "right!" or "wrong!" to be linguistic wannabes. They know the rules alright, but they don't appreciate the richness of language. It almost seems as though some of the Lynn Truss types use language to judge others by. Such a pity.

I'd take Language Log over Truss any day.

quote:

I vehemently disagree, Richard. I have come to believe, after posting here, that the most literate are those who are much more relaxed about the "rules."

I did say that this was my feeling, as opposed to your feeling that it was a nationality thing. I have no real evidence either way.

I consider myself reasonably literate and bad grammar annoys me; if you like that's my only evidence.

Bob: You are absolutely right about that, the expr can hardly be classed as a common neologism without only a half dozen or so "distinct" Ghits

And I admit to laziness in not flipping the page to learn how obscure the expr really is but don't be too hard on an old curmud on the brink of senility

Which brings up an interesting question. I had always used the word "reliable" where you use "distinct" referring to usable Ghits. Since the discrepany is so common and it has misled so many of us so often, I am wondering if there's not a new or better name for it

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dalehileman,

I am using the word "distinct" in its correct sense of "distinguished from each other". Multiple hits for the same site, multiple quotes of the same source, multiple pages on one site are not distinct. All of these give false counts on Google.

Bob, sorry I wasn't clear, and your term is perfectly valid. I was just wondering, since our experience with Google is becoming so very common, if a neologism might have arisen having this more specific meaning

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I agree, Gooofy.

[QUOTE]I feel that the annoyance in in direct ratio to the literacy of the reader, regardless of nationality….I vehemently disagree, Richard.

Isn't it a signs of success to find 'vehement disagreement'. I have to say my sympathies are entirely with Richard.
Kalleh, being relaxed can merge into lack of critical appreciation and the attendant danger of using 'bad grammar' oneself. Not that you could be accused of that.

quote:

I'd take Language Log over Truss any day.

I take them both. Language Log is extremely interesting and entertaining, thoughtful and thought provoking. I have not read enough of it to know whether its authors would condone sloppy use of apostrophes, which I feel is comparable to misspelling. There really are definite rules about when to use apostrophe and very little that is debatable (except whether possessive plurals take an "s's" rather than an "s'"). When it comes to uses of commas and hyphens the rules are not as few or as clear, I don't think, so there is more discussion. I've been entangled in comma wars off and on for nearly four decades.

So for me, just having "anything goes" with apostrophes grates as much for me as it might for you if you saw a nurse inject two patients with the same needle. An experienced nurse and an experienced editor probably have a lot in common in the ways that they must respond to rules.

The experienced nurse probably applies the standards of care that she/he learned in nursing school, in addition to the standards of care required by his/her employer. The hospital-specific standards probably vary from facility to facility, am I right? You have worked as a nurse, become a nurse educator, and now teach educators about trends in nursing education. You are an expert and see a broad spectrum of practices. I imagine you are completely open minded about standards that might vary from place to place, but not about standards of hygiene.

As an editor and writer for the past 39 years, I have worked under five or six different employers and probably as many different style guides. The basic understanding of generally accepted rules of grammar, plus a feel for style and syntax, are what people like me bring to our jobs. The ability to absorb and follow a specific style guide is also necessary. People like me understand that some ways of writing, punctuating, spacing, captioning, spelling, etc., vary from publisher to publisher. You follow the rules of your publisher. If the thing you have written sells and is read and accepted by some, then it is acceptable. Period.

I cannot agree that "there is no right and wrong" when it comes to such basics as spelling words according to an agreed upon dictionary or punctuating according to an agreed upon style guide. If the grammar system used in the publication is faithful to that publication's stylebook, and it disagrees with my usual standard, then OK, I am willing to accept it. But I believe there is a standard below which almost no professional publication would go in terms of grammar, spelling and punctuation. Of course, we could debate about what that means specifically through our next three dozen lives, but--just as health care professionals must adhere to some standards in order to keep their patients alive, so writers and editors must adhere to some basic standards to keep the language intelligible!

Wordmatic (no, I'm not angry, just adamant!)

