Apostrophe abuse or not?

[Isabella]

So while we were travelling a few days ago, I saw a huge sign over a car yard that said JOES AUTO'S.

I exclaimed that it was blatant apostrophe abuse, and I wondered that the signmaker didn't pick it up.  My dh on the other hand, said: wouldn't that be correct because it's a contraction (I looked it up, and contractions can be a shortened version of ONE or two words, so he got me there) of AUTOMOTIVES, and therefore the apostrophe is to denote the missing letters.  It actually got me wondering, so I'm asking for the hive's expert opinion!

 

Thanks! :)

[Mrs Mungo]

First, "Joes" should have an apostrophe, yes? Automotive is an adjective, not a noun. So, it doesn't get a plural "s." If I was making the sign, then it would say "Joe's Auto Shop" (if they are repairing cars/selling parts and "auto" is short for automotive) or "Joe's Autos" (if they are selling cars and "auto" is short for automobiles because that is a noun).

[Sun]

I vote apostrophe abuse. Auto is commonly used as a word by itself, and I doubt anyone who would drop the apostrophe that should be in "Joe's" is going to use one to denote the missing letters from "automotives"!

 

[Dandelion]

The accepted shortened version of the word automotives is simply "autos".  No apostrophe needed, and adding one in this case is grammatically incorrect.

 

Plus, "Joes" is missing an apostrophe (should be "Joe's).

 

Massive sign fail. 

[Isabella]

Haha...I was too busy noticing the unnecessary apostrophe to notice that JOES should have had one!  Of course. 

 

And yes, I meant AUTOMOBILES, not automotives....I think my body is awake, but my brain stayed in bed!

 

Good, I'll tell my Dh! :)

[Word Nerd]

Blatant apostrophe abuse! Joe's Autos would be correct. Autos isn't a contraction; it's simply a shortened form of automobiles.

[Isabella]

Blatant apostrophe abuse! Joe's Autos would be correct. Autos isn't a contraction; it's simply a shortened form of automobiles.

 

Thanks!

 

In fact, though, a contraction IS simply a shortened word or words. 

[Mom-ninja.]

Thanks!

 

In fact, though, a contraction IS simply a shortened word or words. 

 

A contraction is a shortened word that combines two words together. He's = he is or he has; it's = it is; would've = would have

 

 

[Isabella]

A contraction is a shortened word that combines two words together. He's = he is or he has; it's = it is; would've = would have

 

I thought so too, but then in this context - after my husband suggested that may have been the thinking behind that apostrophe - I looked it up, and read the definition of a contraction as a shortening of one or two words.  With that in mind I replied as I did to the post above. 

 

Looking it up further now, I see that it's only a contraction when some of the internal letters are removed from one or more words, and the beginning and end letters are used.  So it doesn't necessarily need to a combination of two words (which is what I'd always thought, too).

 

So auto is actually classed under abbreviations, and more specifically 'clipping' where the beginning or ending of a word is removed, and the remaining part becomes and accepted shortened form on it's own.

 

I'm learning new stuff every day!! :)

[skeeterbug]

In hymns you might see the word heaven shortened to heav'n to make it fit the line in the song. Would that be an example of a one-word contraction?

[Word Nerd]

Thanks!

 

In fact, though, a contraction IS simply a shortened word or words.

E'er and ma'am are one-word contractions. Auto is not.

[Kathryn]

Cannot=can't

 

Contractions can be one word, but you're taking from the middle, not the end.

[Cinder]

Woe unto that sign maker. And woe unto Joe for allowing such sign to be installed.