Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A Plea For The Correct Use Of The Apostrophe  
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11571 posts, RR: 52
Posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2911 times:

The apostrophe -- like a comma in the sky. When in doubt, leave it out!

Yet the English written language has been trampled in the last few years on both sides of the pond by people who have taken to pluralizing everything by adding apostrophe-ess on the end (like this: car's). I know, it's an easy mistake to make, and one that I've caught myself on more than once. But it must be stopped, or correct written style will be lost for good as more and more people begin to believe that it is actually correct. It's one thing to mispell a word, or make a typo. Big deal. It's another thing to mistake "its" for "it's". The first one means "possessed by it" while the second one means "it is", but again, big deal. But I've recently seen people even using apostrophe-ess just because the word ended with an ess, such as writing "len's". Who is len? Len is nobody. The person meant to say "lens" -- that glass thing on the end of your camera. I think internet message boards like this one are chiefly to blame for the proliferation of apostrophe-ess abuse.

Put simply, apostrophe-ess is only used for possession and contractions of "is". It is not used for pluralization unless pluralizing a number or acronym. ("ABC's" and "123's", but not "letter's" and "number's".)

I personally think this should be one of our top priorities for the English-speaking world:

1) World peace
2) cure for cancer and AIDS (not AID'S!!)
3) find a more environmentally friendly energy source
4) rid the world of apostrophe-ess abuse.
5) BCS playoff

Before you say it, yes, I know this is a silly rant that will probably do nothing. But I'm in a ranting mood.


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
64 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2886 times:

Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
I think internet message boards like this one are chiefly to blame for the proliferation of apostrophe-ess abuse.

Not really... They only expose the fact that most people know little about and have no interest in their own written language.

And it's by no means limited to the english language - you can see any number of apostrophe catastrophies in Germany as well. And the poor thing is ruthlessly abused in a few more languages beyond, I suspect...!


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11571 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2879 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
And it's by no means limited to the english language - you can see any number of apostrophe catastrophies in Germany as well.

Didn't know that, because English is the only language that I speak or write that uses apostrophes. (No apostrophes in Japanese!)

Also, I should say that if English is not your main language, this post wasn't aimed at you.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2860 times:

Sympathies. However, spelling worries me more than floating and illegal apostrophes. There are not too many cases where an incorrect apostrophe changes the meaning, whereas quite a few spelling errors do send you off in the wrong direction. My Email system (Pegasus) has a strange habit with apostrophes when saving files to disk so I try to avoid using them to reduce the number of strange symbols appearing in the archived material. The latest versions try to foil me by adding them to contractions such as don't.

User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4358 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2847 times:

I am not a native speaker but I see things which hurt my eyes a lot on Airliners.net lately, is it Airtrans future or Airtran's future. I'd say Airtrans, it is not Airtran is future but the His future, Airtrans.
The same rant about "Northwest retiring there 747-200s"
I wonder why me as non native speaker immeditately see it should be "their" but apparent native speakers don't???



nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineMaidensGator From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2837 times:

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 4):
is it Airtrans future or Airtran's future. I'd say Airtrans, it is not Airtran is future but the His future, Airtrans.

You'd be wrong.... It is Airtran's future.... (possessive as to future)... But to confuse you, it is Qantas' future....



The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12594 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2815 times:

I agree; it is something that bugs me; people should be careful how they express themselves. It says something about them; bad use of grammar conveys a laziness which in fairness may not always be the case (you'll find engineers, mathematicians, doctors etc with poor grammar and spelling), but it's so much easier to get it right.

The one thing I sometimes have difficulty with is the possessive where the word ends in an "s" - for example, Qantas' new fleet, or the Andrews' new car etc.

I know that "Qantas' " sounds better, but is it necessarily correct?


User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2809 times:

The only thing I really hate is when someone uses, "it's" for posession, and "its" for "it is." I realize that this can kind of be ironic that posessive form of "its" does not use an apostrophe when using the word "it" because we tend to use apostrophes to show posession.

It's (It is). "It's my duty to tell you how to use an apostrophe."

Its (posessive). "Its engine came off the pylon during flight."

Or this: "There are many Boeing 777's."

Rather it is supposed to be, "There are many Boeing 777s"

(Though admittedly, I'm guilty of using the ( ' ) when referring to plural aircraft).

UAL

Oh, PS:

Never end a phrase with a preposition.

