Re: I've heard of the 70's

There should be no apostrophe. UGH.

Re: I've heard of the 70's

i've heard of apostropheseses's!

Re: I've heard of the 70's

Nice vintage effects!

Re: I've heard of the 70's

BAH on the apo'strophe-hater's.!
It'''s a F'UN DE'SIGN.

I voted this one BEFORE . . . I voted this one AGAIN . . .

SaireEtsy wrote:There should be no apostrophe. UGH.

It's actually acceptable in the U.S. in this form. Here's a little excerpt on unusual plurals, taken from Larry Trask's Guide to Punctuation:

In British usage, we do not use an apostrophe in pluralizing dates:

This research was carried out in the 1970s.

American usage, however, does put an apostrophe here:

(A) This research was carried out in the 1970's.

You should not adopt this practice unless you are specifically writing for an American audience.

More on appropriate usage of apostrophes can be found here for your perusal:
http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node21.html

Re: I've heard of the 70's

I think we are going to have another week of the apostrophe argument no matter what anybody says.

Re: I've heard of the 70's

I've never bought a shirt from woot before, but would buy this one - I voted for it last time, too...

I know everyone has already said it but the apostrophe is the kicker for me on this shirt.

" I've heard of the '70s!" I would buy...

Re: I've heard of the 70's

As a grammar meanie, I have to say that this shirt is correct - the apostrophe belongs anywhere an abbreviation is used - i.e. "CD's", "F-16's", and, of course, "70's".

Those who disagree are probably the same people that would say "your" is used to replace "you are".

On that note, I'd Want One.

Falcon4 wrote:As a grammar meanie, I have to say that this shirt is correct - the apostrophe belongs anywhere an abbreviation is used - i.e. "CD's", "F-16's", and, of course, "70's".

Those who disagree are probably the same people that would say "your" is used to replace "you are".

On that note, I'd Want One.

The greengrocer's apostrophe is not correct, and a simple google search can provide plenty of evidence that you are wrong. It may be currently taught as an accepted usage by some English teachers because it is so widespread; this does not legitimize it.

Further, you don't know the difference between a plural and an abbreviation. I'm afraid you utterly fail at being a grammar meanie, nerd, or other nitpicker.

Re: I've heard of the 70's

apostrophe or not, it is my best chance of getting a brown shirt this week and I still cant show it any love.

everyone's heard of the 70s - I don't get it.
meh

as for the apostrophe - here is Hollywood's answer...





no i'm not saying its a trace or knockoff- just that they didnt use one....and hollywood is full of geniuses.....right?

Re: I've heard of the 70's

I really love the scratchy faded look and as a complete dork for textures I would buy this in a flash. Plus I've heard of the seventies so it wouldn't be a lie.

dekonstruct wrote:I really love the scratchy faded look and as a complete dork for textures I would buy this in a flash. Plus I've heard of the seventies so it wouldn't be a lie.

What were the 70's?.. I've heard of the '70s... I've even heard of the 70s... but.. not the 70's...

Patchitect wrote:What were the 70's?.. I've heard of the '70s... I've even heard of the 70s... but.. not the 70's...

The 70's were way better than those pallid old 70s. The 70's were a time when nothing could come between the love of a 0 and an S. Nothing.

Language is fluid, and I'm only saying that because I'm terrible with words

dekonstruct wrote:The 70's were way better than those pallid old 70s. The 70's were a time when nothing could come between the love of a 0 and an S. Nothing.

Language is fluid, and I'm only saying that because I'm terrible with words

Language IS fluid- hence w00t as the word of the year. This isn't language fluidity, it's just bad grammar.

Josephus wrote:Language IS fluid- hence w00t as the word of the year. This isn't language fluidity, it's just bad grammar.

I begz tuh dissenterfy! we'all uses perfuct grammur in this here farum an no'un is gon tell me nun differunt!

Patchitect wrote:I begz tuh dissenterfy! we'all uses perfuct grammur in this here farum an no'un is gon tell me nun differunt!

pwned!

Patchitect wrote:I begz tuh dissenterfy! we'all uses perfuct grammur in this here farum an no'un is gon tell me nun differunt!

Ha ha ha, you're all deliciously insane.

Patchitect wrote:I begz tuh dissenterfy! we'all uses perfuct grammur in this here farum an no'un is gon tell me nun differunt!

True. Delightfully insane! I'm sure you've seen this before:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

It is amazing how the brain works! You can scramble your own sentences here and test it out!

klswoot wrote:True. Delightfully insane! I'm sure you've seen this before:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

It is amazing how the brain works! You can scramble your own sentences here and test it out!

Thats actually how i type... my fingers know which letters to push most of the time, but don't always put them in the right order...

