Talk:Apostrophe

math

should we make a section about an apostraphe in math? y'know, the f' (f prime). it represents transformed coordinates, derivatives and more. (this is probably a stupid idea) Jacob851215.64 (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not a stupid idea. It is sort of described at the section Apostrophe#Typographic form, where there is a bit about the typist's apostrophe being used for other things but there is no explicit section about common misuses (such as instead of the prime symbol. I'll have a look later on to see where it might fit nicely. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Done, see Apostrophe#Informal use in measurement and mathematics. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC) revised after another editor shortened the subsection title. --09:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Seldom if ever?

In an edit note, Peter M. Brown wrote that he wanted to add that the use of the typewriter apostrophe and double quote for prime and double prime is common because they are available on standard keyboards; the typographic characters are not, so they're seldom if ever used for prime and double prime. So first of course that would need a citation, per WP:OR. Second, anyone writing serious in math notation is most likely to use TeX, LaTeX, or equivalent, which supports the prime symbols natively. As the article notes, MsWord etc is very likely to auto-correct 23° 5' 10" to 23° 5’ 10”, which is going to look very amateurish indeed. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about that, I greatly prefer the "autocorrected" one, in that the quotes are slanted similar to the prime symbols, and I doubt I am alone. The problem is that "autocorrect" can sometimes change the apostrophe into the left curly apostrophe, which does look wrong. 23° 5‘ 10“ That was why I attempted to change the text, as I suspect quite a few people have no problem with the typographic characters being used and even rely on their word processor to do this conversion. It is still the wrong symbol though.Spitzak (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The "possessive" case needs to be corrected all over Wikipedia (including this article)

So, as this very article points out, calling the 's a possessive case is misleading, since it is indeed the genetive case. And where is this written? In the session which explains that the apostrophe may be used to indicate the... possessive case. I thought it would be as easy as changing the section title, but there are links everywhere to possessive case pages and sections in Wikipedia.

Wikipedia, of course, isn't the arbitrer of right and wrong. But if there are credible references that the use of "possessive case" nomenclature is an error, i.e., if it is not considered a name that is already recognized, it should be changed, and a possessive case section should only point out that it is a misnomer applied to the genitive case. ~victorsouza (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

According to the lead of Possessive,

The concepts of possessive forms and genitive forms are sometimes conflated, although they are not exactly the same. The genitive form, which does not exist in modern English as a productive inflection outside of pronouns, [...]

so you may well be right but the question has become what our American friends would call moot. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, everybody knows what possessive case means and nobody has heard of genitive case. We're a popular encyclopedia serving the general public, and if possible we use commonly-understood terms in preference to technical ones. Herostratus (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

' with figures: ' = foot and 2' = inch

' combined with figures: Now I see in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inch

For length indications ' is foot and 2' this is inch.

And as I know, for degree indications on the globe ' is minute and 2' is second.

And as I use it for time indications also ' is minute and 2' is second.

Michael Palomino, history - sociology - natural medicine --2A02:1210:4EC1:B900:ECAB:4BE1:2948:4128 (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

No. ′ (prime) is foot or minute and ″ (double prime) is inch or second. See the linked articles. Where are you getting your alternatives from?

Peter Brown (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Dester13

Hi there Peter M. Brown. Why are you trying to revert Apostrophe edits while i’m putting a single quote reference and lessly a quotation mark. I just needed because i definitely heard “Single Quote” in Google Translate and i can saw a [‘] lessly differ from a quotation mark. Please reply to me now. Dester13 (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Dester13: please clarify. "Lessly" isn't an English word. By "i can saw", do you mean "I can see"? What are you asking Google Translate to translate?

What's this about a reference? You didn't introduce a reference into the lead sentence.

As I noted in my edit summary, context determines whether ' or ’ is an apostrophe or a single quote. I don't know of any satisfactory account, in Wikipedia or elsewhere, as to just how context does this.

Per MOS:STRAIGHT, "Curly quotation marks and apostrophes are deprecated on the English Wikipedia." Please don't use them, though you may mention them.

Peter Brown (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay then. I know, but in Google Translate, i type [‘] and it heard “Single Quote” rather than apostrophe. So that’s why I have to add it sure Peter Brown. Answer? Dester13 (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a peculiarity of Google Translate. According to Wikipedia, Translation "is the communication of the meaning of a source-language text by means of an equivalent target-language text." Words and sentences have meaning; punctuation marks have functions, not meanings, and the output of a translation algorithm when the input is meaningless is therefore unpredictable. Another translation website might respond "apostrophe". Yet another might respond "Zimbabwe".

