<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>‘Contraction’ Resolution</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/msdnmagazine/archive/2011/03/10/10139350.aspx</link><description>I recently wrote a blog entry about the use of contractions in MSDN Magazine . First, I want to thank the many, many responders to that – I’m amazed, and quite happy, that so many of you took the time to tell me what you thought. I love how engaged you</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>Telligent Evolution Platform Developer Build (Build: 5.6.50428.7875)</generator><item><title>re: ‘Contraction’ Resolution</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/msdnmagazine/archive/2011/03/10/10139350.aspx#10148677</link><pubDate>Fri, 01 Apr 2011 10:41:27 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:10148677</guid><dc:creator>Franck Fibleuil</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;I think there is an issue that has not been considered so far: the all too frequent grammatical errors whereby conjugated verbs in contracted forms are used instead of possessive pronouns.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The &amp;quot;your&amp;quot; becoming &amp;quot;you&amp;#39;re&amp;quot;, the &amp;quot;its&amp;quot; making way for &amp;quot;it&amp;#39;s&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;their&amp;quot; brutally abandoned in favour of &amp;quot;they&amp;#39;re&amp;quot;, all contributing to crippling the meaning of the text and making it far less pleasant to read.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;It is hard to predict how the pattern of grammatical horrors would change in the face of a &amp;quot;no contractions&amp;quot; policy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Surely, some confusion could arise where people holding forms like &amp;quot;you&amp;#39;re&amp;quot; to be possessive pronouns will wonder why such a common grammatical tool (pronouns) is banned from MSDN. Maybe others are not entirely clear on what is meant by a contraction, and will carry on murdering the language regardless.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In any case, as stated before by some commentators of the previous blog entry, it is a let-down not to use formal language in formal documents, so maybe the way forward is to be contractions-happy in online blogs, but contractions-savvy in the magazine and MSDN library.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=10148677" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item><item><title>re: ‘Contraction’ Resolution</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/b/msdnmagazine/archive/2011/03/10/10139350.aspx#10139457</link><pubDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2011 20:17:52 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:10139457</guid><dc:creator>Michael Paterson</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Long live contractions!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://blogs.msdn.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=10139457" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>