BooksForKidsBlog

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Apostrophe Apostle: The Girl's Like Spaghetti by Lynn Truss

Problems with when and where to use the apostrophe? As Lynne Truss says,

Don't blame the apostrophe. Blame the people who didn't come up with different marks for the different jobs.

Especially when it comes to the word its.

Whoever those historical grammarians were, they're probably hiding in the witness protection program by now. The misuse of it's has, for some reason, become ever more annoyingly flagrant in recent years.

Yet, in a way it's a natural and understandable error. There are two accepted usages of the "flying comma:" 1) to take the place of the missing letter in a contraction (I'm for I am) and 2) to indicate possession before a noun (John's book). The train wreck for the grammar-challenged comes in the use of the apostrophe with the word it. Faced with the confusion of using the apostrophe with it for both permitted usages, grammarians came down on the side of using the apostrophe to indicate the contraction and never ever using it to show possession. This rule seems straightforward and not that hard to fix in the mind. (IT'S MEANS IT IS. ALWAYS. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.) For some reason, this rule served us well until, well, fairly recently, when the whole grammar train went off the tracks at Junction IT.

Now, mind you, historians of the language might muddy the water a bit. I recall my freshman English professor pointing out that the 's usage to indicate possession actually came from a shortening of the earlier English usage "John, his book" to indicate possession, which gradually contracted into John's book in the interest of brevity. (If you say "John, his book" fast three times, this explanation seems believable.) If this bit of linguistic history is true, then the possessive use of the apostrophe is, er, actually a contractive use of the apostrophe, and so..., um, I guess by logic it's (meaning that belonging to IT) should be correct as well--unless you consider it the neuter pronoun--in which case you can't use the 's because none of the other pronouns are allowed to form the possessive that way! Yikes!

I don't blame author Lynne Truss for not going there. Things are bad enough as they are. Instead, she devotes her latest book to humorous lessons in the use of the apostrophe.

The Girl's Like Spaghetti: Why, You Can't Manage without Apostrophes! uses a kid-friendly format which features large cartoons on facing pages showing the meaning of two phrases or sentences made ambiguous by the misuse or misunderstanding of the apostrophe. One pair of cartoons shows two phrases, "The giant kid's playground" (with the cartoon picturing a giant kid enjoying his very own play place) and "The giant kids' playground (with a bunch of regular kids enjoying a giant place to play). Another double page spread pairs "The dogs like my dad" (with a bunch of dogs doting on Dad) with "The dog's like my dad" (which shows a red-haired dad and his look-alike shaggy red pooch taking a stroll together).

One cute kid pleaser couples "Look! It's behind!" (with kids pointing to a turtle who is finishing the race in last place) and "Look! Its behind!" (with kids pointing to a horse's prominent rear end.) Then there's the sister-friendly pair "Those smelly things are my brother's" (with a girl pointing to her male sibling's stinky sneakers) and "Those smelly things are my brothers!" (with the same girl pointing to her two odoriferous male siblings. An appendix features thumbnails of each cartoon and an explanation of what its caption really means in case the reader is still confused.

Let us hope that The Girl's Like Spaghetti: Why You Can't Manage without Apostrophes! enjoys as much success as its predecessor, the children's version of Eats, Shoots & Leaves: Why Commas Really Do Make a Difference! It's hoped by grammarians that its humorous lessons will be well learned by its readers.

Labels: ,

46 Comments:

  • I love Eats, Shoots & Leaves! A keeper in my book. I went to a Peggy Sharp workshop and this as a pick she highlighted.

    By Blogger Going Crunchy, at 9:34 PM  

  • For the grammatically-challenged: if don't know whether you should include an apostrophe, but think one is appropriate, don't put one in. Conversely, if you don't think one is appropriate, put one in.

    People seem to get this wrong almost always, and so would be better off just flipping a coin. For some reason IT'S just difficult for them to keep straight.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:58 PM  

  • This is a pet peeve of mine, too. But I'll correct your freshman English professor on one point: the "-'s" ending is a surviving part of the native English noun declension, not a contraction of "his." It's the possessive (or "genitive") case ending.

    In Shakespeare's day, though, it was popularly thought to be so (I mean, the way your professor derived it), and Shakespeare writes it out in the back-derived "long way" sometimes, I think (like "John, his book"). But that was just a folk etymology.

