Quotes are "Special"
Feb. 26th, 2012 10:46 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tabular_rasaAm I crazy that whenever I see quotes around individual words, I assume they are intended in either an ironic or sexual context? Apparently a lot of people put quotes around things to give them emphasis, but then my mind always reads them in a sleazy voice. In my head, a delicious burger and a "delicious" burger are two totally different things.
As another example, I recently saw this contest posting: Whoever guesses the amount of tornado watches issued for the Continental US by 7/31/12 (including those already issued) will win a "special" prize.
I'm sure it's just, like, a poster of a tornado or something, but what ran through my head is the prize must either:
a) involve semen
b) be really unpleasant, like the contest judges will personally see to it that a tornado touches down on my house
(And of course "special" in particular has ableist connotations, like maybe this prize would only appeal to the developmentally disabled).
I don't know why people have to use quotes in these circumstances. Isn't special prize, without the quotes, appealing enough? (Or in my case, more appealing?).
As another example, I recently saw this contest posting: Whoever guesses the amount of tornado watches issued for the Continental US by 7/31/12 (including those already issued) will win a "special" prize.
I'm sure it's just, like, a poster of a tornado or something, but what ran through my head is the prize must either:
a) involve semen
b) be really unpleasant, like the contest judges will personally see to it that a tornado touches down on my house
(And of course "special" in particular has ableist connotations, like maybe this prize would only appeal to the developmentally disabled).
I don't know why people have to use quotes in these circumstances. Isn't special prize, without the quotes, appealing enough? (Or in my case, more appealing?).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-02-26 07:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-27 05:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-26 08:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-27 06:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-27 01:12 pm (UTC)And, of course, throw in the whole "sorry state of our educational system" portion, which you already know.
On the apostrophe, there is legitimate reason for "1960's"...technically, it is an abbreviation (as compared to writing out "nineteen sixties"), and the rule (that, apparently, no one actually KNOWS anymore) is that you use an apostrophe when pluralizing an abbreviation in the same sense that you use it to make a contraction; it denotes missing letters. (This is also why it's '60s and not 60s, not that most people actually do that; the apostrophe, of course, standing in for the missing "19".) However, this has fallen out of popularity among even grammarians, largely because of the confusion (how do you tell the difference if you need to show possession?) it has caused, so that NOW 1960s would be considered proper usage in many, if not most, grammatical circles.
Now, as they say, you know. :)
no subject
Date: 2012-02-27 06:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-27 07:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-27 01:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-27 05:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-27 06:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-10 06:33 am (UTC)I've always thought 1960's was one of these special cases, but I've never been 100% sure...
no subject
Date: 2012-02-27 06:06 am (UTC)Yeah, I'm sure that's what it is. I hear you on the plural 's, along with your/you're and they're/their/there. Some of these are so common they've practically become mainstream grammar -.-
no subject
Date: 2012-02-27 06:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-27 06:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-27 04:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-27 06:08 am (UTC)