Printer-friendly version
Forums:
Taxonomy upgrade extras:
Sorry, but this persistent error -- I think I've seen it a dozen times now over the past week here -- is really making me lose my composure.
(Seriously.)
"It's", with an apostrophe, is a contraction for "it is". Just like "he's", "she's", and "they're".
The possessive form for the word "it" is "its", with no apostrophe. Just like "his", "hers" and "their".
Enough said, I hope.
Eric
Guilty as charged
Grammar never was one of my strong points though, but saying that, I have never let spelling or grammar get in the way of a good story and there are many fine authors on here who write work I love.
J
Unless there is truth in my heart, my every effort is doomed to failure....
That which does not kill me only serves to delay the inevitable. My blog => http://jaynemorose.wordpress.com/ <= note new address
Pet Peeves
I used to get all up in arms about this.
Your, You're. There, Their, They're. etc. Then I encountered stories written in n3tS34k and counted myself lucky I was able to read anything in the English language at all.
Nudge them in the right direction, but don't get upset about things like this. Or maybe it would be helpful to write up a page with the most common errors and how to write them correctly. Kind of like what you have done with *it's*. I'm sure I've seen a few pages on the internet like that. Perhaps Erin would be kind enough to set aside a little space for the grammatically challenged with a page like this, or perhaps a link to a page already developed.
I know I occasionally make these mistakes, but they are simple typos, so I rarely say anything unless it is obvious that the writer actually can't tell the difference between the uses.
(wink)
Lili
http://lilithlangtree.tglibrary.com/
~Lili
Write the story that you most desperately want to read.
The Elements of Style
Is available for free online. No writer should be without it.
http://www.bartleby.com/141/
Mr. Ram
Sticky!
There! Now someone *sticky* that thing somewhere, pweeze!
Thank you Mr. Ram!
Lili
http://lilithlangtree.tglibrary.com/
~Lili
Write the story that you most desperately want to read.
From OUP Edpress News
That one's one of my random .signature blocks. :-)
Amy!
I think somebody here already posted
I think somebody here already posted about common errors and gave a URL for an excellent site.
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/errors.html#errors
I know I've spent some time browsing the site, simply because I am appalled by the grammatical errors I encounter every day in the news media. It's (grin) horrifying!
Some days you're the pigeon, some days you're the statue
There was a nice thread about this...
...some time ago.
Top Ten Easy Corrections
Many of the most common errors that creep into writing can be discovered by simply searching for them, often with the exact case option turned on. Note that one finds places to consider carefully, not guaranteed errors, and that your own manuscripts may not have particular sorts of errors. Everyone is different. Here are a number of the most productive searches:
1. ” Said with a space between the close quotation mark and the capitalised Said.
Rationale: Said sentence fragments usually start with a capitalised Said, or an equivalent word like “Commented” or “Shouted”, but said is (or should be) the most common. For example:
or
Indeed, any sentence which starts with a capitalised verb after an ending quotation mark should be suspect, although not all are mistakes. If you use "typewriter" quote marks, look for one of those followed by capitalised Said instead.
The preceding mistakes should be corrected by combining the two sentences into one, properly set off with commas or other comma-like punctuation:
or
Note that question marks and exclamation marks do double duty as comma equivalents so, in the second example, all one has to do is to change the initial capital letter marking the beginning of a sentence to a lower-case letter.
Don’t make the mistake of using stuffy “said bookisms” in elaborate attempts to avoid the words “said” and “asked.” “Hello,” he expostulated. “Who are you?” she probed.
In the first place, they’re confusing. People don’t talk that way, and may not recognise the proper nuance in ambiguous words like “probe.”
2. ly followed by a trailing space or full stop.
Rationale: Adverbs, which usually end in -ly, cloy when used to excess, and can make one’s prose sound breathless and giddy when used with abandon. They may be useful in dialogue, but not often in description, and their use in proximity to dialogue should be avoided if there’s any danger of making the passage sound like a Tom Swifty: “I failed my electrocardiogram,” said Tom heartlessly. Words ending in “-ingly” are especially vulnerable, “Help! I fell off the boat,” said Tom swimmingly.
If you use the right word to begin with, and place it with precision, you don’t need many adverbs at all.
