Popular Photography entry-level DSLR rankings

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Rich, Feb 18, 2006.

  1. Rich

    Skip M Guest

    If you describe a camera as having an ability to do something, then you are
    using a possessive, note the use of the word "having." So, for instance, if
    the Nikon D200 has the ability to produce clear images it would be phrased
    thusly, "The Nikon D200's ability to produce clear images is manifest."
    Now, if you were talking about the entire range of Nikon Digital cameras, it
    would be, "The Nikon Ds' ability to produce clear images..." See the
    problem if you start using an apostrophe to denote a plural? It would
    devolve to "The Nikon D's' ability..."
    Skip M, Feb 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rich

    Frank ess Guest

    I think Marc's plan is to invoke contexts. That way we're never wrong.
    Context's' influence is pervasive and manifold. If your posture
    doesn't intimidate, shriek, "But in MY contexts's' context, you make a
    mistake if you don't agree with me ! "


    Frank ess
    Frank ess
    "In this universe there are thing's
    that just don't yield to thinking's' power
    —plain or fancy—Dude".
    —J. Spicoli, PolyPartyPerson
    Frank ess, Feb 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rich

    jpmcw Guest

    Sorta. But I don't get what, Frank, is the purpose of your adding "sh,
    shh" etc. to troll posts. Clearly no troll is going to read that and
    actually hush up. Sorry if you answered me before on this, but I didn't
    see any reply from several weeks ago.

    Back to punctuation! Wouldn't it be "All the Nikon D's in the
    world..../and/ The Nikon D's ability to please is enormous." Now, let's
    hope Nikon and Canon don't put too many lower case designations with
    upper case.....
    jpmcw, Feb 24, 2006
  4. Rich

    Frank ess Guest

    Sorta OT: You must be answering and reading in group's I don't look
    at. I always trim the one's I'm interested in. Maybe thats enough so
    you could get it?
    I'd say that whatever boat your floating in makes alot of difference.
    This "Oxford" dude seems to have alot of sway. Of course if your like
    most of the readers and writers on Usenet your not concerned that
    you're language use makes you look like an idiot, so in this context,
    your point is mute.

    As for Nikon Ds, my attitude is like, lets give a little slack to any
    rule that lets the idiot trying to do precice communication be
    precise. Maybe proper names and aykroydnyms are special case's?

    Frank ess, Feb 24, 2006
  5. Rich

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Then why do I read them and think "what property of (the) JPEG" or "what
    property of 1920"?

    What possible other meaning could "JPEGs" have than a JPEG multiplicity?
    JPS, Feb 24, 2006
  6. If you describe a camera as having an ability to do something, then
    Yes, this is an exactly of a situation where ambiguity would happen -
    ambiguity that is so obviously resolved by the context of the sentence
    it is difficult to imgine how one could conceive of it as a problem.
    The ambiguity in "D200's" in the above sentence is no more problematic
    than the ambiguity in the words "note", "it", or "produce", any of which
    could potentially mean something different in a different context but so
    obviosuly mean what they mean in this one, it seems silly to even point
    out the ambiguity.
    Look, I am not proposing anyone "start" doing anything. People have
    been doing this for centuries, and have written style guide advocating
    it, and have been teaching it. It's jus one of those cases where there
    exist two different standards, like "color" versus "colour". I don't
    understand why some people get so religiously attached t the standard
    they happened to grow up with that they feel the need to criticze those
    using a different but equally respect and time tested standard.

    Marc Sabatella

    Music, art, & educational materials
    Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
    Marc Sabatella, Feb 26, 2006
  7. Because you are not one of the "many people" I referred to. You are not
    someone who grew up with this system and got used to resolving the
    occassional ambiguities that might come up. But you could probably
    count on the fingers of one hand the number of pluralized acronyms or
    numbers you've seen in your life that would be ambiguous in context.
    As I said before, it makes it look like part of the acronym. The mere
    fact that the letter is lower case in no way resolves this ambiguity;
    plenty of acronyms include lower case letters.

    You don't see this as confusion you have been writing things this way
    for years - presumably because your teachers used MLA or Turabian or
    some style guide that encouraged the type of pluralization you now
    prefer. But had your experience been with the OED system, that is what
    would seem natural to you, and the MLA system would seem odd. It's
    common sense - we are going to like what we are accustomed to, and
    resist what looks different.

    Marc Sabatella

    Music, art, & educational materials
    Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
    Marc Sabatella, Feb 26, 2006
  8. Rich

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Out of academic curiosity, what are you looking at that shows it to be
    equally respected?

    The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar goes so far as to say "It is
    usually acceptable with the less usual plurals of letters and dates, e.g.
    Mind your p's and q's, That is what people did in the 1960's/1960s",
    which doesn't sound like equal respect, but is about the strongest
    support I can find, not actually mentioning acronyms or initialisms
    among the acceptable usages, but not necessarily ruling them out.

    The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style seems to have about
    equal support, but notes that it is not normally used now -- and in
    its own text, outside examples, you can see the form "1990s" for
    plural rather than "1990's".

    Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage says, "The apostrophe is no longer
    normally used in the plural of abbreviated forms (e.g. Several MPs were
    standing around), although it is of course used in the possessive (e.g.
    The BBC's decision to go ahead with the broadcast). It is used in plurals
    when clarity calls for it, e.g. Dot your i's and cross your t's." The
    non-apostrophe form is used in the non-example text here, also.

    So, I'm not finding the equal respect, and I'm wondering where it might
    be coming from?
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 26, 2006
  9. Rich

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    Personally, I would prefer 'i's and 't's.

