picky uses of apostrophes question

[MMM]

Originally Posted by FuzX

I say everyone here is wrong. As time passes, languages change, and their grammar changes. And adding to the fact that English is regulated by no country, no one is really right. While it's possible that "Rachel's funny" could have not been acceptable grammar centuries ago, It is very frequently used in modern times, and perfectly acceptable grammar.

Furthermore, when saying "Rachel's going to be late," the average English speaker would understand it as "Rachel is going to be late," and almost never be conscious of the possibility of it meaning something possesive.

I would like to see a website that says that a name followed by a 's is always possesive.

Just because someone's meaning is understood doesn't mean it is correct grammar, and that was the question that was asked.

I could just say " U R Rite!!! " and you would understand, but that doesn't make it correct English.

[FuzX]

I would understand, because I use the internet often, but most people wouldn't, whereas absolutely everyone understands "Rachel's going to be late." Where does it say it's incorrect grammar anyway?

[Jaydelart]

Originally Posted by FuzX

Where does it say it's incorrect grammar anyway?

There are many pages from websites supporting the fact that such contractions are a form of informal speech and not suitable to proper, scientific, or formal language.

Here is an example:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia.org

Contraction (grammar) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Informal contractions are, by their nature, more frequent in speech than writing, e.g., John'd fix your television if you asked him.

An informal type of contraction occurs frequently in speech and writing, in which a syllable is substituted by an apostrophe and/or other mode of elision, e.g., can't for "cannot", won't for "will not". Such contractions are often either negations with not or combinations of pronouns with auxiliary verbs, e.g., I'll for "I will". Extremely informal examples include ain't for "am not" or "are not", and wouldn't've or even wouldn've for "would not have". At least one study has sought to analyze the category of negative informal contractions as the attachment of an inflectional suffix.[2]

Contractions are used sparingly in formal written English. The APA style guide prefers that contractions, including Latin abbreviations, are not used in plain text, and recommends that the equivalent phrase in English be written out. An exception is made for the Latin abbreviation et al ("and others"), which may be used with citations outside parentheses.[3]

[FuzX]

Nowhere in that article does it talk about 's...

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by FuzX

Nowhere in that article does it talk about 's...

It doesn`t need to specifically. You see, 's is a contraction - and in the case we`re talking about here a very informal one.
So when the article says that contractions are not appropriate in proper written English, and that informal contractions are rarely appropriate outside of speech... 's is included.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by FuzX

I would understand, because I use the internet often, but most people wouldn't, whereas absolutely everyone understands "Rachel's going to be late." Where does it say it's incorrect grammar anyway?

I would be amazed if you could find an English speaker who couldn't understand the meaning of

U R Rite.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by MMM

I would be amazed if you could find an English speaker who couldn't understand the meaning of

U R Rite.

lol, my father doesn't understand this kind of English. In fact, he hates it when advertisements use such abbreviations. However, I do agree, the majority of people will be able to understand "U r rite", but I also agree with FuzX because minor changes always occur in languages. For example, one should say, according to traditional grammer rules, "It is I" but almost everyone says "It is me" (actually people say it's me, but you get the point). Today, "It is me" has been accepted and is no longer considered grammatically wrong unless you come across someone who is very pedantic about the use of English.

So, if it's not accepted yet, it surely will be accepted in the near future. I don't ever remember English classes caring so much about this type of grammar, so as people keep making the mistake, the mistake will soon become the accepted use. I think the only people that really know these tiny rules about English are foreigners or people that have studied English past Secondary school or college (High School).

[MMM]

The question was "Is 'Rachel's funny'" correct English.

The answer is no.

There isn't more to it than that. I don't mean to sound gruff, but it is pretty cut and dry.