Talk:William Rainsborowe

message: Apostrophes mark the plural of numbers.  This is so that a number is not read as having the letter as part of it.  For example, the difference between a 350is and a group of 350is and the difference between the 90s and the years of the many 90s is the apostrophe.  This point of grammar has been unquestioned for generations.  However, just recently some vulgarians, primarily in the business community and primarily in the United States, found themselves simply incapable of typing an apostrophe, and so they began doing their plural numbers and acronyms without the apostrophe.  Some few style sheets began allowing this, but with a stupid rationalization -- "when unambiguous."  Well, that's worse rather than better.  At present, United States practice is split over the matter.  Many rhetorics and handbooks still teach the apostrophe, and some do not.  Some professional journalists require them (e.g. the New York Times), and some do not.  Wikipedia has no rule on the subject, as it allows either one.  I do not allow either one.  I teach my own students to use the apostrophe, and I use the apostrophe, and I will not have these removed as "bad."  Such blind and ignorant edit summaries betray profound intolerance and foolishness.  Latin abbreviations are, according to most contemporary style sheets, not italicized if unambiguous.  I regard "flourio" as still somewhat unknown in its expansion but "exampli gratia" as not.  Therefore, one italicizes "fl." but not "e.g."  One italicizes "inter al." but not "etc."  Help, if you can, but do not meddle with acceptable and proper writing, please.  Geogre 20:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to get involved, but will note that "1630's" grates on me because I can't help thinking that the 1630 is a noun owning something. I'm too used to possessive apostrophes... Carcharoth 15:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, I never go around and insert them, but begar if I'm going to have people "correct" the "mistake" of obeying grammatical rules by employing them.  The apostrophe indicates the loss of a letter.  Hypothetically (see his genitive) they were inserted as possessives in English because grammarians falsely believed that all genitives had been "his" or "es."  Hence the possessive usage of the apostrophe is, in fact, still supposed to indicate a contraction.  In the case of plural numbers, it would be "[all number] + s" with the apostrophe eliding each number.  Geogre 15:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: <sigh> - come on guys! I can be as pedantic as the next person, but why not spend time looking into the exciting history of puritan colonies, instead of quibbling over style issues? Carcharoth 17:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though if you insist, try here for "the jury's still out on apostrophizing decade names". Carcharoth 17:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And a more relaxed viewpoint is here. The point about "I like 1980's' music" is valid, though I tend to rewrite in cases like that to say "I like music from the 1980s". Another example would be: "The fashion of the 1930's was to dress in a silly way" - or "The 1930s fashion was to dress in a silly way". Note the use of adjectival nouns, as opposed to possessive apostrophes... Carcharoth 17:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apostrophes

message: I was looking into the Spanish connection, and found this book on Providence Island, "the other Puritan colony". Rather distressingly, our article on Providence Island fails to mention its brief history as an English colony. I'm off to remedy that and then link the Rainsborowe brothers to that island and the conflict with the Spanish. Carcharoth 15:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you review what I added to San Andrés y Providencia Department#History? I'm afraid I may have plaigiarised the source a bit, though I rewrote it slightly I couldn't resist the comparison to New England! Carcharoth 16:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The comparison is apt.  If I were to investigate and write about it, I'd conclude that the absence of a Cotton Mather is important.  Additionally, though, the hardship and isolation of New England meant the ability to build a happy little us & them world.  The relative (relative) little money to be made in farming there, the absence of gold, and the distance to the nearest supplies of gold and furs, meant that there wasn't so much temptation to start pirating.  The topographical explanation of the US has long held that the south had slaves because it needed them, because it ran on plantation -- massive farms with labor-intensive crops and such harsh conditions that no free worker would volunteer -- while the north did not because its soil and climate forbade tobacco and cotton and therefore did not need indentured or enslaved workers.  Well, you go off Nicaragua, and you're right in sugar cane, tobacco, and cotton territory, where fortunes can be made easily, and the Spanish treasure ships sail right past you.  What's a puritan to do?  Geogre 19:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Spanish connection 

message: Spotted at article about Jamestown and remembered this article. But I had the wrong town. He ended up in Charlestown. Oh well. Here is the article anyway. Carcharoth 20:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong town 

message: In the beginning it states that his name could be William Rainsborowe *or* Rainborowe, without the s. There is a few that have it without the 's' and most with the 's'. Should we keep it consistent with the 's', because that is the one in the title?
20pargyle (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate name