I DREAD writing articles like this because they prompt pedants to pay particular attention.
But I shall persevere because that's the kind of man I am: stupid. And, no, I don't have a problem starting sentences with "but". Or "and". Or, indeed, "or".
I witter thus after witnessing a spirited correspondence on a mid-market newspaper website. The headline prompting the discussion was typical: "East Cambridgeshire town offers Briton's best quality of life." An expat, eschewing the usual obsession with immigration and socialism, wrote in to proclaim: "Briton's should be Britain's."
The expat was joined by a native who, eschewing the usual obsession with immigration and socialism, added: "Briton's??? Pitiful, please get a proofreader!" Yes, perhaps the proofreader could remove some of these question marks. And interestingly, or indeed otherwise, initially I typed "profreader" there.
A London wummin then added: "It should either be Britain's or Britons (without the apostrophe)." That sounded about right. But a Finnish reader demurred: "The error the proofreader/journalist has made is in placing the apostrophe before the 's', which is singular and not after the 's' for the plural, thus it should read, '- town offers Britons' best -'"
Zatta fact? Technically, it's arguable, but for all intents and purposes it's bilge. Meanwhile, a Cambridgeshire reader characterised the headline's error as "greengrocers' apostrophe". And the debate ended with another expat expostulating: "There should be an apostrophe in the headline at all actually." Hmm, a little irony there, I shouldn't wonder.
All this over a mark that possesses the power to be owned before by one and afterwards by two or many. Incidentally, if you find any mistaiks in this peece, I've only one thing to say: good. Two things: shut up.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article