In dialogue, they may “actually” be useful, “especially” in American dialects, but a very few go a “really” long way. Use a few for flavour, but tone it down for publication. What one might hear without wincing is far more glaring to the eye, so you don’t need “nearly” as many to achieve the same effect. In this paragraph, every quoted adverb should “probably” be deleted.
Another use of adverbs is to insert “weasel” words like “probably” or “clearly” that dilute the meaning of a sentence by foisting off either the responsibility or the opinion on someone else. If it’s clear, you don’t have to say so, and “probably” just gives you an excuse if things don’t work out the way you say they will and make you (or the character) sound fussy or unsure.
3. ness with a trailing space.
4. ise or ize with a trailing space.
Rationale: Turning perfectly good words into adjectives and/or verbs by adding stupid suffixes has become a trend in modern times, but it makes your writing sound either semi-literate or bureaucratic and perhaps even pompous.
Sometimes it’s reasonable to “finalise” a task, but most people just “finish” it.
Sometimes, “hopelessness” is a reasonable feeling, but “losing hope” is both easier to say and read.
5. is or was when not used for special emphasis, or when the emphasis is thrown away.
Rationale: “To be” words express essential qualities, “I think, therefore I am,” “She is beautiful.” Telling the reader anything is less powerful than showing them, so you should try and say something else at the same time you describe these Platonic ideals, if nothing else, or use better words to start.
The first example doesn’t say anything useful to the plot, and doesn’t show motivation or character, so what’s the point? The others show how the raw fact of a particular woman’s beauty affects at least one character directly. The effect doesn’t have to be positive.
7. Character names and nicknames when used to directly address the character. These are harder because there will be a lot of them.
Rationale: First, make sure that character names are properly set off with commas when used to address anyone.
is a very different sentence to
as is
to
and you’ll confuse your readers if you can’t keep the punctuation straight.
If you don’t have a copy of The Oxford Style Manual (UK), New Hart’s Rules (UK), The Elements of Style (USA), The Chicago Manual of Style (USA), or something very like them, get one. Writers own writer’s tools, just as carpenters own carpenter’s tools, and you can’t really be either without the proper accessories. You can easily find “pre-owned” copies of either at very low cost. The language doesn’t change that rapidly that an older edition becomes useless, even in twenty or thirty years.
Mind you, some of the newer editions are worth having. The latest Chicago Manual of Style, for example, contains extensive advice on writing for the Web, as well as notes on current vocabulary and usage, but few will quibble over a few decades otherwise, as much of the new material relates to esoteric etiquette regarding the proper citation forms for non-fiction publications on the Web.
That’s what these various manuals are, in the end, “etiquette guides” meant to ensure the smooth flow of interaction between authors and readers, guides which may vary by locale, or even be partially ignored, in different settings, just as proper behaviour at a formal dinner in New York is different to eating a takeaway on a park bench in London, or to lounging beneath a palm tree in Tahiti with a picnic basket. But some things aren’t done in any setting involving food, and I’m sure you can think of your own examples.
Second, make sure that your characters’ names don’t inadvertently change during the story. This is very common. Write them down and keep a “cheat sheet” handy, together with a short description. That way, “tall blond Tom” doesn’t mysteriously turn into “short dark Terrance” in the middle of the story.
8. ing with a trailing space.
Rationale: Participles are almost always weak, and may fool you into thinking that a sentence fragment has a verb, which a participle is not. Not every word ending in -ing is a participle, so you have to look carefully, but eliminate as many as possible. They’re usually afterthoughts, which require the user to revisit the sentence just read and figure out what it really meant, always a bad omen that foretells irritation, impatience, and eventually ennui.
9. Cliches and crutches. These are hard, because you have to find them once on your own. Every writer has words that “come easily” to mind, and the danger is that they come too easily, inserting themselves where they don’t belong, or into too many places where they might belong but become boring. The same goes for habitual phrases, which can be anything.
If every villain “scowls” or “sneers,” we don’t have the opportunity to discover that “one may smile and smile and be a villain” nor to notice that your story may be approaching melodrama.
Consider using imagery rather then mere descriptive words. If a character is powerful, show him as he might be shown in the cinema, backlighted by an onrushing locomotive on a railway platform, or in front-row attendance at a bullfight, allowing the visual scene to seep into and colour the character rather than having a disembodied voice tell us about him.