    That's because you would put them in single quotes anyway, if they were
    JPS, Feb 26, 2006
  10. Out of academic curiosity, what are you looking at that shows it to be
    askoxford.com, an official Oxford Univeristy Press site (see quoted text
    below). You are correct that it actually shows multiple opinions, but
    that in itselfs suggests at least one respected authority finds either
    usage acceptable. It is also the way it was taught in the schools I
    attended, although I have no recollection of what text we might have

    I probably did mispeak is saying it is "equally" respected - I'm sure it
    is true that more people are accusomted to style guides that do not
    advocate this usage, and that more such style guides exist. It's a
    minority opinion, I'd agree. But not an inconsequential one.

    The relevant section of askoxford.com:

    An apostrophe is used in plurals in the following very special cases:
    1.. in the plurals of single letters:
    There are only three s's in `Christmases'.
    Mind your p's and q's.
    (Even here, the capital letter would not need the apostrophe.)

    2.. in the plurals of abbreviations:
    We have several pg's [paying guests].
    We have received four cheques and two IOU's.
    (But IOUs is common and accepted, and the usual plural of CD is CDs).
    Most symbols for units such as lb (pounds) and cm (centimetres) do not
    strictly have plural forms.

    3.. in the plurals of numerals:
    This house was built in the 1930's.
    (But 1930s is preferable).
    Marc Sabatella, Feb 26, 2006
  11. Rich

    Frank ess Guest

    In the vernacular of the day:

    " Exactly ! "
    Frank ess, Feb 26, 2006
  12. Rich

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Even that site is clear in its preference for the modern form. The
    section you cite is indeed the strongest support I've seen for using the
    apostrophe, though other areas of the site definitely do not support it.
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 26, 2006
  13. Even that site is clear in its preference for the modern form.

    I agree to some extent, especially if you look at different places
    within the site. Still, it is relevant to note that the site is indeed
    implying that omitting the apostrophe is the more modern usage. Whereas
    folks here have been implying it is the use of apostrophes that is some
    new-fangled nonsense mucking up centuries of tradition. The truth is
    more likely the other way around. So if you want to criticize those of
    us using apostrophes, you'll have to find some basis for it than saying
    we are watering down the language or any such nonsense.

    What's interesting as a side note - and why I found this worth following
    up on at all - is that just days before I was called on my use of
    apostrophes here, I was also called on it in a paper I'm writing for a
    graduate-level class in school. That got me curious, because I was sure
    I had learned in grade school to use apostrophes the way I did, but
    started wondering if I had simply been misinformed. I hadn't bothered
    to look it up until the second time it came up, here on this thread.
    I'm glad I've now looked into the matter some and have some apreciation
    for the differences exist - even if I still can't understand why some
    treat this as religious issue.

    Marc Sabatella

    Music, art, & educational materials
    Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
    Marc Sabatella, Feb 27, 2006
  14. Rich

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    The thing is that the misuse of apostrophes is one of the (many) current
    manifestations of the perceived decline in peoples' communication skills.
    We see the language butchered beyond belief on the internet and it starts
    to become distressing. How long do you suppose it will be before someone
    first argues that "loose" is a proper form of "lose", due to the horrendous
    number of times people use it that way?

    (I call it a "perceived" decline because I'm not sure there actually is a
    decline; it's just that we didn't used to see peoples' written communication
    so commonly before.)

    Some changes in language are evolutionary, and some aren't. Not using an
    apostrophe for plurals is, in my view, as it decreases ambiguity. You could
    go back not all that far and find that spelling was a matter of opinion; I
    would hope you agree that moving away from that was a good thing, and that
    one shouldn't use "but people used to do it that way" as an argument in
    favor of spelling words any way you feel like.

    So you have people who actually care about the state of the language, and
    people like that will tend to react the way you've seen here to what they
    see as epidemic problems.

    The rules of language are always a matter of opinion; if you break them,
    you need to be prepared to defend your usage. Most people aren't at a
    point in their writing anywhere near where they can do that.
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 27, 2006
  15. Rich

    Skip M Guest

    I think the decline is more real than imagined, I see more signs on
    businesses that have misplaced apostrophes than I can remember seeing
    Skip M, Feb 27, 2006
  16. Rich

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Back in the day, if you wanted a sign (or a menu, or a brochure, or
    whatever), you went to a person who did that. Now, you type it into
    your computer yourself. So, you're actually seeing written communication
    from people you weren't seeing it from before.
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 28, 2006
  17. Rich

    Skip M Guest

    Ah, yes, I hadn't thought of it that way. Even if you do get it from an
    outside supplier, you set it up, it goes straight to the supplier's
    computer, which spits out the finished sign, just as you requested, errors
    and all...
    Skip M, Feb 28, 2006
  18. Oh yeah...apostophes where they don't belong, backwards Ns on
    readerboards, misspelled words...I suppose it's relates to the poor
    state of public education these days.
    Randall Ainsworth, Feb 28, 2006
  19. Rich

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Yep. That's why I tend to think that it's simply revealing the horrible
    truth -- peoples' communication skills were *always* that bad.
    Jeremy Nixon, Feb 28, 2006
  20. True enough. But hopefully people are seeing there is a difference
    between someone writing "JPEG's" because they learned grammar from a
    legitimate style guide approve that usage, versus people writing
    "apple's" because.
    Eliminates one potential but easily resolved type of ambuity and
    replaces it with another. Six of one, a half dozen of the other.

    Marc Sabatella

    Music, art, & educational materials
    Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
    Marc Sabatella, Mar 1, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.