5 ms·

"Lot's" is not the plural of "lot". The apostrophe indicates possession. The plural of "lot" would be "lots". I'm not trying to be a dick, but this is a particu

by jm4 17y ago

"Lot's" is not the plural of "lot". The apostrophe indicates possession. The plural of "lot" would be "lots". I'm not trying to be a dick, but this is a particularly obvious mistake and one that I see here and elsewhere many times every day. I'm sure I'll get modded down because no one likes a grammar nazi and this is completely off-topic, but I'm going to justify my complaint by pointing out that elementary grammar mistakes do not look good online, in professional correspondence or in VC applications.

die_sekte 17y ago
I think it's time to rethink "lots". If lots of people are using "lot's" as a plural of "lot", then why shouldn't that be valid? Language, after all, is not static and if enough people use a new word or a new construction, the language changes.
- jm4 17y ago
  We're veering off topic here, but it seems like a legitimate debate. I do believe language should not remain static, but I don't believe that rules should be changed just because enough people are breaking them through ignorance. Also, in this case doing so would introduce an inconsistency that would lead to even more confusion. True, we have many of them already in the English language, but the behavior of the apostrophe is mostly consistent. It indicates possession except when it conflicts with a contraction of the same form, in which case the possessive drops the apostrophe, i.e. "it's" and "its". You could say that the current rule is already inconsistent and confusing, but imagine for a moment that an apostrophe could be used to construct an acceptable plural form and think about this example: "The lot's dimensions are..." Now, "lot's" is both plural and possessive. Is that one lot or multiple lots with the same dimensions? The current rule may not be perfect, but it is clearly less ambiguous than the alternative.
- zimbabwe 17y ago
  Wow, you got downvoted hard. I disagree with you because in this case, it's a matter of semantic structuring. The language should be free to change, but only when it doesn't conflict with how the language functions. In this case, "lot's" would kill how parts of the language is interpreted, and changing it would offer no clear structuring for the two various "lots" usages. There are some exceptions - I, for instance, don't mind people who use abbreviations like "u" since they make sense contextually, and while something like "lol" is overused I think you could make an argument saying "lol" has become a usable verb or even a noun in the English language ("lolled" is also very fun to say out loud). In your case, however, I've got to disagree, though I don't know why people saw fit to downvote you that hard. Perhaps it's because you opened with a definitive-sounding statement before raising arguments in support, though that seems a bit kneejerk.
  - die_sekte 17y ago
    I'm tempted to say that HN is ruled by grammar nazis (or prescriptive linguists, if you prefer) who don't respond particularly well to the fact that language evolves which was what I was trying to say. About the semantic structuring: Valid point, but people (who are ultimately responsible for language change) tend to ignore such things.
Tichy 17y ago
I actually knew that, but that's what happens with hasty comments :-( Thanks for the clarification.
- jm4 17y ago
  I know what you mean. I think grammar can be contagious and I increasingly find myself having to stop and think about what I'm writing.
scott_s 17y ago
"Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you.": http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- jm4 17y ago
  I've read the guidelines before and I just read them again. I didn't think I was baiting anyone or inviting anything. Mere mention of modding is not an invitation.
  - scott_s 17y ago
    I interpret "I'm sure I'll get modded down" as baiting.
    - jm4 17y ago
      Ok, fine. Your interpretation. Do you mind explaining yourself? It's not so clear to me how it could be interpreted that way. That was by no means an invitation. It was a way of saying that I felt what I was saying was likely to be unpopular.
      - scott_s 17y ago
        The juxtaposition makes it like a dare. It's a passive-aggressive way of saying "go ahead and downmod me - I dare you." I think even mentioning your perception of the popularity of what you're going to say is bad form. Say what you want to say; your perception of its popularity is irrelevant.

by jm4 17y ago

die_sekte 17y ago

I think it's time to rethink "lots". If lots of people are using "lot's" as a plural of "lot", then why shouldn't that be valid? Language, after all, is not static and if enough people use a new word or a new construction, the language changes.

jm4 17y ago
We're veering off topic here, but it seems like a legitimate debate. I do believe language should not remain static, but I don't believe that rules should be changed just because enough people are breaking them through ignorance. Also, in this case doing so would introduce an inconsistency that would lead to even more confusion. True, we have many of them already in the English language, but the behavior of the apostrophe is mostly consistent. It indicates possession except when it conflicts with a contraction of the same form, in which case the possessive drops the apostrophe, i.e. "it's" and "its". You could say that the current rule is already inconsistent and confusing, but imagine for a moment that an apostrophe could be used to construct an acceptable plural form and think about this example: "The lot's dimensions are..." Now, "lot's" is both plural and possessive. Is that one lot or multiple lots with the same dimensions? The current rule may not be perfect, but it is clearly less ambiguous than the alternative.
zimbabwe 17y ago
Wow, you got downvoted hard. I disagree with you because in this case, it's a matter of semantic structuring. The language should be free to change, but only when it doesn't conflict with how the language functions. In this case, "lot's" would kill how parts of the language is interpreted, and changing it would offer no clear structuring for the two various "lots" usages. There are some exceptions - I, for instance, don't mind people who use abbreviations like "u" since they make sense contextually, and while something like "lol" is overused I think you could make an argument saying "lol" has become a usable verb or even a noun in the English language ("lolled" is also very fun to say out loud). In your case, however, I've got to disagree, though I don't know why people saw fit to downvote you that hard. Perhaps it's because you opened with a definitive-sounding statement before raising arguments in support, though that seems a bit kneejerk.
- die_sekte 17y ago
  I'm tempted to say that HN is ruled by grammar nazis (or prescriptive linguists, if you prefer) who don't respond particularly well to the fact that language evolves which was what I was trying to say. About the semantic structuring: Valid point, but people (who are ultimately responsible for language change) tend to ignore such things.

Tichy 17y ago

I actually knew that, but that's what happens with hasty comments :-( Thanks for the clarification.

jm4 17y ago
I know what you mean. I think grammar can be contagious and I increasingly find myself having to stop and think about what I'm writing.

scott_s 17y ago

"Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downmod you.": http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

jm4 17y ago
I've read the guidelines before and I just read them again. I didn't think I was baiting anyone or inviting anything. Mere mention of modding is not an invitation.
- scott_s 17y ago
  I interpret "I'm sure I'll get modded down" as baiting.
  - jm4 17y ago
    Ok, fine. Your interpretation. Do you mind explaining yourself? It's not so clear to me how it could be interpreted that way. That was by no means an invitation. It was a way of saying that I felt what I was saying was likely to be unpopular.
    - scott_s 17y ago
      The juxtaposition makes it like a dare. It's a passive-aggressive way of saying "go ahead and downmod me - I dare you." I think even mentioning your perception of the popularity of what you're going to say is bad form. Say what you want to say; your perception of its popularity is irrelevant.