<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;Why&#8221; the &#8220;Inverted&#8221; Commas?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chinadroll.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=1500" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chinadroll.com/?p=1500</link>
	<description>My Life As a Blog</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 06:30:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: cecilie</title>
		<link>http://www.chinadroll.com/?p=1500#comment-5464</link>
		<dc:creator>cecilie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:27:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chinadroll.com/?p=1500#comment-5464</guid>
		<description>In Norway they call them ANFØRSELSTEGN but this particular blog is written in English, so: Inverted commas. No I don't do american English except "dude."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In Norway they call them ANFØRSELSTEGN but this particular blog is written in English, so: Inverted commas. No I don&#8217;t do american English except &#8220;dude.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anon</title>
		<link>http://www.chinadroll.com/?p=1500#comment-5463</link>
		<dc:creator>Anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:53:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chinadroll.com/?p=1500#comment-5463</guid>
		<description>First:

"Inverted commas?"  Really?  Do they not call them "quotation marks" or "double quotes" in Norway?

' = single quote
" = double quote

'/" = quotation marks

Second:  Misusage of the apostrophe-s construction probably comes from modern people combining languages that really have no business being combined, such as in your example, and not knowing how to pluralize them.  For simple readability, they go with an improper (but easily understood) usage that keeps the challenging word (gwai lo, in our example) in it's simplest, least likely to be misinterpreted form.

I thought all gwai lo's knew that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First:</p>
<p>&#8220;Inverted commas?&#8221;  Really?  Do they not call them &#8220;quotation marks&#8221; or &#8220;double quotes&#8221; in Norway?</p>
<p>&#8216; = single quote<br />
&#8221; = double quote</p>
<p>&#8216;/&#8221; = quotation marks</p>
<p>Second:  Misusage of the apostrophe-s construction probably comes from modern people combining languages that really have no business being combined, such as in your example, and not knowing how to pluralize them.  For simple readability, they go with an improper (but easily understood) usage that keeps the challenging word (gwai lo, in our example) in it&#8217;s simplest, least likely to be misinterpreted form.</p>
<p>I thought all gwai lo&#8217;s knew that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cecilie</title>
		<link>http://www.chinadroll.com/?p=1500#comment-4995</link>
		<dc:creator>cecilie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:29:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chinadroll.com/?p=1500#comment-4995</guid>
		<description>A case in point: One of the less charming replies to my Cantonese series on YouTube:

"fucking white foreign guia lo's should just stfu, give up, and fuck back to america. they dont belong no where near asia. "

"White foreign guia lo's" as opposed to local ones, I presume. But "lo's" what? What??? No. I expect, nay, DEMAND an object after apostrophe s!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A case in point: One of the less charming replies to my Cantonese series on YouTube:</p>
<p>&#8220;fucking white foreign guia lo&#8217;s should just stfu, give up, and fuck back to america. they dont belong no where near asia. &#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;White foreign guia lo&#8217;s&#8221; as opposed to local ones, I presume. But &#8220;lo&#8217;s&#8221; what? What??? No. I expect, nay, DEMAND an object after apostrophe s!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cecilie</title>
		<link>http://www.chinadroll.com/?p=1500#comment-4994</link>
		<dc:creator>cecilie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:23:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chinadroll.com/?p=1500#comment-4994</guid>
		<description>Ha ha! "Killed" eh? So that meant "man given a stern talking to, then slapped"? He probably didn't mean allegedly. Too many syllables. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ha ha! &#8220;Killed&#8221; eh? So that meant &#8220;man given a stern talking to, then slapped&#8221;? He probably didn&#8217;t mean allegedly. Too many syllables.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Baroness Radon</title>
		<link>http://www.chinadroll.com/?p=1500#comment-4992</link>
		<dc:creator>Baroness Radon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:03:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chinadroll.com/?p=1500#comment-4992</guid>
		<description>I care!  Once I worked for an editor who used to write headlines like:
Man "killed" in assault
I like to think he meant to imply "allegedly" but I doubt it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I care!  Once I worked for an editor who used to write headlines like:<br />
Man &#8220;killed&#8221; in assault<br />
I like to think he meant to imply &#8220;allegedly&#8221; but I doubt it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg</title>
		<link>http://www.chinadroll.com/?p=1500#comment-4990</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:25:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chinadroll.com/?p=1500#comment-4990</guid>
		<description>Hey Cecilie

We "all" have things that "annoy" us about language. My "current" pet "peeve" is people who "over-use" the word 'literally'. 

"It was so funny, I literally died."
"I literally laughed my pants off."
"I literally can't wait a second longer."

Sigh.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Cecilie</p>
<p>We &#8220;all&#8221; have things that &#8220;annoy&#8221; us about language. My &#8220;current&#8221; pet &#8220;peeve&#8221; is people who &#8220;over-use&#8221; the word &#8216;literally&#8217;. </p>
<p>&#8220;It was so funny, I literally died.&#8221;<br />
&#8220;I literally laughed my pants off.&#8221;<br />
&#8220;I literally can&#8217;t wait a second longer.&#8221;</p>
<p>Sigh.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