I would also not agree that "there is no right and wrong" when it comes to spelling. As this LL post says

--
The basic argument is that writing is artificial in a way that speaking is not, and orthography is the most artificial part of writing, so that the normal human process for creating and maintaining cultural norms is good enough for grammar, but not for spelling, which therefore needs to be established as "made order" rather than a "grown order".
--

Having said that, standards of orthography can and do change. Orthography is a tool, and we can change it to suit our needs. English did not always have the complicated punctuation it has now, and it may not have it in the future. Our current standards are not necessarily the best standards. imo the fact that so many people get confused about the apostophe might be a sign that we dont need it - or at least that we dont need to get so upset about it!

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
I noted that there was no entry for "catapostrophe", a word I coined about four years ago to describe the egregious misuse of the apostrophe. So I've submitted it.

It doesn't look like the word has been put on the site yet.

I usually make spelling and grammar mistakes. Were I not lazy, I would even put this post into MS Word's spell checker before posting, but I'm lazy.

Does anyone use a spell checker/grammar checker other that Microsoft's? Does anyone use such software?

quote:

Originally posted by gooofy:
...Our current standards are not necessarily the best standards. imo the fact that so many people get confused about the apostophe might be a sign that we dont need it - or at least that we dont need to get so upset about it!

Agreed that current standards may not be the best, but slow, natural evolution away from one standard toward the emergence of another is a far cry from just letting each writer pick any old standard and run with it, which is what i think people are saying in this particular instance. Sooner or later, one of those new "standards" is going to predominate and become the current standard. I still can't understand why some people believe that plurals require an apostrophe as glue to attach the "s" to the root. Or should that be "plural's?"

"Agreed that current standards may not be the best, but slow, natural evolution away from one standard toward the emergence of another is a far cry from just letting each writer pick any old standard and run with it, which is what i think people are saying in this particular instance."

I'm not saying that. I'm saying we don't need to be so uptight about every apostrophe everywhere.

"I still can't understand why some people believe that plurals require an apostrophe as glue to attach the "s" to the root. Or should that be "plural's?""

We used to do it. According to my Oxford Companion to the English Language, the apostrophe was used for the plural of nouns from the 17th to the 19th century, especially in loanwords ending in vowels.

We doe confess Errata's - Leonard Lichfield, 1641
Comma's are used - Phillip Luckcombe 1771
waltz's and cotillions - Washington Irving 1804

We still use the apostrophe for the plural with abbreviations
VIP's

with letters
dot your i's and cross your t's

phrases
do's and don'ts

decades
1980's

family names
the Jones's

quote:

I did say that this was my feeling, as opposed to your feeling that it was a nationality thing. I have no real evidence either way.

I don't think I implied otherwise, Richard. And, you are correct; it is merely my impression that the English are more annoyed by misplaced apostrophes than other English speakers are. I very well may be wrong.

I see I have stimulated some good discussion with my "vehement" reaction. Good! However, I must not have been clear. I wasn't saying that "anything goes" with grammar...after all, my own writing here goes against that (I hope!). I merely was saying that the "You are wrong!" mentality is very tiresome. I love the comprehensive analysis of how grammar and language has evolved that Language Log provides. I like Truss's humor, and I did read her book. However, as Gooofy said, her "intense anger and contempt" did me in, too. An intellectual discussion, it wasn't...at least in my opinion.

Pearce, from other posts here I could have predicted you'd be entirely in Richard's corner on this. On the other hand, I don't think any of us are really all that far apart.

quote:

The experienced nurse probably applies the standards of care that she/he learned in nursing school, in addition to the standards of care required by his/her employer. The hospital-specific standards probably vary from facility to facility, am I right?

Of course there are certain essential standards that everyone must follow (such as asepsis), but it is well-known that the seasoned, expert nurse is the one who knows what rules can be broken and which ones can't be broken. That seems very appropriate here.

quote:

We still use the apostrophe for the plural with abbreviations
VIP's

with letters
dot your i's and cross your t's

phrases
do's and don'ts

decades
1980's

family names
the Jones's

The use of the apostrophe in abbeviations is a matter of debate. I would use it only if it were necessary to avoid confusion (if the addition of "s" on its own created a confusing word, say). Similarly in the case of single-letter words.

In the example "do's and don'ts", only the first takes an apostrophe in its plural; the second has an apostrophe because it's an abbreviation.

Again there is debate about using an apostrophe in dacades; I don't use it myself since I cannot see that the word "1980's" is any better than the word "1980s".

Family names do not take an apostrophe in the plural; why should they? The expression "the Jones's" means something that belongs to the Jones family. The plural would be "the Joneses" and the possessive plural "the Joneses'". Think about it; if you were talking about the Smith family, would you talk about a "gathering of Smith's"? No. You would talk about "the Smiths" if you wanted a plural or "Smith's" if you wanted to speak of something belonging to Smith. It's the usual problem of words ending in a vowel, where the temptation to slide in an apostrophe seems irresitable to some. The incorrect usage in family names is more common in US than in UK English in my experience.

quote:

Does anyone use a spell checker/grammar checker other that Microsoft's? Does anyone use such software?

I do. I use a text editor called TextPad to compose long posts here and it has its own spell checker. A few other programs I use also use their own. My browser, Opera, has its own (optional download), so I can check the spelling before I make a post here. No other software I use includes a grammar checker, though. I can't say I miss one.

The use of the apostrophe with decades can be downright confusing. Consider:

I like 1970's music.

Does the writer mean music from the 1970s, ie, the whole decade? Or do they mean the single year 1970?

These 5 uses of the apostrophe are called standard in the Oxford Companion to the English Language.

It says there's no apostrophe on "don'ts" because there already is one, and two in a row is avoided.

My point is that not that we have to agree on this, but that some people consider these usages standard.

because there already is one, and two in a row is avoided.

Except, of course, in fo'c'sle.

quote:

It says there's no apostrophe on "don'ts" because there already is one, and two in a row is avoided.

If that is truly its explanation, then I would suggest that the explanation is a load of old cobblers (or should that be cobbler's - or even cobblers'?).

Mind you, there are some who will apparently do anything to avoid a succession of punctuation marks.

These are all matters of style. Look in one book and you'll find one recommendation, look in another and it may well be different. Neither is "wrong".

See the Apostrophe Protection Society FAQ.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:

It says there's no apostrophe on "don'ts" because there already is one, and two in a row is avoided.

If that is truly its explanation, then I would suggest that the explanation is a load of old cobblers (or should that be cobbler's - or even cobblers'?).

I'm not sure I understand. It's the reasoning given by the OCEL as to why there is no apostrophe in "don'ts". I'm not sure how it is nonsense, it seems to fit the facts in this case.

People do use the apostrophe in plurals. It's not "incorrect", it's a matter of preference and different traditions. Personally I don't care either way. I find it weird that people can get so worked up about it.

quote:

I'm not sure I understand. It's the reasoning given by the OCEL as to why there is no apostrophe in "don'ts". I'm not sure how it is nonsense, it seems to fit the facts in this case.

It's a load of rubbish! I am, quite frankly, staggered that the OCEL would use such an explanation. There is an apostrophe in the plural of "do" because of the need to avoid confusion with "dos" (although even this necessity is debatable); no such need exists in "don't". It is rubbish to say that you put the apostrophe in a plural unless the singular contains an apostrophe. Would we write "cat's, dog's, car's and train's", for their plurals? But write ha'p'orths or fo'c'sles simply because they have apostrophes in them already?

Although the language has changed, modern usage is to us the apostrophe to denote contractions and possession - not plurality. There are a few instances where it is a matter of style, but apostrophes in simple plurals are almost always wrong - regardless of how many vowels or apostrophes the words have in their singular form.

The APS FAQ that Arnie links to tells the whole story very well and I'll not bother to repeat what they say.

And as for getting worked up about it, as been mentioned elewhere on this board, to allow any kind of word or grammar use, no matter how eccentric, entirely at the whim of the user, will surely lead to lexicographical anarchy!

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
It's a load of rubbish! I am, quite frankly, staggered that the OCEL would use such an explanation. There is an apostrophe in the plural of "do" because of the need to avoid confusion with "dos" (although even this necessity is debatable); no such need exists in "don't". It is rubbish to say that you put the apostrophe in a plural unless the singular contains an apostrophe.