If you have a decent editor, you could turn every space into a carriage return, tidy up any extra spaces, and then sort them. If you look down the list of all the words you use, some “runs” of repetitive words may stand out from the crowd. Pay particular attention to words that are flagged by your spell checker, as they may be slang terms or jargon that should never appear in the mouths of random characters. If you’ve added such words to your dictionary to spare yourself the trouble of thinking about them, reset your dictionary immediately. If you think that “Bheer is the One True Ghod!” and don’t think the spellings are somewhat odd, you’ve either attended far too many fannish conventions or spend entirely too much time in on-line chats. Unless your characters all share exactly the same background and interests -- in which case few will care what the story is, since there’s only one character -- they won’t all be using the same oddball vocabulary.
10. Hardest of all, because it calls for honesty. Keep track of your own mistakes and look for things you know you get wrong a lot, whether it’s mistaking “your” for “you’re”, using “who’s” instead of “whose”, or consistently misspelling “silhouette” (one of several spellings I only managed to memorise through deliberately internalising a deliberate mispronunciation).
If you have the luck to find an editor, carefully make note of everything the editor said and put it on your list. Go through previous stories and see if the same problems occur there.
11. “ (Quote marks) So there’s one more than ten. I lied.
Rationale: Too much dialogue is a crutch. Don’t let your characters talk too much for no particular reason, and don’t let them turn into mouthpieces for the author, saying things that the author should describe.
Neither do we need to hear unending chitchat that doesn’t show us anything interesting.
First drafts are the place to look over your work and be quite ruthless in cutting away the noxious weeds that have insinuated themselves into the pellucid clarity of your words — including words like “pellucid” — and all the useless dialogue.
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Epiphany
I just realized that one of my difficulties in learning grammar, via books and write-ups on the internet, is that the tool used to provide the lesson (grammatically correct English) is one that I don't understand. More specifically, I think I am weak on the foundational components of grammar and thus each such writing seems like the advanced level. I am also a big time why guy and struggle with how arbitrary some of the documented rules seem.
This is likely why I am more likely to learn a lesson from a edit provided by someone like yourself. It provides a better context for understanding.
And that leads to one of my goals with this writing thing. In fact, I think that is the goal of many writers at this site, to become better at crafting a story. I don't believe that it will happen with every story I write, some of my stories are just meaningless little purges of an idea, but I do believe I am a better writer than 3 years ago.
English grammar is only loosely related to rules...
Speaking any language is an art, mediated by deep structures in our brains of which we're almost completely unaware. We can all of us talk fluently, for hours and days at a time, exchanging conversations with hundreds of people sequentially or together, and never once have to refer to any specific rule. Indeed, most of our "mistakes" come through overcorrection, in which we imagine that we're ignorant of how we "ought" to speak and apply (or misapply) a dimly-remembered "rule" handed down from some authority figure.
If you listen to yourself, listen to the people around you, you'll have what those people actually sound like down perfectly.
The usual problem is setting those *true* words down, as spelling and punctuation is heavily rule-bound, unless one attempts to portray a "dialect," an undertaking fraught with danger, since all such attempts assume that one speaks perfectly, and all the people who count speak just like you do.
Q: How do they spell "oil well" in Texas?
A: "Oil well."
Q: How do they *say* "oil well" in Texas?
A: "Oil well."
They look at the same letters and words as everyone else, but *say* them differently. So do you. Try writing down what *you* sound like when you say a simple phrase. It can't be done without using specialist tools like the International Phonetic Alphabet or a tape recorder and quickly turns into a condescending exercise in one-up-manship to do it to anyone else. It's easier to write that a character speaks with an accent and leave it at that. Let the reader supply their own answer to what a Texas "drawl" sounds like, because you *cannot* fairly write it down.
There are very few dialectical differences which have associated spelling differences, like the general American "aluminum" contrasted with the British (and elsewhere) "aluminium". People from Boston don't spell "idea" as "idear", but simply follow internal rules which insist on a "rhotic" intrusion into specific combinations of sounds. We *all* do similar things, like insert at least one glottal stop into the interjection, "Oh, oh." It's not "spelled" that way -- indeed, English has no letter for the sound -- but it doesn't "sound" right if that little catch in the throat is missing.
