An Apostrophe Catastrophe

Clockwise from top-left: You tell me what that means!; How in the heck?; I wonder if Go knows his stuff is being auctioned?; Do the hats and gloves belong to Snow Toy, perhaps?

Teasing business owners and whoever it is that does the boards outside churches is too easy. This is low hanging fruit for grammar mavens and we really should know better (and be more magnanimous generally).

These poor folks are trying so hard to get it right that they get it wrong. Not at all uncommon in English.

We all know that the god-forsaken apostrophe is the worst, most heinous and evil punctuation mark in the language. Just when you think you have it nailed, you get pulled over and booked for a stray it’s when you meant its. I should know, it happened to me once in my editing course! (Yes, I lost a mark for that, deservedly so. In an editing course, like, wow.)

Yet, for all that, the rules are pretty simple.

Two major uses and a little one.

First off, the big baddy, the possessive.

We use an apostrophe to indicate that something belongs to someone. Normally it is deadly simple – you just add an apostrophe and an s, even in names that end in s (and the extra s is pronounced, by the way):

That is James’s book.

The cat belongs to Jane. It is Jane’s cat.

There is a lot to do, there is a week’s work ahead.

But then it gets complicated.

Plural nouns that end in s just take an apostrophe without the s:

Put that in the girls’ room

I sense there is many weeks’ work there.

Generally speaking, if the plural form is pronounced without that extra ess sound, then you don’t add an s after the apostrophe. That’s why famous names like Ulysses and Moses just take an apostrophe without the extra s.

THE HARD BIT:

Pronouns. These NEVER take an apostrophe in the possessive. Which is easy for a word like ours.

That pizza is ours.

But it also applies to the possessive form of its. The pages of a book belong to the book and are thus possessed by the book:

The book was wet. Its pages were soaked.

It is the cat’s head:

The cat raised its head.

The possessive form of a pronoun never takes an apostrophe.

So, what’s the deal with it’s then? That leads us to the other major use of the apostrophe:

Contractions.

It seems completely logical – when you shorten a word, or when you join two words (or more) together, you put an apostrophe in place of the missing letters.

So, for starters:

It is becomes it’s. 

(See – simple – it’s is a completely different word to its, how could you ever get them confused?)

Will not becomes won’t.

And so on, quite familiar I’m (I am) sure.

When you join words, be a little careful:

Are not becomes aren’t, not are’nt because the apostrophe replaces the missing letter, not the space between the former two words. And then it gets curious with triple word contractions like he’d’ve for he would have (really if you’re—you are—going that far, you probably know what you’re doing and would only use that to represent speech, not in a formal writing context.)

Generally, if you can make two words out of it, an apostrophe belongs in there. If there are letters missing, an apostrophe takes their place. Be careful of old words like o’clock which is a traditional contraction of of the clock.

Finally, “clipped forms” do not need an apostrophe. It is gym, not gym’ (gymnasium). Hippo, not hippo’ and so on.

On the matter of it’s versus its, the simple test is to see if the sentence makes sense with “it is” instead. If it does, then it is it’s. If it doesn’t it’s its. Easy.

AND FINALLY, the fly in the ointment:

Unusual Plurals.

As a rule, you never use an apostrophe in a plural. This is what trips up sign writers all the time.

There’s something about seeing an s at the end of a word that makes us think an apostrophe might be needed. God Loves You becomes God Love’s You, which is doing my head in right now. What could that mean? I belong to “God Love”? Am I blessed?

There are exceptions though.

When you start referring to numbers in the plural… take this series for instance:

1,2,3,3,3,4,5,5,5,5,6

In describing this, I might say there are three 3’s and four 5’s, but then I might say 3s and 5s. Usage here varies from place to place.

Likewise, I was born in the 1970’s is a more American usage where 1970s seems to suffice elsewhere.

But if you’re referring to plural letters, you need that apostrophe otherwise it becomes nonsense:

How many o’s and l’s are there in soliloquy?

So, to summarise in general terms:

• If it belongs to someone or something it requires that apostrophe (unless it is its).
• If it is a plural, no apostrophe.
• If it is a contraction, it needs an apostrophe.

Some linguists challenge the need for the apostrophe at all, saying that you can usually understand the meaning in context.

With this in mind, I hazard to suggest: if in doubt, leave it out when it comes to apostrophes. This works because then the only mistake you’re likely to make is the its/it’s one. The contractions normally make perfect sense without the apostrophe. Plurals basically shouldn’t have them, and the possessive form is mostly common sense.

