People, I love ya but there is no such word as VINYLS. It's "VINYL", no 's' at end.

From what I've seen here and elsewhere, the people saying vinyls are overwhelmingly native English speakers.

 

There are obviously contexts in which use of an apostrophe to form a plural is desirable for clarity. This was not the case in the examples originally under discussion and raising of the issue of capitalisation in headlines is a red herring. The two concerns reasonable people have in relation to more general use of the apostrophe in forming plurals of, let us say, "things which are like words but are not exactly words" are that (a) it increases the likelihood of confusion with the primary uses of the apostrophe in forming possessives and contractions and (b) it has the potential to cause people who do not understand why an apostrophe is being used to form a plural in a specialised context to then apply this usage more generally in contexts where it is clearly inappropriate (e.g. plurals of common nouns).

With regard to Safire: he was extremely fond of leveraging descriptivism to engage in what we would now call trolling and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

 

Why does this make it an error?

Why does this make it an error?

These might be arguments for preferring the unapostrophed plurals in a style guide. They are hardly arguments for saying that the apostrophed plurals are incorrect.

 

don't blame me, blame freetranslation.com. i knew how to say it, not spell it.....


btw, i love venice. i'll have to ask my uncle the place we stay. it's such a neat place, run by catholic nuns.

 

Haha. Glad this was brought up. Some education was in order.

I saw someone's post on a website once that said something along the lines of, "Every time someone says 'vinyls', a kitten dies."

 

This place is actually the only place I have ever seen the word vinyls used. I just assumed the people that used it didn't have a very good grasp of the language. I am going to start using it cause my moms said it was ok.

 

Possible.... I picked it up from peoples across the pond

 

Same thing with 'info' - it's not 'infos', people!

 

It is, in French. "Vinyle" is now attested in our Robert dictionary (Académie française) as a noun (other than the chemical acceptation) to designate vinyl records for short, consequently in plural accordingly ("collectionner, acheter des vinyles", etc.).

I haven't checked in a recent Webster's. There might be a possibility there...

 

Yes. I was on lunch when I posted before, but that is definitely part of my theory.

Yes. I was in a hurry, and couldn't think of the word "possessive" at the time I wrote it.

 

I saw the pattern on other audio forums before this forum's inception. I hate that it sounds like I am stereotyping, but in my experience, the ones who did this were usually those who's first language is not English.

English has many seemingly illogical rules that are sometimes difficult for those for whom English is not their first language speakers to understand. Do you not agree with this?

 

OK, I think I'm getting a better idea of where you're coming from. I guess to me, the logical reasons for preferring a usage are generally enough to convince me that the non-preferred usages could be called "errors." But you have made a very valid point, that just because something is awkward, illogical, and potentially confusing (especially when better alternatives are available), it isn't necessarily an "error." (Although your earlier claim that the "no apostrophe is necessary or wanted" phrase amounted to a rule may contradict this slightly, as that sounds like a usage "preference" as well). For the logical reasons that I and others have stated--and which I obviously don't find "dubious" in the least--I am hesitant to accept your claim that these are not errors in the slightest. Yet, I have to admit that you have made a very compelling case, and I may have to re-think my position on some of these questions.

 

I take it he meant "those whose first language is not English."

 

I'm 18 and happen to be a terrible speller but yet still can't stand the use of vinyl in place of the correct terms, record or LP. I was into records back before the slightest whispers of a resurgence were even heard through the grape vine, so I am pleased as punch to be excluded from the new fashionable trend of "buying vinyl."

 

But, it's a possessive pronoun, so it's correct. It's one person's language.

 

Well, stuff like weirdo's is qualitatively different from stuff like CD's. I have no problem with calling usages errors, but we need some sort of objective concept of correctness. Is the construction used by native speakers? And yeah, there are lots of different subdialects and levels of formality, so let's ask this: Is the construction used by respected writers in edited prose? Plurals like weirdo's don't get published except in a tiny number of cases. Plurals like CD's appear in print constantly, and are the former house style of The New York Times. Big, big difference.

I think RubenH's point is that "those for whom English is not their first language speakers" is ungrammatical; it should be "speakers for whom English is not the first language" or, more simply, "those whose first language is not English" or "non-native English speakers" or something. But your meaning was clear, anyhow. And you used whom correctly.

 

There's a new Led Zep album out? Cool!

 

Your point about "correctness" vs logic is absolutely sound and I was foolish to have entered into a correctness-oriented discussion.

As a non-American, of course, my exposure to what from my perspective are the orthographic barbarities of The New York Times and doubtless many other reputable publications (use of full stops after honorifics, for example) is fairly limited, and the extent of the apostrophe-related usages to which you quite correctly refer has probably passed me by.

 

CD's, 1960's, etc. do seem to be a largely North American thing. Though they also turn up to a surprising degree in Australian government publications.

 

More accurately, the comparison would be beter suited with polyvinylchloride (PVC). And since they never (to my knowledge) used polycarbonate to make a record, the comparison would be better associated with polystyrene (PS). Or PWC, ...Polly-Wanna-Cracker ...."B'RAAAACK!" (Obama?) (BO)...

Fred Clemens

 

Ah! he should have said what he meant.

 

you can instantly tell when someone is new to vinyl when they call records "vinyls". it sounds atrocious.

 

This thread is awesome. I love this place, where folks debate plurality, usage, and spelling for eight pages.

I don't call records "vinyl", because I don't own any. I do call records "records" or "albums" even though all my music is digital. Calling them "CeeDees" (without an apostrophe) just sounds ridiculous.

Carry on.

 

That's a mighty broad brush you are using. Have you read the whole thread? I've been buying records for 35 years, with a break in there, and I've said vinyls for years.

Am I dumb? I guess it depends on who you ask....

 

This is also why I continue to hang out. The idiot/savant ratio is about right.