Talk:Apostrophe

Typography High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Writing systems Mid‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

' 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

For those of us still anchored here on planet earth, can someone explain what in tarnation you bunch are talking about? E Eng 00:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then EEng. I will stop thinking about that. Dester13 (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]
We know that already sure Fork99. Dester13 (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Okay then. Dester13 (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possesive decades

"Droughts and floods will be 2020's lasting memory" refers only to the one year 2020?

"Droughts and floods will be 2020s' lasting memory" refers to the whole decade? 2001:8A0:5E59:9801:DC2F:AD61:7A73:67AF (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Put the word "the" before the decade to indicate a decade. "2020's floods" are the floods during the year 2020. "The 2020's floods" are the floods during the decade 2020-2029. Spitzak (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Loch

The explanation of Breton c'h has recently been changed from like ch in Loch Ness to like ch in Scots Loch Ness, and again to like ch in English and Scots Loch Ness with an edit summary "Properly pronounced that way in English, too". Indeed it is, but how many non-Scots are aware of that? In my experience, the majority of English speakers outside Scotland pronounce Loch as if it were Lock. I propose changing back to just mentioning Scots... Thoughts? Rosbif73 (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lots and lots of non-Scots are aware of that, just perhaps not that many of them in America. I oppose to changing back to just mentioning Scots, since obviously far, far fewer English speakers have any idea at all of how anything in Scots is pronounced, and finding out is harder than finding out from any English-language dictionary how to pronounce (the preferred, first-listed way) loch in English. We could perhaps also mention the ch in German achtung, but you're right back where you started: most Americans are apt to say "aktung". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current version that uses the term Scottish English seems to me to be the best compromise. Most English people at least recognise that they are gutterally challenged and are aware that "loch" and "lock", as the Scots say it, are not the same. The fact that few can reproduce it (any more than they can a French R) is neither here nor there. For Americans, again the fact that we have taken the time and space to make a distinction is enough. After all, we all just speak British anyway. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced of the level of awareness of the Scottish pronunciation of ch in the general population of England (and have no idea of the level of awareness in other non-Scots), but I agree that using the term Scottish English is a good compromise. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 15:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]