Example of Incorrect: "Where are you at?"

Example of Correct: "Where are you?"


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11571 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2804 times:

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 6):
The one thing I sometimes have difficulty with is the possessive where the word ends in an "s" - for example, Qantas' new fleet, or the Andrews' new car etc.

I know that "Qantas' " sounds better, but is it necessarily correct?

Both are correct in a similar way that both "color" and "colour" are correct:

Qantas' or Qantas's are both okay and Louis' and Louis's are both correct. I prefer to leave the ending ess out though, and since my name ends with an ess, that's what I do daily.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11571 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2797 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 7):
Or this: "There are many Boeing 777's."

Rather it is supposed to be, "There are many Boeing 777s"

Both of those are acceptable too, 777s vs. 777's. One is Chicago Style, and the other is Times Style.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 7):
Never end a phrase with a preposition.

I think that's a silly rule.

"This is the sort of English up with which I will not put" -- Winston Churchill.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineN229NW From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1972 posts, RR: 31
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2773 times:

The one that slightly annoys me is people using "I" when they should use "me"--it annoys me because they do it to sound "correct"/pretentious, but don't realize it is actually wrong:

e.g. "This is a picture of my dog and I" (It's a picture of ME, not a picture of I, hence it's a picture of my dog and ME, etc.). Or "Just between you and I" (should be "me," object of the preposition between) It's funniest when people actually mix subjective and objective case with two prepositions: "him and I" etc. Yuck.

Edit: Meh, I just realized I went and wasted my 1000th post being a grammar nazi...

[Edited 2007-08-13 21:28:46]


It's people like you what cause unrest!
User currently offlineSteve6666 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 428 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2772 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 9):
Both of those are acceptable too, 777s vs. 777's

They mean absolutely different things.

Apostrophe = possessive NOT plural.

777s = lots of 777s

777's = belonging to a 777



eu nasci ha dez mil anos atras, e nao tem nada nesse mundo que eu nao saiba demais
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11571 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2761 times:

Quoting Steve6666 (Reply 11):
They mean absolutely different things.

Apostrophe = possessive NOT plural.

777s = lots of 777s

777's = belonging to a 777

Perhaps in England, and I wish the rule in America were standardized. But unfortunately, there are many newspapers which accept both 777s and 777's to mean "more than one 777", in ADDITION to "777's" meaning "of the 777". That exception only applies to numbers and acronyms though (thankfully!!), and NEVER to any other form of pluralization.

I'm with you though.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2759 times:

English grammar is one of the hardest out there I think. There are SOOO many exceptions to the rule that most people who speak English, never really know how. I'm always guilty of one grammar mistake or another. Because native speakers never really study English as intently as foreigners do, often times people who know English as a second language will understand our grammar much more than the native speaker. And, don't forget colloquialisms. The south, where I am from, is well known for its colloquialisms.

Alrighty y'all, I'm fixin' to get some supper. I'll catch y'all later. Though I might be goin' to N'awlins at the end of the week. Even though I've been travellin' for a long time, I feel like I've been rode hard and put away wet. Myyyy Laaands! (Double syllables for single syllable words where applicable)  Smile

UAL


User currently offlineBraybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5812 posts, RR: 31
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2748 times:

I agree completely. Apostrophe's should alway's be used in the correct place's. And, as you say, you have any doubt's, it's alway's better to leave them out.

User currently offlineFly747 From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1497 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2746 times:

The apostrophe doesn't bother me that much. What gets me is when people here say "would of" instead of "would have".

Ivan


User currently offlineCastleIsland From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2738 times:

Quoting N229NW (Reply 10):
Edit: Meh, I just realized I went and wasted my 1000th post being a grammar nazi...

When you should have wasted it posting something silly like this:



User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2718 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 2):
Didn't know that, because English is the only language that I speak or write that uses apostrophes. (No apostrophes in Japanese!)

They have their rightful place in german as well... unfortunately most people have no clue where that is - and the horrible misuse of anglicisms in german is one of the main sources of the ubiquitous apostrophe catastrophe...

Quoting D L X (Reply 2):
Also, I should say that if English is not your main language, this post wasn't aimed at you.

As a member of this forum it's just as fingernails-on-blackboard to me as it would be for most native speakers. Although the inevitable would of and there/their/they're is right up there with it...!  yuck 

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 13):
English grammar is one of the hardest out there I think.