Happy trail’s trails…

Commas. The horror!

The comma. The enemy of every Grammar-Nazi (although probably just behind errant apostrophes in ire-creation, but we'll save THAT for another episode).

Why do people struggle so much? The rules aren't that complicated. I think it's due to three issues that swirl around commas like grammatical tornadoes that refuse to die.

The first is a terrible piece of advice given to us when we are young that, ironically, was correct in English centuries ago but incorrect in standard English today, namely: "Put a comma in where you would have a pause." WRONG.

The second problem is the "Oxford Comma". There are people who love them and people who hate them and the very fact they argue just muddies the water around correct comma usage. I think the Oxford Comma is very useful.

The third is the sloppy use of bracketing commas. Read on to learn more.

There are four uses of the comma: lists, joins, gaps, and brackets.

The Listing Comma.

The easy one. You simply put a comma between the items in a list with an "and" (or "or") before the final item. An Oxford Comma comes before the final "and" or the "or" in a list. It can be very useful to avoid ambiguity. Use it for that reason rather than because you have a thing for Oxford commas.

There's no equivalent to the Oxford Comma in any of the other usages. That is worth remembering for street fights over commas. The Oxford Comma applies ONLY TO LISTS.

The other helpful trick with listing commas is that you should be able to replace all the commas with "and" and it should still make sense (albeit clumsily). If adding "and" makes it nonsensical then a comma would be incorrect too.

"His bold, innovative, daring approach was extraordinary." can become "His bold and innovative and daring approach was extraordinary." The commas are fine.

If we were talking about "His bold, daring runway approach...", we could replace that first comma with "and", but we can't put a comma between daring and runway because "and" wouldn't work either. It's dependent on what the adjectives are modifying - "daring" modifies "runway approach" as a whole, not "approach".


Joining Commas.

These join two complete sentences into one sentence. The comma must have a connecting word after it, chosen only from and, or, but, while or yet. I used one above (the second comma):

If we were talking about "His bold, daring runway approach...", we could replace that first comma with "and", but we can't put a comma between daring and runway because "and" wouldn't work either.

That could have been a full-stop (period) followed by "We can't put..."

If you don't use the connecting word, in this case "but", you commit the cardinal sin of a comma splice. Don't fall into the trap, kids.


Gapping Commas.

These indicate where words have been removed for brevity. It should be done with caution and judgement.

Some football teams like singing their song before the game; others, only if they win.

That last comma replaced "like singing their song". We know what was meant in context. If that meaning is unclear, don't replace the phrase or words with a comma at all.


Bracketing Commas.

THE (EXTREMELY USEFUL) BUGBEAR.

These do what they say on the tin: they bracket an interruption in the sentence.

Check your punctuation with this easy test:

Take out the commas and everything in between. Does it still make sense and convey the meaning you intended?

If you answer "yes" you're doing it right. That's what bracketing commas do: they enclose a weak interruption that is useful but not essential.

If you answer "no" you're doing it wrong. Either remove the commas entirely or move them around.

Yet, beyond that glass, lay a toxic world. 

Wrong. If you take "beyond that glass" out you get "Yet lay a toxic world." That doesn't work at all. Leave the commas out: Yet beyond that glass lay a toxic world.

He reached over the car seat, and finding a dummy, gave it to the baby. 

Wrong. The first comma should be after "and" for the same reasons. In this case because "finding a dummy" is an interruption that is very helpful to meaning but not essential to the sentence.

A variant on the bracketing comma is the comma that precedes the addition of a non-restrictive clause in a periodic sentence. That's a bit technical, but it's the comma that you put before a further clause with additional information. English allows an infinite number of these to be added to any sentence. This is why English has infinite scope for creativity.

"He drove the car, squinting through the dirty windscreen, lighting a cigarette as he steered with his knees, worrying about what his girlfriend had said the other day, barely watching the road, knowing he was in trouble."

All those clauses after commas are non-restrictive. Each could be removed without harming the sentence. "He drove the car." Dull, but still functional as a sentence.


Misuse of bracketing commas often leads to sentences with far too many commas. When you add in commas of the other varieties a sentence can bristle with punctuation and prickle the skin of language mavens everywhere. Don't prick the skin of the beast with bad comma usage. There are far more forgivable mistakes to make!

Until next time...

With my editor's cap on, it's Grammar Time!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/upsidaisium/

And we're off! Beginning with an "And". We will joyously split our infinitives with healthy gusto. Leave your prepositions where you found them because this is where the rubber hits the road.