    The Old English genitive case ending was "-es," and it got shortened to "-'s" sometime after Middle English. (Thumbing through Chaucer just now, I'm seeing "-es.")

    You can see the "-s" or "-es" ending in other Germanic languages, like German itself. Dutch, in fact, uses the "-'s" just like we do, although I saw a few examples of plain "-s" when I went over there. The new trend.

    Oh, one other thing about quirks of grammar in Shakespeare's day: I always thought it funny how they chose to express double possessives that we would word like, "the King of England's son." They'd do it as "the King's son of England"!

    By Blogger Tim, at 10:27 PM  

  • I don't think the explanation citing "John, his book" as the origin of the possessive case's "'s" will hold up. Consider that German's possessive case also end in "s" (but they use no apostrophe); so "John's book" translates to "johans buch".

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:28 PM  

  • It could not be any simpler: it's the third-person possessive.

    The idea that the apostrophe causes confusion because it's used for both possessives and contractions is nonsense.

    It's his, hers, theirs and its, not hi's, her's, their's and it's. I never see the former mistakes, just "its" and "it's". It's just ignorance.

    But what's even more annoying is "loose' and "lose" (and "looser"/"loser"). Why did seemingly half of the population suddenly lose the ability to spell these words?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:47 PM  

  • So was there ever a time when using an apostrophe in the possessive form was acceptable? I'm asking because I specifically remember the day my second grade teacher taught our class to use the apostrophe for the possessive, because it was also the day I learned what "context" was. She taught us that we could tell the difference between the possessive and the contraction based on the context in which it was used. That was 1972 by the way, back when one could still fail the second grade.

    Strangely, I don't recall ever being taught differently during the remainder of my primary and secondary school career, and I was fortunate enough to attend an outstanding magnet school for my four years of high school. In fact, the first time I can remember being called on it was in a paper I wrote for a class at the THIRD college I attended. Since then I've seen a bunch of discussion on the topic and have managed to stop using an apostrophe for the possessive, but still I'm curious.

    yours/
    peter.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:08 PM  

  • Then, of course, there's the issue of something belonging to the IT department....

    By Blogger caseym54, at 11:11 PM  

  • The great musician and philosopher Sting once said, and I quote, "English is a whore of a language: It takes anything into it." There's your problem, right there: Trying to learn to spell in the English language is an exercise in futility, and is nothing more than a memory trick.

    For example, why do we have two endings, -ible and -able? Able is a word, but Ible isn't. So, why not ditch -ible? Making all words ending in -ible into words ending in -able would actually, you know, make sense.

    Take, for example, the word "convertible": The word means something ABLE to be converted. So, why not end it in -able? There is no logical argument against this.

    Of course, words ending in -ment come from French, we have a useless "w" in "two" because it comes from what is now modern Swedish (As well as the useless "k" in "knife").

    English is a mess. Even the US and the British nations can't agree on spelling. Why are Brits and Aussies z-phobic, anyway? And why the u-phile aspects of their spelling? "Color" needs no "u" and "realize" really and truly requires a "z."

    I learned the, " John's= John, his" formula in second grade, but that was 1961. I didn't get the "it's= it is" versus "its" differentiation straight until I was in my forties.

    The arcane aspects of English are a great shibboleth, though. I can spot an ESL writer within a paragraph. Perhaps that's the point?

    By Blogger Hucbald, at 11:36 PM  

  • When proofreading something written, I always check to make sure that, if the text says "it's" in a sentence, I could replace it with "it is" and have it still make sense. If not, then remove the apostrophe. It's that simple.

    A related error that seems to be turning up more and more - and it drives me nuts! - is the use of an apostrophe in plural words.

    I couldn't even begin to figure just how many times I have seen some blog post or comment saying things like "the Iraqi's should do X," or "I think people should/shouldn't own gun's."

    It's beyond ignorant. It's pathetic.

    By Blogger H., at 11:41 PM  

  • I blame spell check. "It's" is often flagged as a mis-spell, with the suggested replacement offered as "its".

    By Blogger Peter Blogdanovich, at 11:42 PM  

  • I was actually under the impression that it's could represent a contraction of "It is" -or- "It has". So sentences like "It's been a while." or "It's been raining all day." or "It's to be expected." are correct. Is that not the case?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:58 PM  

  • I think that Strong Bad explained it pretty well on his Rhythm N' Grammar CD:

    Ohhhhh... If you want it to be possessive,
    It's just "I-T-S."
    But if it's supposed to be a contraction,
    Then it's "I-T-apostrophe-S,"
    Scalawag.

    http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail89.html

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:18 AM  

  • "I was actually under the impression that it's could represent a contraction of "It is" -or- "It has"."