Not really.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11571 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2707 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 13):
English grammar is one of the hardest out there I think.

No excuses if it's the only language you know.  Wink

Besides, this is more about spelling and punctuation, not grammar.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineN231YE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2699 times:

Interesting, that nobody has mentioned plural possessive. This is so rarely, yet incorrectly done, even A.net's spell checker marks it as wrong!

Singular Possessive: This is my plant's garden.
Plural Possessive: This is my plants' garden.


User currently offlineComorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4903 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2661 times:

THANK YOU for starting this thread. Nothing bothers me more than this- sometimes I just feel like giving up and joining the crowd.

Another HORRIBLE custom in the UK is to refer to companies in the plural - "British Airways are a decent airline" - this twisted usage of English is about to hop the Atlantic...

Times Online is running its Style and Usage Guide these days and it's worth reading:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/too...and_services/specials/style_guide/


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2656 times:

Think that's bad?

Here's a little item I pass out to my students. It came out about a year ago. I put it under the heading of "What's a comma worth these days?"

Comma quirk irks Rogers
GRANT ROBERTSON

From Monday's Globe and Mail

It could be the most costly piece of punctuation in Canada.

A grammatical blunder may force Rogers Communications Inc. to pay an extra $2.13-million to use utility poles in the Maritimes after the placement of a comma in a contract permitted the deal's cancellation.

The controversial comma sent lawyers and telecommunications regulators scrambling for their English textbooks in a bitter 18-month dispute that serves as an expensive reminder of the importance of punctuation.

Rogers thought it had a five-year deal with Aliant Inc. to string Rogers' cable lines across thousands of utility poles in the Maritimes for an annual fee of $9.60 per pole. But early last year, Rogers was informed that the contract was being cancelled and the rates were going up. Impossible, Rogers thought, since its contract was iron-clad until the spring of 2007 and could potentially be renewed for another five years.



Armed with the rules of grammar and punctuation, Aliant disagreed. The construction of a single sentence in the 14-page contract allowed the entire deal to be scrapped with only one-year's notice, the company argued.
Language buffs take note — Page 7 of the contract states: The agreement “shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.”

Rogers' intent in 2002 was to lock into a long-term deal of at least five years. But when regulators with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) parsed the wording, they reached another conclusion.

The validity of the contract and the millions of dollars at stake all came down to one point — the second comma in the sentence.

Had it not been there, the right to cancel wouldn't have applied to the first five years of the contract and Rogers would be protected from the higher rates it now faces.

“Based on the rules of punctuation,” the comma in question “allows for the termination of the [contract] at any time, without cause, upon one-year's written notice,” the regulator said.

Rogers was dumbfounded. The company said it never would have signed a contract to use roughly 91,000 utility poles that could be cancelled on such short notice. Its lawyers tried in vain to argue the intent of the deal trumped the significance of a comma. “This is clearly not what the parties intended,” Rogers said in a letter to the CRTC.

But the CRTC disagreed. And the consequences are significant.

The contract would have shielded Rogers from rate increases that will see its costs jump as high as $28.05 per pole. Instead, the company will likely end up paying about $2.13-million more than expected, based on rough calculations.

Despite the victory, Aliant won't reap the bulk of the proceeds. The poles are mostly owned by Fredericton-based utility NB Power, which contracted out the administration of the business to Aliant at the time the contract was signed.

Neither Rogers nor Aliant could be reached for comment on the ruling. In one of several letters to the CRTC, Aliant called the matter “a basic rule of punctuation,” taking a swipe at Rogers' assertion that the comma could be ignored.

“This is a classic case of where the placement of a comma has great importance,” Aliant said.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11571 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2643 times:

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):
The controversial comma sent lawyers and telecommunications regulators scrambling for their English textbooks in a bitter 18-month dispute that serves as an expensive reminder of the importance of punctuation.

Actually, I think that case is a load of bull -- the question in contract is never "what exactly did it say" so much as it is "what exactly did the parties expect it to mean." (FWIW, I think Rogers is 100% correct.)

In any event, if you're talking about something that sends regulators to textbooks to find an esoteric rule, it's not nearly as important as getting the apostrophe right, since you use it every day.