Like any folk art, there are regional differences in our expression of language, but by and large, if we are native speakers of English, we all carry pretty much the same mental "map" of what English is. It's only our spoken "brush strokes" that vary.
In many English dialects, "your" and "you're" *sound* different to each other, so it's easy to tell them apart, but in others they sound exactly the same, so one has to memorise the entire difference, including the spelling.
I strongly suspect that the people who have the most trouble with distinguishing the spellings speak a dialect in which they're perfect (or almost perfect) homonyms, and that those who find the misspellings most jarring are those who *hear* them differently as well.
For spelling, there's no substitute for memorisation, and most of the niggling punctuation rules are the same, except that once one understands how *most* punctuation works, you can *hear* it if you speak your words aloud and have the knack of speaking well.
We started out with very little "spelling," and no punctuation at all, so all these things are fairly recent inventions.
WEUSEDTOWRITELIKETHIS, but then some genius had the insane notion that putting spaces between words would help make the process of reading easier. Then they invented upper and lower case, and other punctuation.
So now, we write like this.
There's very little extra information contained in the spaces, the capital letter, and the punctuation, but they're like the conductor's flourishes with a baton before an orchestra, they add emphasis and timing to the raw "notes" we see on the page.
All in all, we have it easy. In Chinese, one has to memorise what words sound like as well as what they look like. In Hebrew, there are no distinctions between upper and lower case, and one usually leaves all the vowels out, SRT F LK THS. (Not strictly true, since there are sometimes *indications* that particular vowels have been left out, but close enough -- S.RT .F L.K TH.S)
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Written accents
"It's easier to write that a character speaks with an accent and leave it at that. Let the reader supply their own answer to what a Texas "drawl" sounds like, because you *cannot* fairly write it down."
This advice always annoys me because it has no wiggle room. There are appropriate uses of written dialect but advice that says there are none is taking a tool away from writers. Learn to use all the tools, including written dialects. And this is a pretty modern attitude, as the world has shrunk and there have come to be only a handful of standard spoken English dialects, people want to stamp out the knowledge that other dialects exist.
How can you write a Barbaduan character into a Manhattan comedy without spelling, "Mon," with an o? It just doesn't make sense to say doing that is wrong. If the character doesn't sound like he's from a Carribbean island, no one is going to believe it. And how can your write dialog for a believable Texan if you spell "y'all" as "you all". Makes no sense. People from the Iron Range don't say, "You bet your," they say, "you betcha."
Learn to do it right and your dialog and characters sparkle. Overdo it and it gets annoying. Leave it out completely and you are leaving your story flat and lifeless.
But the logic that you can't fairly represent a spoken dialect in text so you shouldn't try is not logic, it's rationalization of a predetermined position.
Some of the greatest writers of English literature knew how to use this tool. And some of them, like Mark Twain, even knew how to overuse it and get away with it. Don't try to take tools away from people who need them with some tired piece of academic justification, probably originated by someone who had never written a line of dialog.
Sorry, Puddin. While a lot of what you say above is true and some of it useful, saying that people should completely avoid representing dialect in text is not good advice.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
I agree Erin
Definitely not great advice, especially if you have any connection to script or screenplay writing. Dialogue with an accent in it should be written the way you mean it to be spoken. As a dramaturg, director, or actor; getting something written in standard English (the 'dialect' of English spoken by American actors that is supposed to be a 'pure' and 'neutral' as possible) with a note to speak it in a certain dialect does a couple things.
One, it tells me that the playwright was too lazy to do the research into the dialect themselves. That means they probably didn't get the phrasing or slang right, either; in order to get it right, I'm going to have to spend a lot of time researching the exact time/date/region of the play before we can put it on its feet.
Two, initial looks at the rhythm of the piece are going to be off; because dialect, when it's learned and added, will change the flow of dialogue significantly. That is true for prose read off the page as well.
Ultimately, the most important thing about dialect is about consistency. And that's the main reason people recommend you reference a dialect and don't actually write it. It is hard work ensuring a character's dialect is written consistently if they do more than appear briefly. Add into that the fact that no two characters are likely to have the same intensity of accent and it makes sense. But to say "don't do it." I disagree completely.
Dialect
There's a difference between using local verbal "tics" like "y'all" or "you betcha" which are authentic productions of local language, and not "dialect" in the stage sense. The Canadians add "eh?" to the ends of certain phrases, but again, this isn't dialect but language. Our brains perceive them as language, even after long familiarity, where dialect becomes internalised after being long enough immersed in it, because it is only sounds.
