Lame, didn't even cover the clusterf*k that is the apostrophe and year ranges.
1990s vs. 1990's vs 90s vs 90's vs '90s vs '90's
or the could've, could have, could of corrupted homophone disaster.
Like most things in English, apostrophes kind of have a standard, basic, rule concept (used before an s when making a possessive), then the rest is common exceptions (contractions, plural form possessives) and options (decade ranges) which are only options to certain people and necessary to others, except for the very specific exceptions (plural single letters, quoted plurals, quoted possessives, possessive and plural, words naturally ending in s, glottal stops, un-lettered syllable accents, clicks, silent but looks cool), which nobody remembers correctly except those being pedantic and never seem to really muss up anybody's understanding of the meaning.
Anybody who thinks they know all the apostrophe rules most likely doesn't. Even http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe which captures some of the complexity mises a bunch of these cases and inserts one I've never seen -- the quoted single letter plural.
The only rule you have to remember is this, "what are the grammar rules that your readers will be assuming are the rules, follow those for comprehension."
In the decade since, Slashdot has provided a bottomless well of bad writing, couldn't-care-less editing, and profound ignorance of virtually every aspect of the real world. It has set the standard for moronic prose, and deserves being remembered as we try to meet and exceed the abysmal benchmark it has made
Ironically, it is considered a bastion of knowledge by many today. Most of that is due to the depths to which the net has sunk in general. That said, it is a source of real knowledge and insight. When something egregious enough is posted, a real expert is often driven to post an informative reply from their personal experience.
No problem with rules 1 (its, it's) and 4 (pronouns never use apostrophe).
Re rule 2, most contractions can be confused with other words, and look very wrong, if the apostrophe is omitted, but a few (e.g. youre, mustnt) still look OK.
Re rule 3, some plural possessive nouns look OK without the apostrophe (e.g. "horses hooves" for "horses' hooves"). I'd never skip the apostrophe for a singular noun though (e.g. horse's hooves).
Re rule 5 (Plurals never use apostrophe), when the word is an acronym or capitalized, I'd put an apostrophe in (e.g. the four B52's, I've received 7 RSVP's so far).
There is a lot of confusion about the possessive form of singular proper nouns that end in "s". I've seen it both ways and have never found a consistent pattern in American English. Historical figures usually just get an apostrophe, and normal people get an apostrophe and an "s". Example: "Jesus' desciples" vs "Chris's bicycle". There are exceptions to even this rule, however, such as "Zeus's infidelity". For regular nouns, it seems more consistent ("for goodness' sake" but never "for goodness's sake"). Does anyone know a concrete rule for this?
It's a stylistic choice, so opinions vary, but the simplest guide I've found is to simply check the intended pronunciation. If you would pronounce the 's as its own syllable, include it (e.g., "Chris's"); it not, don't (e.g., "Mephistopheles'").
I personally never had problems with the rules. They are quite clear to me, apart from that one common pitfall: its vs. it's, which is probably the most common pitfall people never memorize. I still don't want to put blame on the English language, but rather on lack of attention from the student - there is just no excuse for ignorance.
The way I found to keep its and it's straight is to remember that its is one of the possessive pronouns, none of which take an apostrophe: my, your, his, her, its, their.
When I have a brainfart and can't remember which one to use I always remember it the other way around: it's always a contraction. If you can write "it is" or "it has" in its place then use the apostrophe, otherwise don't.
Yes, but they go ahead and use the wrong homonym anyways. That's what I meant -- a criticism of too many erroneous posters. (But for some reason everyone took it as a criticism of the rule and voted me down.)
I never got what the confusion is over the possessive form of "it". I mean, nobody ever writes "hi's" or "her's"; why would they want to do so with "it"?
One rule he alluded to but didn't make explicit is over the possessive form of words already ending in "s". We know that one does not add an "s" if the word is a plural form that already ends with that letter.
What he doesn't directly address is singular words that end in "s". For example, my first name is "Chris". I've seen many people refer to "Chris' stuff", but I believe this is incorrect. Because my terminal "s" was not the result of pluralization, I'm still entitled to a possessive "s": "Chris's stuff".
I never got what the confusion is over the possessive form of "it". I mean, nobody ever writes "hi's" or "her's"; why would they want to do so with "it"?
Because "it" is the only personal that has a possessive form consisting of the personal pronoun followed by an "s".
The briefcase belonging to him is his briefcase, not hims briefcase.
The purse belonging to her is her purse, not hers purse.
The mama belonging to you is your mama, not yous mama.
The nasty case of chlamydia belonging to me is my nasty case of chlamydia, not mes nasty case of chlamydia.
Similarly it's "our" not "uss" and "their" not "thems". I think that's covered all of 'em. So "its" is unique as being the only one where you could reasonably make this mistake.
It's singular vs plural - You are one person, your stuff is "Chris's Stuff" (with the extra "s"). If you and another Chris pool your belongings, that stuff would be "the Chris' stuff" (without the extra "s", pronounced identically).
That's actually the correct way - at least so say all of the old (and most new) books on English grammar. If the word ends with a written S, you don't add another one after the "possessive apostrophe".
Some teachers go the extra mile by saying that this rule also goes if the word ends with any consonant pronounced with an S sound; "Alix' room"; but not if it ends with a pronounced S sound followed by a silent vowel; "Belize's beaches". I personally follow this rule.
That's the rule (not sure about the X thing, that just looks wrong). Where I really get confused is the correct pronunciation for that. If it was "Chris' stuff" I'd probably put in an extra "es" sylalble at the end of "Chris" just to make it clear. On the other hand if you're talking about, say, "Jesus' stuff" then saying "Jesuses" sounds silly.
1990s vs. 1990's vs 90s vs 90's vs '90s vs '90's
or the could've, could have, could of corrupted homophone disaster.
Like most things in English, apostrophes kind of have a standard, basic, rule concept (used before an s when making a possessive), then the rest is common exceptions (contractions, plural form possessives) and options (decade ranges) which are only options to certain people and necessary to others, except for the very specific exceptions (plural single letters, quoted plurals, quoted possessives, possessive and plural, words naturally ending in s, glottal stops, un-lettered syllable accents, clicks, silent but looks cool), which nobody remembers correctly except those being pedantic and never seem to really muss up anybody's understanding of the meaning.
Anybody who thinks they know all the apostrophe rules most likely doesn't. Even http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe which captures some of the complexity mises a bunch of these cases and inserts one I've never seen -- the quoted single letter plural.
The only rule you have to remember is this, "what are the grammar rules that your readers will be assuming are the rules, follow those for comprehension."