I'm heartened though, because it hasn't appeared incorrect one time on this thread, except for the person that was clearly intending to misuse it to show his point.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineFumanchewd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2638 times:

Language is a constantly changing entity. The first "dictionaries" weren't dictionaries but in fact spelling guides. In the English language there were many accepted ways to spell one word and grammar was non existent. For that matter punctuation was non existent as well. The only thing that really mattered was transmitting and communicating information. The Greeks and other societies wrote their philologies using various systems of punctuation to assist oration. When English printing initiated in the 15th century William Caxton used punctuation marks to make the light and illegible print easier to read. He used the "/" for word groupings, the ":" for pauses, and the "." for ending sentences and brief pauses. His idea worked for some and was ignored by some. It wasn't until the 17th century that some sort of punctuation dogma came into being. That said, this dogma has always been changing. Whether because of cultural, governmental, or scholastic changes, the rules of grammar have never been the same and never will stay stagnant.

I took a university class in linguistics a few years back and we spent several weeks reviewing the assiduous changes that have been happening to all languages since the beginning of time. We noted how most have their conservative backers grabbing onto the rules and semantics that they were taught. They refuse to be dragged with the times and instead stay in place with the disappearing past. The same could be said for grammar.

i have always enjoyed the image of jack kerouac hunched over his typewriter with page after page taped together just pounding out word after word in a mad dash of hope and ideas a poetry of thought with no punctuation or form just a splaying of ideas communicating ideas

That being said, I have no idea why people are so intent on preserving the so called "sanctity" of language and grammar. It has its place. Bad grammar at work is unacceptable. As for the rest I could care less. Maybe if people spent as much time thinking about what they are saying instead of their image then their words might be worth reading-good grammar or not.


User currently offlineAllstarflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2628 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 2):
Didn't know that, because English is the only language that I speak or write that uses apostrophes.

Doesn't Russian use apostrophes?

Quoting D L X (Reply 9):
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 7):
Never end a phrase with a preposition.

I think that's a silly rule.

Even with that Churchill quote (which seems to be tongue-in-cheek), it's lazy, at best, to end a sentence with a preposition. I've done it, though, even recently, though I still try to find ways to bring the preposition to a point earlier in the sentence, or, if I must, restructure the sentence in a sensible way so that the grammatical usage is accurate.

Quoting N229NW (Reply 10):
The one that slightly annoys me is people using "I" when they should use "me"--it annoys me because they do it to sound "correct"/pretentious, but don't realize it is actually wrong:

Same here - I don't like it when people say things like "me and my brother", instead of "my brother and I", etc.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):

That's an amazing story.