In scripts, as in all writing, what's important is the rhythm and word choice of the characters, and no scriptwriter attempts to capture the exact vowel placement and intonation of the characters. If you have an Australian say, "G'day, mate," you don't have to muck up the dialogue with "Guhdai, mite," much less /gə'daı/ ....
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
While that still works, it's
While that still works, it's obsolete. The current URL is:
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/
It's the only usage site I've found on the web that's worth bookmarking. The biggest difficulty is that you've got to know something looks suspicious in order to know to look it up.
Apropos of that, a good, current usage dictionary is almost essential once you get past the common errors. I use Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage. It was $16.99 before discounts, and it's worth it's weight in whatever your precious metal happens to be today.
As far as what an associate once called "demon words", that is words that you always misspell, the only thing I've found that works is to use the search and replace function of your word processor, and look at every instance before deciding whether you want to replace it.
Xaltatun
One might add a few other possessive forms...
Who's / Whose
*Who's duck is this?* is an error. Who's is a contraction for "Who is".
It should be "Whose duck is this?"
You're / Your
*You're hair is on fire!* is an error. You're is a contraction for "You are".
Exactly none of the pronouns take an apostrophe to form the possessive, as they're ancient and important enough to be declined.
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Isn't there a third form?
ITS' ? (That is "i" + "t" + "s" + apostrophy.)
Annette
No.
"Its" is already a possessive form. It doesn't need any decorations, although a tasteful string of pearls might be nice if one could find a really tiny choker to drape around the "t".
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Peeves
I think my biggest peeve is seeing the word defiantly written instead of definitely. I see this quite often. My other thing that took a little while to get the hang of was a British way of saying certain things that Americans say. These would be for instance, 'was stood' instead of 'was standing' or 'was sat' instead of 'was sitting', car park instead of parking garage or parking lot.
I had a chance to work with a young lady from England(Caroline)for a few months back in 1984 when I was in the US Navy working at the Naval hospital in Jacksonville, Florida. She was in the USN also. Some of the things that came out of her mouth when we were talking where sometimes quite hilarious. The thing I really remember the best from her was that I am a rotten sod. I guess it was because of the way I used to joke around with her. Don't get me wrong. It was never crude or boorish.
Have a nice weekend everyone. I am just getting over the flu. Just the regular type, not swine flu. Although I remember back in 1976 when I was leaving Memphis to go home on leave before my next duty station. They told us that we needed the swine flu shot before we left the base. I almost had them convinced that I couldn't get the shot because I am Jewish. I mainly didn't want it because I knew I would come down with that version of the flu. Unfortunatley along came a doctor who said that being Jewish wouldn't cut it as he was also Jewish and already had the shot. Long story short(not), by the time I got home 6 hours later, I had a full blown case of the swine flu. What a miserable 14 day leave. I haven't had a flu shot since then.
Marco
I had the same problem with Navy Flu shots
But that was back in the 60s.
I have not had the same problem with newer flu shots, those I've had since 1993.
Some time you want to get out of something, you might want to try a current flu shot, not that those available now will stop today's swine flu.
Holly
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
Holly
Here are a few that drive me up the wall.
Lose-you can lose a wallet, you can lose a purse.
Loose-you can turn something loose, you can even be loose.
Waste-paper one throws in a trash basket.
Waist-what we all wish we had a smaller one of, the middle of your body.
Heel-the back part of the bottom of your foot or shoe.
Heal-what you do after you are hurt, hopefully.
Was/Were-We WERE friends for years, not we WAS friends for years.
Hugs 'n love,
Catherine Linda Michel
As a T-woman, I do have a Y chromosome... it's just in cursive, pink script.
I'm not finshed , but I'm working on a list of 800 Homophones
those words that sound the same or almost the same, but are spelled differently and have different meanings, being discussed here.
Actually, the list has almost 800 homophone sets, but I am not satisfied that all of them are well defined. Also, many only have one definistion, when I want to give give multiple definitions. ( Some even had, where I found them, facetious definitions such as 'feet - Look down'. )
Anyone who wants a copy of it as it stands at present, give me an email address I can send it to, and I'd be happy to do so.