You're still using curly quotes, as in “Single Quote”. So long as you're contributing to Wikipedia, don't.

Peter Brown (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Dester13, the symbol has (at least) two uses: apostrophe and single quote. So which one is "correct" depends entirely on context. On computer systems, it has at least two code points, one for the curved form (used in most books) and another for the straight form (as seen on computer keyboards and typewriters). Wikipedia uses the straight form because it is easier to type. (See also prime symbol, which looks fairly similar but is not the same.) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I swear sure both Peter Brown and JMF. I just heard "Single Quote" in Google Translate when i typed ['] so that's why is a term for apostrophe. See, i went to Google Translate and i typed ['], and then i listen and it just heard "Single Quote". That's why i have to put the term on Wikipedia. For examples like other punctuation marks: Quotation Marks ["] is also known Quotes after hearing it on Google Translate.

So that's why we're here to discuss. Reply? Dester13 (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Google translate is misleading you. You need to use a source that is actually reliable, like a book on English grammar. MrOllie (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Google Translate is not wrong but it has only given you one of the two correct answers. Translate is too simple for a case like this, it prefers full sentences where it can work out the context to give to most likely answer. What you is need is a "AI" bit, something like Google's Bard (chatbot) at bard.google.com. Give it this request: What is the name of the symbol ' the observe that it offers you three answers. The first says that it is an apostrophe, the second says single quote and the third agrees with the first. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Getting back to the point, ' can represent various things, including the apostrophe and the single quote. But this article isn't about the ' character, it is about one of its uses, namely the apostrophe. There's another article about its other main use as a single quote. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that the issue may be that ' redirects to Apostrophe, not to ' (disambiguation). Because that is its most common use, especially in en-us. And the article does have a hat note saying that other uses exist. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC) clarfied --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Rosbif73 and MrOllie. Google Translate and Bard (chatbot) are beside the point as they are not reliable sources and anyhow are irrelevant to the wording of the lead sentence of the article.

I have altered the redirect target of '. Peter Brown (talk) 15:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay then all users. So here the first answer of ['] is commonly Apostrophe which we all name it, and second answer is Single Quote that i just recently heard it from Google Translate and it's a term. So four of users you should heard it too by enter it's website, type ['], then listen to it to see if you're right. And then we will think about putting a term on the Apostrophe article. Clear sure?

Dester13 (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No. Your use of Google Translate is original research, which cannot be used in Wikipedia. The same goes for 𝕁𝕄𝔽's use of Bard (chatbot). This remains true even if the rest of us get the same result. Peter Brown (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Peter's analysis and conclusion. I mentioned Bard only to help Dester13 understand that the symbol has two meanings in English. This article is about apostrophe as a concept, it is not about the symbol. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Got it then both. Apostrophe was the main term of [‘], but when i typed [‘] in Google Translate, suddenly it just heard “Single Quote” and that’s another term for Apostrophe in Wikipedia. That’s not a problem. I swear and agrees to me. Dester13 (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No! "Single quote" is NOT "another term for Apostrophe in Wikipedia" or elsewhere. Stop referring to Google Translate, which cannot assign a determinate meaning to an isolated symbol that is used in various ways. (It's unfortunate that it even tries.) As 𝕁𝕄𝔽 noted, this article is about the apostrophe as a concept, not about the symbol. You have no basis for claiming that "single quote" is a name for the apostrophe. Peter Brown (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

• For those of us still anchored here on planet earth, can someone explain what in tarnation you bunch are talking about? EEng 00:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Okay then EEng. I will stop thinking about that. Dester13 (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  @EEng: Dester13 keeps changing the lead of various articles in an attempt to clarify other terms supposedly meaning the main subject of an article. It ends up usually being inaccurate or incorrect. Fork99 (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  We know that already sure Fork99. Dester13 (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  No, but we don’t know why you keep relying on Google Translate. Language translation is a very very very complex process. Before the rise of artificial intelligence, it was almost impossible for a machine to accurately translate an English word like ‘ball’ into other languages. It could mean a ‘formal dance party’ or ‘a physical object that is usually round-shaped that is used in playing various sports’. With this in mind, please stop relying on Google Translate, and instead either learn the language or ask a native English speaker whether a particular term actually means something or not. In fact, you could use this very talk page to ask something like “I’m not a native speaker of English, but does the term X mean Y? If I’m correct, could someone please clarify this for me in the article?” Fork99 (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

  Okay then. Dester13 (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Possesive decades

Droughts and floods will be 2020's lasting memory?

Droughts and floods will be 2020s' lasting memory? 2001:8A0:5E59:9801:DC2F:AD61:7A73:67AF (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)