This is to be the first in a series of brief tips on English writing: style tips, grammar, usage, spelling traps and generally how to write well. This introductory one is not so brief, though.

I'm inspired by work I did recently for a client - the effervescent Camielle of Follow Me Media asked me to edit a blog post. She knew what she wanted to say and had written the post already. The question was, did it read well? Were there any mistakes? Plus, could I improve some of the wording and give more punch to the ending?

These are all questions of editing. A well written and edited post makes you look competent and professional. It will read better and communicate more effectively. That means it's more likely to be understood and the message passed on. Which all lends weight to your professional reputation. Good stuff. Everyone should have all their professional work edited, professionally. Even me. This is a "do as I say" moment.

Camielle followed up my work by asking me for advice on how to write better in the future (her writing is very good already, don't get me wrong, but like many people whose main job is not writing, there is always room for improvement. Hell, my work has plenty of room too. Nobody's perfect!)

I was happy to give advice. There's no danger of revealing state secrets or somehow giving the game away and finding myself destitute. English is English. I did not make the rules - they're out there for everyone. However, there's a bit of "art" to editing that is hard to explain.

Concise is good, but it's not the last word. 

Let's start with my first piece of advice to Camielle, taken directly from that steadfast tome of mavens the world over (even outside its US home, believe it or not), "The Elements of Style" by William Strunk Jnr. and EB White:

"Omit needless words."

Ah. Simple. Just make it short!

NO.

That's not how this rule works.

It means you should make sure all the words in a sentence are pulling their weight; "that every word tell."

So, how can you use this advice in the real world?

A major enemy of concise writing is repetition. In their insecurity-fueled attempts to include every single thought they want to convey, many writers repeat themselves. Say it twice, three times! Once more with feeling!

Take a paragraph that contains an idea. Carefully read the sentences and look at their meaning. Do they say the same thing as each other? Does one say it better? Be brutal: delete the repetitious sentences.

I mean brutal. Even if they're only close, try the paragraph without one of those sentences. I almost guarantee it won't suffer - your reader will still understand you.

Now that you have that one good sentence, feel free to add more detail back into that sentence. That sentence is now carrying the big idea - there's no harm in a bit of necessary detail - after all, Strunk and White are happy with your extra detail, as long as it is doing work, as long as it is needed.

Whoa. That last para needs work.

Here:

Now that you have that one good sentence, feel free to add more detail back into that sentence  if you like.  That sentence is It's now carrying the big idea - there's no harm in a bit of necessary detail. After all, Strunk and White are happy with your extra detail, as long as it is doing work does work; as long as it is needed.

Now you have one good sentence, add detail if you like. It's carrying the big idea. After all, Strunk and White are happy with extra detail, as long as it is needed.

60 words down to 32. I could go further, but I'm happy there.

Dangerous Constructions.

There are some sentence constructions that are hazardous to concise writing. Watch out for "thats" and "hads".

"I remember I had been in grade school and we had had a great time mucking up in the classroom that had been our home room and that had been where we learned English. Our teacher had been most upset."

Yuck. All those hads and thats.

"I remember grade school shenanigans fondly. We were always mucking around in English class. Our teacher nearly cried one day."

Sure, I made some word choice changes there too, but you can see what's going on. Each sentence does its work and we move on. I made a late addition of "one day" to "Our teacher nearly cried" because, to me, that seems like something someone would say. It is honest.

Sentences are like picnic baskets - they hold the whole feast.

A common mistake is to take a series of ideas and give each of them its own sentence. Instead, try adding a few ideas into one sentence. Make each sentence do more work.

Taking the above example again:

"I remember grade school shenanigans fondly. We were always mucking around in English class. Our teacher nearly cried one day."

Could be rewritten as:

"One hilarious day we nearly made our English teacher cry."

There's a bit of detail gone, but this new sentence almost begs for us to read on to find out exactly what made the teacher nearly cry. That's better writing.

Study each word. Take it out if you can. But stop before you destroy the sentence's power and beauty. William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway had very different styles. Faulkner of the Baroque, Rococo, Byzantine bent, Hemingway more agricultural. Both brilliant.

People do not associate Faulkner with brevity, quite the opposite, and yet, would you be so brave as to start slicing and dicing his prose? Probably not. Why? Because despite his incredible flourish with words, they all add up to something brilliant. I suspect even Strunk and White would be happy to leave Faulkner alone.

So, like all writing advice, try it out and practice. You'll find that even just having a go will make it read better.

Until next time...