Holly H Hart
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
Holly
Rein vs Reign
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhgggggggggggggggh !
And Desert vs Dessert
Kim
Isle v. Aisle
You walk down one. You can walk the circumference of the other, if it's small enough. The confusion is generally one way, with Aisle getting spelled Isle. Haven't seen the opposite here.
Draw v. drawer. This is, I suppose, a regional homonymn. I've seen a number of authors, typically from the UK, represent the movable parts of a chest of drawers as "draws". I suppose that's from the way it's pronounced locally, but it's not how it's spelled.
It's regional in the US, too
Draw for drawer is sometimes heard in the northern tier of states, especially around the Great Lakes. I've even heard, and seen, chest of draws. I've never heard a Canadian say draw for drawer, though.
Southerners pronounce drawer as if it had three syllables in a way that is impossible to represent phonetically without reference to special symbols. :) On the other hand, some will say "drawers" meaning underpants, in one syllable with an r-sound that almost sounds Scottish. :)
- Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
fazed
why does everyone write phased when they mean fazed? argggghhhhh.
not as think as i smart i am
Its a shame, the education system!
I agree, Erin!
And here's another persistent one that bugs me:
'We're' is a contraction of 'we are'
but
'Were' is a supernatural carnivore.
;-)
Michelle
And then, there is adding an apostrophe for plurals
This is almost as common, and though I try to look for it as an editor, I find myself doing it, too, once in a while. At least, this is an always wrong problem
But you are right, Eric, this mistake is common, but two of your examples are understandable, because they are exceptions to the general rule on creating
possessive pronouns.
Most schools do not teach, or at least, do not emphasize this, and every time I have anything in print on the subject, it only covers some of the exceptions, just implying that there are others, which is no help at all.
.
.
As far as your example, 'their', you should probably have used 'theirs', still with no apostrophe.
Like his, hers, and ours, 'theirs' is a possessive pronoun, a word that replaces a noun.
Their is a different type of exception, an adjective, a word that describes or qualifies a noun.
There are many things like this that make English difficult to learn as an additional language.
Much of this stems from the fact that English as a language is flexible, and is constantly adding words, phrases, phrasing, and yes, rules from other languages.
With English being spoken all over the world, the rules become different in different parts of the world. Sentence structure and spelling are different.
What is correct one place may not be acceptable to a purist in other parts of the world, or would not have been acceptable at a different time.
Look at Shakespeare's writing. Yo many of us, it is unacceptable, yet that was the English of the time less than 400 years ago.
So give the writers here a break, and let their editors try to catch most of them.
I can almost guarantee that unless we use the Find' or ;Search ' feature is a word processor to look at every usage of it's amd/or its, we will miss a few of them, too.
At least, I know I have, and will again.
Holly
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
Holly
Greengrocers' apostrophes
Greengrocers' apostrophes drive me mad! I really ought to carry a red felt pen around with me to mark up every one I see, and write next to it, in large text, "This person is a cretin!"
But even though, in Britain, greengrocers are an almost lost trade, their souls live on. So it's no longer just in "apple's" and "orange's" that we see greengrocers' apostrophes; they are also used for things like "panini's" and "roll's".
Like Holly, I feel that getting "its" wrong is a lesser crime, as you can actually use logic to justify it. If John's pen is the pen belonging to John, then it would be logical for it's top to be the top belonging to the object to which you are referring.
Not to mention...
Greengrocer's quotes, sometimes called "mendacity quotes."
"Fresh" Fruit
"Just Picked" Tomatoes
There are some who believe that these quotes are used for emphasis, as paired *asterisks* might be, but I tend to think that the quotes are ironic.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/acheposrophe.gif
Cheers,
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
Approstrophe for plurals: exception
Holly said:
"This is almost as common, and though I try to look for it as an editor, I find myself doing it, too, once in a while. At least, this is an always wrong problem"
There's actually an exception to this one, at least if you can believe the author of "Eats, shoots and leaves."
She'd say:
"Mind your p's and q's" is correct.
The exception is that small words (none over three letters or so) that can't possibly be possessive can take an apostrophe for a plural.
Xaltatun
P's and Q's
The p's descender distinguishes it from the b as the q's tail sets it off from the d.
"Possible" is as possible does.