I don't think that's what they're saying. They are saying that because there is an apostrophe in "do's", we might expect to see one in "don'ts" as well. But there isn't an apostrophe in "don'ts". Why? Maybe because people don't like seeing two apostrophes in a row. They are describing the usage and speculating as to an explanation. That's all. I think.

quote:

And as for getting worked up about it, as been mentioned elewhere on this board, to allow any kind of word or grammar use, no matter how eccentric, entirely at the whim of the user, will surely lead to lexicographical anarchy!

When it comes to orthography, you have a point. It terms of syntax and word usage, you are wrong - because as Liberman says "the normal human process for creating and maintaining cultural norms is good enough for grammar"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy,

quote:

They are saying that because there is an apostrophe in "do's", we might expect to see one in "don'ts" as well. But there isn't an apostrophe in "don'ts". Why? Maybe because people don't like seeing two apostrophes in a row. They are describing the usage and speculating as to an explanation.

If that is what they write then I can understand their speculation. But speculation is all it is - and not very convincing speculation to my mind as my examples show.

The alternative explanation, - that the plural "dos" is a clumsy and confusing one - seems more likely to me.

"In the phrase do's and don'ts, the apostrophe of plurality occurs in the first word but not the second, which has the apostrophe of omission; by and large, the use of two apostrophes close together (as in don't's) is avoided."

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:

I like 1970's music.

Does the writer mean music from the 1970s, ie, the whole decade? Or do they mean the single year 1970?

The writer means the entire decade. If you are referring to one year, you are far more likely to say, "I like music that was written in 1970."

quote:

ha'p'orths or fo'c'sles

In these two examples, the apostrophes mark elisions; they are double contractions (though I don't think they are true contractions, like "can't" for "cannot." If you spell out forecastle, you still pronounce it "fo'c'sle.")

quote:

Although the language has changed, modern usage is to us the apostrophe to denote contractions and possession - not plurality. There are a few instances where it is a matter of style, but apostrophes in simple plurals are almost always wrong - regardless of how many vowels or apostrophes the words have in their singular form.

I agree with this statement. I am not worked up; it just seems to me that this is a logical way of looking at it.

I'm minding my do's and don'tses here. Don't you think "don'tses" is a compromise that ought to settle our hashes once and for all?



Word'matic

quote:

I find it weird that people can get so worked up about it.

Ah...that was precisely my point; it tends to be more English speakers from England who get worked up about it. The following quote is a good example of the emotion that the misuse of apostrophes causes our English colleagues: "It's a load of rubbish! I am, quite frankly, staggered that the OCEL would use such an explanation."

While I get "staggered" about a lot of things, an apostrophe wouldn't be one of them.

Behold, th' mighty 'postrophe:
Its tiny muscles stagger me,
An' fuddle masses under-taught,
An' thrill the few who're high and haught'?

quote:

While I get "staggered" about a lot of things, an apostrophe wouldn't be one of them.

I wasn't staggered by the apostrophe I was staggered by the implication in the original posting the the OCEL had prescribed the use of an apostrophe in a plural simply to avoid the use of two or more apostrophes in a single word. Now that I've seen the full posting I am no longer staggered since the entry is simply a hypothesis, not a prescription. And, as I have already said, I think a rather dubious hypothesis.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
[QUOTE]
Ah...that was precisely my point; it tends to be more English speakers from England who get worked up about it.
While I get "staggered" about a lot of things, an apostrophe wouldn't be one of them.

I don't think it's particularly an English preoccupation, but a justifiable concern of those who treasure the English language.

I would prefer to get worked up by a misplaced or unecessary apostrophe than many other items that provide a source of polemics; not excluding modern international politics.

Well, I have learned a lot about apostrophes since starting this board, I will say that. Before this, I always would have written Charles' book and not Charles's book. Recently I had to write a report about Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings Commission report, which was called the Spellings report. Would Spellings need an apostrophe? I thought so, but I wasn't sure if it would be considered an adjective. I did add the apostrophe in the end, but I have to admit that I spelled it Spellings'.

quote:

I did add the apostrophe in the end, but I have to admit that I spelled it Spellings'.

