LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksYou only need an apostrophe when you are showing something is possessive:
Peter's shoes
Frank's aardvark
or when you are concatenating words together:
do not -> don't
have not -> haven't
You only need an apostrophe when you are showing something is possessive:
Peter's shoes
Frank's aardvark
or when you are concatenating words together:
do not -> don't
have not -> haven't
Just to be a pedant... That should be abreviating not concatenating. The apostophe is there for the abreviation, the fact that you've concatenated the two words is incidental.
____
(='.'=)
(")_(")
Bumm'd
[
Originally Posted by Blitzen
this is the whole they're, their, there argument all over again
I LOL'd
Bumm'd
____
(='.'=)
(")_(")
the Grocers appostrophestaple of grammer pedants everywhere.
http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Grocers+apostrophe
my Virtualisation Blog http://jfvi.co.uk Virtualisation Podcast http://vsoup.net
Your life must be so fun!
Insert signature here.
almost certainly from this moment on purely to annoy you
Vodka
B0redom, spot my mistakes: (there's 4)
in the 70's their was always people playing football, but they're footballs we're too big.
Last edited by matty-hodgson; 30-03-2009 at 11:08 AM.
Eats, posts grammar nazism & leaves.
In the internets, no one can hear you sarcasm.
That's funny, I can see 8
____
(='.'=)
(")_(")
No capital I for in at the start of a sentence.
Should be 70s not 70's
There not their
Were not was
Their not they're
Were not we're
There are probably more too
I can see why you registered with that username now
Miscounted, only 7 that I could see.
____
(='.'=)
(")_(")
sig removed by Zak33
Isn't there a grammar rule about not putting commas in front of the word "but"? Or was that starting sentences with it? Also, is "there're" an acceptable concatenation? Don't recall actually ever seeing it written down anywhere.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