    It's not that it CAN. It's that it DOES.

    It's = it is.

    Its = possessive.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:27 AM  

  • What's the deal with "lose" vs. "loose"?

    That's another annoying error on the Net that seems to be getting worse, not better.

    By Blogger Apple Fanboy Dude, at 12:28 AM  

  • >>>>>>For example, why do we have two endings, -ible and -able? Able is a word, but Ible isn't. So, why not ditch -ible? Making all words ending in -ible into words ending in -able would actually, you know, make sense.

    Because the ending is -ble from the Latin ending "-bilis", which does indeed usually mean to be able to do something. Whether the vowel preceding the ending is an a or an i depends on the conjugation to which the Latin verb belongs. Portable comes from the 1st conjugation Latin verb porto-portare, which gives us portabilis, and then English portable. Anything other than a first conjugation Latin verb will use the i. The latin verb possum gives us possible, video-videre-vidi-visum gives us visible, etc.


    >>>>>Take, for example, the word "convertible": The word means something ABLE to be converted. So, why not end it in -able? There is no logical argument against this.

    The latin verb is verto which is not a first conjugation verb.

    Of course, as with all things regarding the English language there are exceptions to the rule.


    >>>>>Of course, words ending in -ment come from French,

    Also comes from Latin, often via French.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:44 AM  

  • About that old English form ("Mr Smith, his Porsche"): It was ideed a standard form. It comes down to us today in, among other places, the "Fitzwilliam Virginal Book" (there may have been an "e" at the end of "Book"). I leave as an exercize for the student to find out what a "virginal" is, and who "Fitzwilliam" was.

    Here's an example:

    My Lord Chamberlain, His Galliard

    One of my favorites is "Captaine Digore Piper his galliard". Evidently the comma was not always used.

    (If this one is half as good as "Eats Shoots and Leaves", I'll be getting one. Strictly for my nieces and/or nephews, of course.

    By Blogger ZZMike, at 1:20 AM  

  • Forget the there/their/they're or your/you're conundra: the ability to distinguish between 'its' (possessive) and 'it's' (contraction) should be the pons asinorum that determines whether one is permitted to participate in the democratic process. It's simple: fail a series of flash-card tests and the powers-that-be turn up in front of your door to symbolically strike you from the electoral roll with a big marker pen, or burn your voter registration card in a portable brazier, or whatever method your particular jurisdiction has to disenfranchise you. Systematic and meticulous application of this approach has no downside that I can perceive.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:36 AM  

  • Ooh, ooh, ooh, seeing as we're (or at least I am) being simon-pure pedants here: did you really mean 'flagrant', as in so grotesquely obscene and depraved that it cannot escape notice, or did you mean the comparatively benign 'blatant'? The world wonders.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:52 AM  

  • You may be annoyed by the misuse of it's, but are you actually confused by it? I can't think of a sentence where "it is" could really be confused with something possessed by a pronoun.

    "The possum doesn't know its time for my lunch, and is annoying me by taking it's time crossing the road."

    You still know what the sentence means, even with the apostrophe used exactly backwards. Part of the beauty, and adaptability, of English is the error correction and contextual cues. English gets by with loose rules for its grammar.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:24 AM  

  • By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:45 AM  

  • As much as I am annoyed by the error, I believe the comment above (at 2:24) is correct. I think English is in the process of disposing of this particular apostrophe. As pointed out, it's rare that the apostrophe is necessary, as context is usually enough. The two sound the same.

    To the comment far above which says that the errors "her's" and "their's" are rare or nonexistent, I'm sad to report that I've seen these, too, cropping up in larger numbers, particularly online but also in other written contexts.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:56 AM  

  • Their our alot off typoze onn teh interwebs. Peeple cant rite know moore. Englishs is gon. Its bin replaced with pigeon Englishs tot by are vary on skools. U no, teh kine wear evary think u rite is perfict? You know? Wee shud no bettor then that.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:29 AM  

  • I don't like misused apostrophes eithrt; I rejoiced when a local restaurant with a large sign advertising "wing's" burned to the ground. But it's not a grammatical error to misplace an apostrophe, it's a punctuation error. And I'd have enjoyed Truss's book more if she herself weren't so prone to making punctuation errors, such as using a hyphen after an adverb ending in "ly."