25 Post contains images D L X : I'm not talking about grammar. I'm talking about punctuation, and using correct written English. When you misuse apostrophes, you are actually signal
26 Waterpolodan : My friend Len read this and ran away weeping.
27 Post contains links Fumanchewd : Case in point. The apostrophe that you used before the word "and" is technically correct. However, a majority of modern writers no longer use this ru
28 Fumanchewd : They are one in the same.
29 Levent : That is a fantastic example of how important it can be to write text in a correct way. It's not a load of bull at all - a contract is a contract and
30 UAL747 : Honey, I know 3 languages and can read 5 with moderate to excellent fluency. 6, if you count the language of Luuuv. UAL
31 Post contains images Halls120 : With all due respect, I expect arguments like this at work, not on Anet. What's next, arguments on which English dictionary is the definitive last wo
32 Andz : It's about time someone raised this issue. Apostrophe abuse is a national disease here and it irritates the hell out of me, especially when I see it o
33 Post contains images D L X : What apostrophe? This isn't grammar. Grammar is the structure of the language. Apostrophe abuse means you have misspelled the word. Take a semester o
34 Post contains images Baroque : Beets me to (or is that two) why their not seeing the errors. I wonder how many stuff ups it is possible to get in one line and still be understood.
35 AeroWesty : It's perfectly appropriate to talk about on A.net, or anywhere else on the internet. A friend of mine is a colleague of Barbara Wallraff, and he and
36 Post contains images Fumanchewd : You are right, I meant comma. If you are intelligent and had read the following sentences you would have figured that out. Digging for semantics? Sou
37 Fumanchewd : I agree, yet there is a severe rank of elitism that is permeating from DLX's posts. If we were to have an intelligent discussion on language, great.
38 Banco : Quite correct. English has no equivalent of the Academie Francaise, and so "correct" English is merely that which is in generally agreed use at any p
39 Post contains images David L : Generally speaking, I think incorrect use of apostrophes can be deduced by context. On the other hand, misuse of commas can lead to ambiguity, as wit
40 Banco : Personally, I'd fail the class. The very point about comprehensibility is where using text-style English fails the requirements for written English.
41 Cornish : I agree. If the students can't write an exam paper or essay without using text speak, then fail them. They wouldn't be able to use it at university a
42 Post contains images Halls120 : So do I. But I come to Anet for entertainment and relaxation, not to continue debates from work. BTW, at my office the battle is over commas, not apo
43 Scbriml : Reminds me of a joke I heard a comedian of colour tell once. The first brother to be admitted to Yale is wandering around the campus and he meets a v
44 Post contains images D L X : You'd think that on a thread that discusses writing accuracy that one would check for accuracy. Any dictionary. NOT on your life. I'm going to say go
45 Banco : I agree it's a fine line, but the key question of importance is whether the students' work is comprehensible or not. There's a difference between pic
46 Post contains images David L : That's exactly what they'd like to do but they can't - it's rife. No students = no funding = no class = no job. Nipping it in the bud is probably the
47 Mt99 : I have seen it used in a name. I kid you not.
48 Post contains images Banco : Really? Next you'll be telling me all those OBriens, ONeills, OShaughnessys and OConnors put them in there! It's more common than you might think, no
49 Post contains images Cornish : Not to mention all those OClocks, ODears, OReallys and OBuggers
50 Dougloid : That's an incorrect assumption. Have you ever heard of the Statute of Frauds?
51 Braybuddy : It's not necessary to put the apostrophe in Irish surnames. It really shouldn't be there in the first place, as it's an anglicisation of the word "ó
52 Dougloid : If there's one thing that bugs the hell out of me it's the tendency of some businesses to take the name of a product, add an apostrophe and an "s" an
53 Mt99 : I am not talking about last names. First name. And trust me, she is as far from being Irish as you can possible get.
54 UAL747 : HAHAHA! That is hilarious! UAL
55 Baroque : Put not thy faith in computer programs. MS Word did not like that at all, at all. It prefers: "Again, correct grammar is that which usage is in gener
56 MaidensGator : I agree with Dougloid. That contract was sure to have a merger clause stating that all negotiations had been reduced to that writing. If it contained
57 Post contains images D L X : Of course, but is that in question here? The agreement was in fact written. Without a doubt, this contract probably had a merger clause. But correct
58 Post contains images D L X : Ugh... text speak. IDK if I'll evr get 2 a point where dat will be OK 4 me. It gr8s my I's to c it, and reeks of laziness. People 200 years ago didn'
59 IADCA : The apostrophes you see in Russian transliterated into English are replacements for letters of the alphabet that don't exist in English. The Cyrillic
60 Banco : Two hundred years ago? Hmmm. Just about I would think. But go back just a little further and the issue with spelling was nothing to do with education
61 D L X : Actually, the reason for the changes there was nothing other than so Americans could distinguish ourselves from the English after the Revolution. Exc
62 Banco : Not quite. The belief from those early Americans was that they were the guardians of the English language that was superior in every way to the Engli
63 Dougloid : Read your UCC. Read your statute of frauds. If it ain't on paper it doesn't exist. And that is the way it should be and most often is. Then start loo
64 Comorin : posted in error pls delete...[Edited 2007-08-17 16:46:37]
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Military: Does The US Use The EU Or Viceversa? posted Tue Aug 8 2006 22:42:00 by Derico
Why Don't The US Use The International System Of U posted Fri Jan 28 2005 19:13:05 by TGV
Correct Use Of Their And There posted Tue Nov 9 2004 15:39:37 by BestWestern
Anyone Use The Net For Sexual Relations? posted Tue Feb 21 2006 03:27:20 by FutureSDPDcop
Paying For Use Of The Toilet In Amsterdam posted Tue Nov 29 2005 12:05:02 by BNE
Is The Use Of CD-RW Unhealthy For CD Players? posted Sun Oct 24 2004 13:15:30 by F.pier
Do You Use The "check Spelling" Feature? posted Sun Aug 12 2007 05:17:53 by EWRCabincrew
Use Of The Term "Esquire" As A Person's Title posted Thu May 10 2007 04:40:50 by 767Lover
The First Kiss Of Death For Giuliani! posted Thu Mar 29 2007 00:13:40 by RJdxer
Pelosi Requests The Use of Military A/C. posted Wed Feb 7 2007 17:29:06 by Dtwclipper