Grammar clarity vs. confusion
I had a conversation at home yesterday (that did not go so well) but the topic is still a pet peeve, so here you go.
I think that "apostrophe s" is being SO overused in the printed word that clarity is suffering. I think "apostrophe s" should be primarily reserved to represent the possessive. It is used FAR too much, IMHO, for the "is" contraction.
"It's" is a contraction of it is. (BTW, "it's" is ONLY the contraction for it is. If what you are saying is not "it is" then DO NOT put the apostrophe there! I see this error EVERYWHERE!) But "Michael's" should mean "belongs to Michael" rather than "Michael is." As in, "Michael's house needs to be painted." Not, "Michael's going to get his house painted."
I actually consider this the transliteration of how the words are spoken. "Michael is," when said quickly (like most folks do), sounds like "Michael's."
Regardless, what I see lost in this common use of "apostrophe s" is clarity.
Your thoughts? Does anyone else care about such things?
I think that "apostrophe s" is being SO overused in the printed word that clarity is suffering. I think "apostrophe s" should be primarily reserved to represent the possessive. It is used FAR too much, IMHO, for the "is" contraction.
"It's" is a contraction of it is. (BTW, "it's" is ONLY the contraction for it is. If what you are saying is not "it is" then DO NOT put the apostrophe there! I see this error EVERYWHERE!) But "Michael's" should mean "belongs to Michael" rather than "Michael is." As in, "Michael's house needs to be painted." Not, "Michael's going to get his house painted."
I actually consider this the transliteration of how the words are spoken. "Michael is," when said quickly (like most folks do), sounds like "Michael's."
Regardless, what I see lost in this common use of "apostrophe s" is clarity.
Your thoughts? Does anyone else care about such things?
posted by MichaelPolutta at 11:07 AM
11 Comments:
AMEN! I hate this, it bothers me.
My personal current favorite is "of" as in could of, would of and should of. The contractions could've, would've and should've have been used so much that an entire generation does not know the word they are missing is HAVE - could have, would have, should have.
BTW - Eats, Shoots and Leaves is one of my favorite books. If you haven't read Lynn Trusse, you should at least browse chapter one in a bookstore sometime!
Its truly an ire rasing thing! I think we should use the apostrophe in it's correct place. ;^)
(btw. yes. I do know what I just wrote. I know it IS wrong.)
on another note: the apostrophe in positon of possession is said to have meant "His." Yes, that mean's that The Queen's Nose would translate to: The Queen, His Nose. But remember, in yon olden days (daze?) men were the only ones to whom property could belong. Thus, there was no such thing as "Hers." 'twas all HIS.
aaah. them's was the days. (JK)
Ironically, I have been thinking more about punctuation and grammar myself these days. Tommy bought me "English Grammar for Dummies" for Christmas per my request. (Yes, I know that makes me a complete nerd. I'm okay with that.)
I looked up apostrophes in my book, but I saw nothing that grants the usage of "'s" for "is" with proper nouns. I can't verify that it is wrong, but it does seem tacky.
This is the one that gets me: I hate it when people use words that end in "s" plus another consonant, such as the words "ask" and "assist," but refuse to add another "s" when using them in the plural form.
For Example:
Incorrect: Susan ask me to assist her.
Correct: Susan asks me to assist her.
Incorrect: Becky assist Susan.
Correct: Becky assists Susan.
I also hate it when people add "s" to words that don't need it. Have you ever shopped at "Walmarts"? (Or, is it "Walmart's"?)
Another good (bad) one is when people use "'s" to indicate possession, but then they fail to say what is being possessed.
For Example:
"I am going over to Susan's." (You are going over to Susan's what?)
I told Tommy last night that I am trying to pay more attention to my grammar and punctuation. After I said that, our conversation went as follows:
Tommy: "I don't think your grammar and punctuation is bad."
Becky: "You don't think my grammar and punctuation are bad."
Tommy: "Shut up..."
And yet, incorrect grammar, punctuation & spelling can be much more communicative. It's kinda like using southern or slang. If I simply say, "Tommy is nice." That is not a compliment. Rather, if I say, "Tommy is the friggen fo-shizzle, yo!" Now THAT'S saying something... just no one knows what it is... saying... yo.
Does anyone remember when it was proper to put the comma BEFORE the ampersand?
aaah. them's was the days!
Just to pile on in the nerd-fest, MY peeves are "to" for "too" and "your" for "you're." These are the most common errors in the seventh grade papers I read. (example: "Becky, your way to concerned about grammar!")
However, I have no problem with an understood object like "I'm going to Susan's" (with the object "house" understood).
Ok. So what is your favorite colour of pocket protector?
Speaking of clarity versus confusion in grammar, I just found the most wonderful thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffalo
Who knew that you could make up a sentence with nothing but the same word used eight times consecutively!?
It may be grammatically correct, but it sure isn't a good example of clarity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Excuse me, that should be "surely isn't a good example of clarity."
Surely is an adverb; sure is an adjective.
Post a Comment
<< Home