SaireEtsy wrote:There should be no apostrophe. UGH.

Actually, the apostrophe should come before the 70. The apostrophe signifies that something has been dropped (the 19). Since it would look funny to write '70's with two apostrophes, the second is left out because its importance is less than that of the first. (The second apostrophe is 'acceptable' but not 'required')

It's all about prioritizing your apostrophes.

So it should read, "I've heard of the '70s!" Which, in my opinion would look better with that font any way.

(As is, I want it to be "I've heard of 78's!"... Hey, that's cooler anyway..)

klswoot wrote:True. Delightfully insane! I'm sure you've seen this before:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

It is amazing how the brain works! You can scramble your own sentences here and test it out!

Yes, and I've also Snopes-ed it before, too. For the record, academics at Cambridge haven't heard of it, either.

I really, really hate this urban legend.

mihalis aya wrote:Yes, and I've also Snopes-ed it before, too. For the record, academics at Cambridge haven't heard of it, either.

I really, really hate this urban legend.

Hey Mihalis. Sorry, I should have mentioned that it was a bogus Cambridge reference. (I actually got the paragraph from the Cambridge-related site you referenced. ) But, the idea of the first and last letter word recognition is proven and works. I posted it in response to Patch's funny 'scrambled letter' post. Still...it is amazing how easy the message is to read given how scrambled the letters. My husband's from Spain and speaks English as a second language. He read through the message quite quickly. I've seen the same first and last letter scramblings done in other languages, but I can't read them nearly as well.

mihalis aya wrote:Yes, and I've also Snopes-ed it before, too. For the record, academics at Cambridge haven't heard of it, either.

I really, really hate this urban legend.

Iz you raelly sniyag it isn’t ture?

No one can raed or udatsnrned tihs? Or you jsut sinyag the stduy inst rael?

mihalis aya wrote:Yes, and I've also Snopes-ed it before, too. For the record, academics at Cambridge haven't heard of it, either.

I really, really hate this urban legend.

Having read the Snopes link, and the article they link to, it seems to be true, although Cambridge is not really involved except afterwards.
From the article:
"Indeed, if the identity of the letters in the two hemifields of a centrally
fixated word is known, then specifying the first and last letter of the word necessarily identifies all the four-letter words, and only leaves a fraction of one percent of the lexicon ambiguous: these final ambiguities are pairs like trail and trial (see Shillcock et al., 2000 for full details).
In summary, to identify a word for lexical decision or naming may not require a full specification of all of the letter position information."
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~pjm21/papers/LCP.pdf

I didn't read the referenced papers, but the info about first and last letters being far more important than location of other letters appears to go back as far as 1995, and certainly to 2000. This info, according to Snopes, first appeared in 2003 in emails and on the web.

mihalis aya wrote:Yes, and I've also Snopes-ed it before, too. For the record, academics at Cambridge haven't heard of it, either.

I really, really hate this urban legend.

Well,, for the record, i first heard about this through a newspaper article, but whether or not that was based on the email, i dont know. Either way, urban legend or not, its uncanny how easy it is to read that particular paragraph without too much effort.

Patchitect wrote:Well,, for the record, i first heard about this through a newspaper article, but whether or not that was based on the email, i dont know. Either way, urban legend or not, its uncanny how easy it is to read that particular paragraph without too much effort.

I suppose part of my dislike with this particularly urban legend is that I don't find it easy. It's not difficult, but I do have to think about it. Given that I've done a lot of linguistics in university, I understand how it's meant to work and am mildly frustrated that it doesn't do that for me. I am also easily defeated by MagicEye pictures. I'm also just annoyed that something patently false--regardless of the fact that the first and last letter thing is a well-known and researched phenomenon, the 'Cambridge study' part is bunk--is regularly brought up as truth.

mihalis aya wrote:I suppose part of my dislike with this particularly urban legend is that I don't find it easy. It's not difficult, but I do have to think about it. Given that I've done a lot of linguistics in university, I understand how it's meant to work and am mildly frustrated that it doesn't do that for me. I am also easily defeated by MagicEye pictures. I'm also just annoyed that something patently false--regardless of the fact that the first and last letter thing is a well-known and researched phenomenon, the 'Cambridge study' part is bunk--is regularly brought up as truth.

Agreed. The Cambridge part was probably added to make the paragraph seem more respectable. Funny thing is, it isn't necessary at all. Given that people have done Ph.D. level research on the first and last letter word recognition, any scrambling of the word (leaving the first and last letters fixed) should have been sufficient to make "their" point.

Again, sorry about using the particular one with the Cambridge reference. The point wasn't the validity of the paragraph, but the validity of the word recognition.