http://www.englishforums.com/English/EslGeneralEnglishGrammar-Questions/Forum12.htmAsk your questions on grammar and get your sentence checked. We answer lots of different types of general English grammar questions here. <font color=red>DO NOT post paragraphs and compositions here. Post them in our <a href="http://www.englishforums.com/English/EssayReportCompositionWriting/Forum9.htm"><b>Essay, Report and Composition Writing Forum</b></a>.</font>enXMOD (Build: 3615.39139)http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/2/mczn/Post.htm#943738Fri, 16 Oct 2009 01:34:57 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:943738Anonymous0http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/2/mczn/Post.htm#943738http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-943738.xmlBy definition a contaction is contracting multipletwo words into one. The apostrophe is placed where the &#39;missing&#39; letter(s) would have been. Untrue. A contraction could just as easily be employed in a single word, mostly in the middle of the word, but sometimes also in the beginning word. For example, ma&#39;am, li&#39;l, and &#39;cause, for madam, little, and because, respectively.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/mczn/post.htm#690004Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:27:21 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:690004Anonymous1http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/mczn/post.htm#690004http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-690004.xmlPerhaps the sign belonged to a man named Sandwich and he was merely exercising a need to point out that it did indeed belong to him.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/mczn/post.htm#676196Fri, 20 Feb 2009 00:51:56 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:676196Anonymous2http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/mczn/post.htm#676196http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-676196.xmlBy definition a contaction is contracting multipletwo words into one. The apostrophe is placed where the &#39;missing&#39; letter(s) would have been. In your example of Sandwiches - it would not be a contraction because there is only one word involved. It seems to me someone improperly using a possesive apostrophe.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/mczn/post.htm#59713Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:44:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:59713xpi0t0s3http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/mczn/post.htm#59713http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-59713.xmlNice one MrP - hadn't thought of those. Point conceded.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/mczn/post.htm#59695Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:44:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:59695MrPedantic4http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/mczn/post.htm#59695http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-59695.xmlIt might be Mr Sandwich's shop. Or even the Earl of Sandwich's. Lords tend to use only their surnames. Pedantichttp://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/mczn/post.htm#59679Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:44:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:59679xpi0t0s5http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/mczn/post.htm#59679http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-59679.xmlWell, I got bored with people nicking perfectly good nicks, saxman, jazzman, jazman (I thought dropping a z would make this one unique), even saxmaestr0 all got nabbed by other people, so a few months ago I decided to use an old password instead of trying to think up yet another new nick (and I don't like the nick+number format; being saxman195623478568953 really doesn't do much for me; besides, you still have the same problem: people have to remember the number). xpi0t0s is formed from the Greek for Christ (I'm a Christian), then picking English letters that resemble the Greek ones (e.g. chi looks a bit like an X), then because some Unix systems require digits in passwords I replaced the o's with 0s. In most cases people don't need...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/mczn/post.htm#59672Sun, 25 Jan 2009 01:44:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:59672MrPedantic6http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/mczn/post.htm#59672http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-59672.xmlHello Xpi0t0s I have some sympathy with your line of argument, and think your friend should be soundly scolded. To judge by the road signs local councils put up in my area, contraction is pretty much a free-for-all. It seems to depend on the point at which the sign-maker suddenly realizes he's about to run out of space. I'm not sure where you'd find an authoritative set of rules for casual contracting, though, so am reduced to making up my own: 'Necessary': 1. The contraction should not resemble an existing non-contracted word. 2. The contraction should not be ambiguous (e.g. t'p'cal can = typical/topical). 3. A word's first letter may not be replaced. 'Desirable': 4. Vowels should be replaced in preference to...http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/mczn/post.htm#59664Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:44:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:59664Mister Micawber7http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/mczn/post.htm#59664http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-59664.xmlHi xpi0t0s (what a handle!-- how do you expect anyone to remember it?) Of course, there are plenty of special purpose contractions, but only a few generally recognized ones . Still, we are free to make any contractions we wish in informal written English; the only measure is whether the communication has been clearly transmitted. In the instance you cite, however, it is not. "Sandwich's" is incorrect as a contraction of "sandwiches" for the same reason that "sh't" is incorrect as a contraction of "shot"-- it is open to misinterpretation.http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/mczn/post.htm#59641Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:44:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:59641Casi8http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/mczn/post.htm#59641http://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-59641.xmlIt's known as the grocer's aspostrophe: sandwich's = sandwiches. The apostrophe (') represents the vowel "e". If the writer/speaker wasn't sure if s/he should add -es or -s to form the plural, s/he found an ingenious way around it by using an apostrophe instead, and that process wasn't just pulled out of thin air, either. It follows the pattern for forming contractions: do not => don't (the apostrophe represent the vowel "o") I am => I'm (the apostrophe represents the vowel "a")http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/mczn/post.htmSat, 25 Apr 2009 00:44:53 GMT946f00bb-57d3-4b7b-a9a2-059b5341af52:59632xpi0t0s9http://www.englishforums.com/English/WhatRulesFormingContractions/mczn/post.htmhttp://www.englishforums.com/English/comments12-59632.xmlNB: please set pedantic mode to full. I'm not asking for general vague feelings, but for justification or rejection of a hypothesis from specific (and preferably quoted) rules. So, the question is: can contractions be formed freely? If there is no l'ss of cl'rity, and the res'lt'ng st'm'nt is not amb'g's, can they just be created at will? For context: I was discussing with a friend an obviously incorrect sign outside a shop yesterday that read "Sandwich's." We both agreed that this is not the correct plural form of the noun "sandwich". I then engaged pedantic mode, and pointed out that it could be correct on the grounds that the plural of sandwich is not sandwichs but sandwiches, and that the apostrophe could be indicating the...