3 ms·
Not to take away from your interesting comment, but it's not written "70-ties", just "70s" - the first one reads as "seventy-ties", which is odd :) EDIT: Updat
by coderholic 9y ago
Not to take away from your interesting comment, but it's not written "70-ties", just "70s" - the first one reads as "seventy-ties", which is odd :)
EDIT: Updated "70's" to "70s" because of the great child comment that links to an article showing that while 70's is technically correct it's much more usual to exclude the apostrophe.
- adrianmonk 9y agoAs long as we're exploring punctuation, the apostrophe in that case is valid and correct, but it's growing obsolete as it becomes more normal to write "70s". https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/9199/do-decades-ever-get-apostrophes https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/9199/do-decades-ever...
- jessriedel 9y agoI think it's beyond "more normal", right? https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/13631/is-an-apostrophe-with-a-decade-e-g-1920-s-generally-considered-incorrect https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/13631/is-an-apos... Almost all the style guides recommend no apostophes on the end. Rather, apostrophes are reserved for numerals that are lefts out, i.e., '60s or 1960s, but not 1960's.
- adrianmonk 9y agoI guess it depends on how you define acceptable usage. Only a generation ago, it was widely taught to include the apostrophe. Even then it wasn't universal, but it was one recommended way to do it. For example, I have on my bookshelf "Webster's NewWorld Dictionary, Third College Edition" (copyright 1994) which says on p. 1560: "An apostrophe is used ... to show certain coined plurals. ... Figures may take either an apostrophe and an s or an s alone. 1990s or 1990's". It also mentions a rule about using apostrophes with plurals of abbreviations if the abbreviations include internal periods, and it gives the examples of "Ph.D.'s" and "ICBMs". I guess internal periods have fallen out of favor too. Anyway, the overall point here is it was taught this way relatively recently, and I don't think language moves so fast that what was taught a generation or two ago isn't considered acceptable usage. I'd call it correct but archaic.
- jessriedel 9y agoYep, agreed. Thanks for the info!