Lynne Truss is not universally admired among linguists, and many of her "rules" are actually British exceptions or general sloppiness. Believe it or not, and despite the fond belief of many in the homeland of our common language, many Americans are quite a bit more punctilious about "proper" English usage than the Brits are. One of the Inspector Morse stories, for example, has Morse (an Oxford man) solving a crime by correctly identifying the writer of a forged note as "illiterate" because he'd spelled a word with the crude "ise" ending instead of the proper Greek-derived "ize," an admirabe habit (in the eyes of Inspector Morse) the Americans largely retain where the general British public have followed the crowd into slovenly imprecision.
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
I know this is out of context, but since writing the above,
I just came across the following in a story, 1633, by Eric Flint and David Weber, in talking about an alternate world country where a 7 mile diameter part of year 2,000 West Virginia found itself in 1632 Central Germany, and the way both gGerman and Americans adapted linguisticaly.
"Some people used English, some German, some-more and more-were effectively bilingual. And already, in the slang and patois which was beginning to emerge everywhere, Jesse thought the first signs of a new language were perhaps discernable. He knew enough history to know that "English" itself had come into existence that way-a largely Germanic language, in its basic structure and everyday vocabulary, which had over time been transformed by the influence of the French brought by the Normans. A language, as a wag once put it, forged by Norman men-at-arms trying to seduce Saxon barmaids.
It’s not given to anyone to have no regrets; only to decide, through the choices we make, which regrets we’ll have,
David Weber – In Fury Born
Holly
1633 is a sequel to 1632. Both are available free from Bean Books Free Library - http://www.baen.com/library/defaultTitles.htm
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
Holly
Picky about free stuff?
The authors aren't getting paid, and the site is providing this content to us for free, to boot. I can handle reading around grammatical errors -- you get what you pay for, after all.
We editors aren't paid either.
Thought I sometimes tease my authors here at BCTS, that I want 15% of their royalties. we all should know what 15% of nothing is.
I hope, though, that my help is worth more than what I charge.
I will never ask for royalties on anything posted here, even if it becomes a dead tree books for sale here or elsewhere.
It’s not given to anyone to have no regrets; only to decide, through the choices we make, which regrets we’ll have,
David Weber – In Fury Born
Holly
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
Holly
Why not ?
In the software world, there is such thing as Freeware ( yes Free. ) If you are using Firefox as a browser, you are getting it gratis. However, it does not stop people from complaining if it does not work.
Developers who voluntarily do the work producing that software still want their product to be bug free and professional to boot, so why should that standard not be applied to writing ? If an author wants to present something I assume they want to produce something to be proud of.
Never take for granted what is considered free, don't denigrate it because it is free. Value it for what it is as the producer, quality controller and consumer - WHAT IT BRINGS TO YOU.
Kim
It's pride, I pride myself in putting out my best work
I feel better when I've done everything I can to make sure there are no errors in work that I put out for others to read.
It also has to do with giving something back to the community that has given me so much; support, love and entertainment.
I - KNOW - my story writing skills are nowhere near the caliber of some of the authors here or anywhere else for that matter.
The one thing I can do, though, is recognize bad grammar, almost from a mile (1.6 km) away. Thank the Goddess for spell checkers, BUT they don't correct for word usage, that is where a decent editor comes in. Many of my pet peeves have been mentioned above. "Then" and "than" is one that I've seen abused, to the point in some stories that they are used EXACTLY backward. "Then" is ordinal, as in "First #1 THEN #2" or sometimes in referring to the past as in "Back then".(The future is after "now" so is implicit in the first explanation.) "Than" is ALWAYS the recipient of a comparative, as in "bigger THAN" "more THAN" "less THAN" "It is BETTER to buy a quality appliance THAN a cheap knock-off" Notice the comparative and "than" may be separated.
There is one word usage that, although perhaps not wrong, grates on my nerves, "implicit". It derives form the word "imply" - which means "to mean" - usually in a subtle way. I have seen many writer use phrases similar to; "I trusted him/her implicitly." Now trust can be implied by other actions, but the meaning the writers were trying to convey, I'm sure, is; "I trusted him/her COMPLETELY." (...with my life. - ...with my wife. - ...with my future. - ...with my virginity. - etc.) Using words incorrectly implies, to me, that the writer is trying to impress me with "ten-dollar" words, when simpler words would be much clearer and not seem foolishly pretentious.