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:04 AM  

  • Grr! People who use lead (not led) as the past tense of lead.

    Also, possessive 60's where the contraction '60s as intended.

    By Blogger Johanna Lapp, at 7:17 AM  

  • lose, loose

    advice/advise

    And lately seen:

    without further adieu...

    I guess by American bloggers who want to seem European.

    By Blogger Marbel, at 8:08 AM  

  • Re: Wing's

    Such a fate should befall any home with a sign out front that says:

    The Smith's.

    The Shen's.

    The Papadapoulous's.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:25 AM  

  • As much as I think it looks silly, I have heard people who have "The Smith's" signs outside their houses argue that the sign means "The Smith's House," not the plural of Smith.

    As for frequently confused words, a very common pair that I hear mixed up in business meetings is adverse/averse. I can't tell you the number of times that somebody has said in a meeting, "I'm not adverse to it."

    Argh.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:49 AM  

  • Another big problem is hyper-correction. The most common example being the use of the subjective case when the objective case is called for. I think this comes from the frequent correction we get as children to stop saying "Him and I went to the store." Somehow, this gets stored as "him=wrong, he=correct and smart," so we get horrors like "The problem for he and I is that we are morons."

    It's truly painful.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:53 AM  

  • Even more "flagrant" (yes, I meant "depraved,") around here is this awful usage:

    ICE TEA
    BAKE POTATO
    MASH POTATOES

    I don't know why this error is found more often when describing foods, but it just looks dumb! I've been known to whip out my Sharpie and make corrections on the spot when possible!

    Thanks for the learned clarifications of the "John, his book" theory. Thanks to Lynn Truss, with whom the purists find fault, for nonetheless venturing to write a children's book on the subject.

    With so many (non-English major) writers out there now, it's even more important that we pay attention to the fine points of punctuation. Look at all the trouble that enigmatic comma has caused with the second amendment to the Bill of Rights!

    By Blogger GTC, at 8:57 AM  

  • Look, I'm no grammer king but let me tell you something - there is nothing easier than knowing whether or not it is appropriate to use an apostrophe. It's easy to know whether or not to use "its" or "it's". See. I just did it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:07 AM  

  • As long as we're expanding our territory here...

    My main pet peeve, because it's so inexcusable and so common:

    There seem to be more people who, in defiance of all known laws of phonetics, spell "oops" as "opps", than those who spell it correctly.

    Opps?!

    By Blogger Unknown, at 10:28 AM  

  • Also Horde/Hoard (confused both ways), Ordinance/Ordnance (invariably the former when they mean the latter), Site/Sight (it's a websight about laser sites!).

    And then there's "free reign", which drives me completely crazy because it's not quite wrong. Yes, you can "give someone free reign", and the sentence makes sense and says what you mean, but you're clearly attempting to use an aphorism--and it's wrong, because you're using "reign" instead of "rein", which changes the meaning of the phrase. It's supposed to indicate an out-of-control situation, not that someone has been given unilateral authority.

    I've also seen "the reigns of power" a lot. That's easier to handle because it's totally wrong, as opposed to "free reign" which is only wrong in principle.

    Oh, hey--"principle/principal". I see this done wrong more often than I see it done right!

    ****

    I think that part of the problem is that Americans are always taught that it spells like it sounds like it looks. This, combined with the American tendency to turn every vowel sound into "uh", leads to the confusion over "effect/affect" among others.

    "Lose/Loose" is a bit easier, because "lose" is entirely different from every rule we've ever heard about vowels. "ose" would seem to be pronounced "oh"--but in "lose" it's prounced the way you'd normally say "oo".

    By Blogger halojones-fan, at 11:29 AM  

  • It's simple: fail a series of flash-card tests and the powers-that-be turn up in front of your door to symbolically strike you from the electoral roll with a big marker pen, or burn your voter registration card in a portable brazier, or whatever method your particular jurisdiction has to disenfranchise you.

    Excellent idea, David. But rather than confront the malefactor, I'd propose use of two receptacles for ballots, with a shredder nominated for those who flunk the flash card test.

    On second thought, perhaps count their ballots, but with inverted sense on every issue.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:36 AM  

  • Example comment recently:

    o yea your a looser you moran

    That sums it up for me; idiocy abounds online.