How would you pronounce it? That's the test.

If you pronounce it "Spellingz" then it needs no apostrophe since you are using it as an adjective. If you pronounce it "Sepllinzez" then is needs s-apostrophe-s. It is no different from your "Charles" example.

The word "Spellings'" is correct only if the report belongs to two or more people called "Spelling".

Having said which this is now so common in US writing that it's unlikely you'd find many US readers who would think that your rendition was wrong.

The Spellings report (no apostrophe) is perfectly OK. Here, "Spellings" is used adjectivally. If she'd been named Smith it would be the Smith Report. Spellings' report or Spellings's report could also be used, depending on the style used but note in those cases you probably would not use the.

Spellings' report or Spellings's report could also be used, depending on the style used

Arnie is correct. I learned the former usage in grammar school but have used the latter one when required by a style guide.

quote:

Spellings' report or Spellings's report could also be used, depending on the style used

So my queries are:

1. If you write the singular possessive as "Spellings'", how do you pronounce it and

2. If you write the singular possessive of "Spellings" as "Spellings'", how do you write the plural possessive of "Spelling"?

And incidetally "The Times Style and Usage Guide" suggests that you write possessives of singular proper names ending with "s" as, for example, "The Times's style". Although they do say that, in the case of organisations that have variations as their house style, such as St Thomas' Hospital, "...we must respect their whim...".

Her name is Margaret Spellings, with the "s" on the end. I would pronounce the singular possessive of her last name just as I pronounce her last name--"This is Margaret Spellings' house," but if the style guide I was working under said to make the singular possessive with a double "s," then I would spell it Spellings's and pronounce it "SPELL-ing-zez."

The plural possessive of "Spellings" I would write as "Spellingses'". (OK, punctuate that one correctly in American style!) But I think most people here would refer to all the members of the Spellings family together as "The Spellings" anyway, just because the correct plural is such an awkward mouthful.

WM

By chance, however, has anyone run onto "food of shame"--once again thanks all

quote:

Originally posted by wordmatic:
They always bother me. I am reading Eats, Shoots and Leaves now and roaring with laughter over all of the stories of misplaced apostrophes on signs all over the world. The image of Lynn Truss standing outside the movie theater holding up an apostrophe on a stick next to the place it should have been on the sign for Two Weeks Notice really tickles me! I don't think I'm such a raving intellectual, but dammit, if they contain no contractions or possessives, then there is no reason to sprinkle apostrophes over sentences like jimmies on a cake!

Wordmatic

How common is the term "Jimmies" for the chocolate sprinkles in cakes and ice cream? I thought it was a regional word.

roaring with laughter over all of the stories of misplaced apostrophes on signs all over the world

When I was a teenager, and riding with my uncle on the way to deliver a load of hay to somebody, we passed a sign out in the country advertising something for sale. The s in sale was reversed. I laughed and made a comment about bumpkins who couldn't write. My uncle asked me what to make of the fact that the person who'd written the sign was as literate as he or I, but had made the sign that way on purpose to give a false sense of superiority to his casual customers. It did make me stop and think. I'm not suggesting that all greengrocer's apostrophes are intentional. I would suggest that they don't really matter much, and about all they indicate is that somebody hasn't learned the arbitrarily difficult "rules" of English orthography.

I keep trying to finish the Truss book, but I usually don't make it through more than a few pages before I close it and put it down. She's just too cranky for me to glean any information or humor from her writing. When I see a greengrocer's apostrophe I am saddened by the fact that we cling to a crazy orthography rather than adopting one more in line with others in the world. La!

I think those who find Truss "cranky" and "angry" may be mistaking her hyperbole, which I am reading as done for humorous effect, for vitriol. I am taking her grammatical comments seriously, but her outlandish side remarks as sheer comedy.

Since I spend too much time online and not enough reading (and work full time and a few other things in between), I have not finished this book, though might when I have some time tomorrow. I may change my view in the last 50 pages, but I don't think so. Anything that's all right by Frank McCourt (who wrote the introduction for the American edition) is all right by me!

Wordmatic