"My two cents worth."
with love,
Hope
with love,
Hope
Once in a while I bare my soul, more often my soles bear me.
Implicitly...
Actually, no. 'I trust him implicitly' is perfectly proper, just not quite as common. If you examine the first meaning, you can see how this usage evolved. Think of the phrase, 'it goes without saying....' There are some things so obvious, implicit in the context of a relationship or action, that one doesn't have to say anything at all for it to be clearly understood. "His infidelity was implicit in the situation, caught naked in bed with a well-known hooker, although he'd claimed that they were only looking for her missing earring."
imâ‹…plicâ‹…it
–adjective
1. implied, rather than expressly stated: implicit agreement.
2. unquestioning or unreserved; absolute: implicit trust; implicit obedience; implicit confidence.
3. potentially contained (usually fol. by in): to bring out the drama implicit in the occasion.
4. Mathematics. (of a function) having the dependent variable not explicitly expressed in terms of the independent variables, as x2 + y2 = 1. Compare explicit (def. 5).
5. Obsolete. entangled.
Origin:
1590–1600; < L implicitus involved, obscure, var. ptp. of implicÄre. See implicate, -ite 2
Random House Dictionary
-----------
im·plic·it
adj.
1. Implied or understood though not directly expressed: an implicit agreement not to raise the touchy subject.
2. Contained in the nature of something though not readily apparent: "Frustration is implicit in any attempt to express the deepest self" (Patricia Hampl).
3. Having no doubts or reservations; unquestioning: implicit trust.
[Latin implicitus, variant of implicÄtus, past participle of implicÄre, to entangle; see implicate.]
im·plic'it·ly adv., im·plic'it·ness n.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
You're right about the root, but what the ancient Romans thought the word meant has little to do with how we use it now. The "ply" part of "imply" is the same word we use in plywood, and means to enfold or entangle, to be caught up. We still use the ancient meaning directly when we say, "This is a sticky situation," as if we were "implicated" in an actual spider's web.
I think the problem is that many feel that "implication" is inherently less than certainty, but many implications are quite strong, as seeing the sunset implies that it will be dawn at some point in the future, or that being in bed with someone in a state of mutual nudity is diagnostic of some level of intended activity.
Puddin'
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
One that bugs me...
is when a name ends with the letter s like Chris or Fliss. When people are writing about something that belongs to them, they often write it like Chris' car or Fliss' bag. To me that usage, of the apostrophe, indicates more than one Chris or Fliss. Surely it should be Chris's or Fliss's.
apostrophes
Except for single letters, and where necessary to disambiguate initialisms, apostrophes are never used to create plurals. It's become common practice to do it with numbers too, but it's not necessary.
It depends. When deciding whether a singular possessive should be s' or s's, the usual rule of thumb is to go by whether you'd pronounce it with an extra syllable. Sound it out whenever you're unsure; usually one way will sound obviously better than the other.
UnSub
UnSub
I''M SORRY
I'm sorry. i'm one of Eric's largest abusers of the it's vs. its rule. BUT in my defense, even my proofer missed it in the last few episodes.
So I guess I want to say to Eric, I'm sorry, I'll try to do better, but I'm going to slip up now and again. Its just so hard sometimes. ;)
A.A.
It's impossible (Perry Como, Great Song)
Word 2007 corrects me all the time, even though it's supposed to be smarter than me. And you know you're getting older when your computer has more memory than you do. God Bless! 'drea
Love, Andrea Lena
Nit Picking
One thing i dislike about the comments on bigclosets is the nit pickers who like nothing better to do than trawl others authors stories tearing it apart by constantly checking the grammar and mistakes, i wonder if they ever read the stories or just use there grammar checkers to rubbish other authors. If they want to do that then they should gho back to school and teach. I like to read the stories warts and all. Its the plot not the words that make a good author.
All i can say to the Nit Pickers is Get A Life
ELIZA
ELIZA
Eats, Shoots and Leaves
I can't believe we've had a thread on punctuation pedantry without mentioning Lynne Truss :)
And before you ask, yes, I do own that particular tome :)
If you can't remember it, here's the relevant Amazon UK page: http://tr.im/xvmE and Amazon US: http://tr.im/xvnf
--Ben
As the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body, then only left-handers are in their right mind!