    By Blogger Jeff, at 11:48 AM  

  • My pet peeves: to/too and your/you're.

    Window decal I saw recently on a car:

    "If the music's to loud, your to old."

    Sigh.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:16 PM  

  • I never had any trouble with its/it's till I started engaging in discussions on the web. I use the contracted form exponentially more often than the possessive, so when typing at speed, I almost invariably insert the apostrophe without even thinking about it. Ditto for typing Iraqi's instead of Iraqis and the easier there for their.

    Ordinarily, I don't worry about correcting obvious typos in a separate post after the fact, which I find annoying when other people do it, unless required for clarity. It's awfully tempting with the mistakes which also represent common grammatical errors, but that's more for vanity than clarity's sake. I do think that the proliferation of such errors on the web owes something to the repetitive nature of typing and the preponderant recurrence of one word over another in conversation. In casual exchanges, I normally give fellow typists the benefit of the grammatical doubt, although it's admittedly harder to do for those making what I consider idiotic arguments than for those with whom I agree! I'm (which I initially typed Ia'm!) not sure why it's particularly hard to give a mental pass to your/you're even though it's a running typo I have to guard against myself.

    The fly in the possessive ointment, IMO, is the mandated apostrophe in place of a second "s" when forming the plural of a noun already ending in "s" -- thus contributing to the confusion between the Smiths and the Jones' on the signage front.

    By Blogger JM Hanes, at 12:50 PM  

  • I can't believe no one's mentioned this, especially when you have a picture of her book covers right on this entry ... but it's LYNNE Truss, not LYNN.

    (Yeah, I'm a proofreader by trade. So sue me.)

    By Blogger Linda M Au, at 12:56 PM  

  • halojones:

    I'm not sure precisely when educators came up with the idea of starting children out with extended exercises in phonetic spelling, but I suspect the practice may have derived more from PC aversion to "rote memorization" than from research into efficacy. A great many students never recover from their mastery of phonetics which must subsequently, often painfully, be unlearned in the face of English spelling realities.

    Ironically, however, that putative entry level skill finds its ultimate expression in text messaging. In fact, one could conceivably argue that the flowering of this streamlined, phonetically elegant, redundancy free form of communication may be one of the most consequential linguistic developments in centuries.

    By Blogger JM Hanes, at 1:35 PM  

  • @GTC:

    ICE TEA
    BAKE POTATO
    MASH POTATOES


    Don't forget my favorite of all: WHIP CREAM.

    I'll nominate this pair as my misuse pet peeve: lie/lay

    Nobody lies down anymore, they all lay down.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:15 PM  

  • One that bugs me to no end, is resigned/re-signed. This seems to pop up all the time, particularly on sports blogs and the like.

    Drives me batty, it does.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:20 PM  

  • "seperate". It's sepArate, dammit.

    "For all intensive purposes". That's for all intents and purposes, thank you.

    Anyone ever heard someone say "they misled us" as "mizzled" instead of "mis-led"? I've heard that a few times... might have to put the hyphen back in there.

    And that's just a few...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:58 PM  

  • Re: misled as "mizzled"... Pronunciation of some words can be tricky when your only exposure to them has been in print.

    Two I have heard that made me laugh:
    Annihilate as "ana-HILL-ee-ate"
    Non sequitur as "non seh-KEE-tur"

    By Blogger H., at 4:09 PM  

  • "It's eating its lunch."

    By Donald Hall's grammar and style book.

    Do you receive? Or is it recieve?

    By Blogger Brent, at 5:09 PM  

  • It's simple: fail a series of flash-card tests and the powers-that-be turn up in front of your door to symbolically strike you from the electoral roll with a big marker pen

    Yeah, if we have an electoral test, it won't be on proper punctuation. Why not? Because the people who don't care about it's vs its can beat up the people who do...

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:18 AM  

  • A great topic and excellent replies.
    I'd also like to see some comment on the creation of nonsense words and phrases. As in:- "nothing has happened as of yet" and " we are actioning that as we speak."
    These are often heard when TV reporters are reporting a serious news story.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:05 AM  

  • Don't forget the great southern creation

    HOT BOIL PEANUTS

    You can enjoy this drippy delicacy surrounded by your new Broyhill BEDROOM SUIT that you won on The Price is Right show.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:44 AM  

Post a Comment



<< Home