The be-all rule for using apostrophes

Correct usage of the apostrophe is a lot more straight forward than most people think, despite all the evidence otherwise (see: internet). In fact, one friendly rule can be used to solve every apostrophe crisis, and that rule is:

**Apostrophes are tags**

Seriously. That’s all they are. If you think of apostrophes as tags, you'll never be confused again.

Basically, when you’re tagging (attaching) a word to another word, add an apostrophe. When you aren’t, don’t.

Here’s how it works:

Tagging to indicate possession
Rule: When tagging to indicate possession, put the apostrophe on the end of that word. If there isn't an 's', add one of those, too.

Case 1:
Kirin the Enquirer: “Hi there. So, I have this sentence. It goes, ‘The laptop belongs to Matt.’ I want to attach the word ‘belongs’ to the word ‘Matt’ in order to make them one word.”

Hello, friend, and how very resourceful of you. Sure thing; simply tag the words ‘belongs to’ to the word ‘Matt’ using an apostrophe and adding an ‘s’.

Case 1b:
Kirin: “Sweet rolls. Thanks! What about this one? The food belonging to the cat has gone stale.”

Same thing, partner. Merge’n’tag!

Case 2:
Kirin: “Right, but what if there are two or more cats, and the food belongs to all of them?”

Ah, a tricky question – not! Just go right on ahead and tag’em!

Kirin: “Whoa! You put the apostrophe after the ‘s’. What’s up with that??”

Nothing, squire. It’s the same idea as before. We took the word you wanted to use – cats – and tagged it with an apostrophe on the end of the word. But because 'cats' already has an 's', we didn't need to add one. Here’s a breakdown for you:

Word: Cat (without s)
Tagged form: Cat’s

Word: Cats (with s)
Tagged form: Cats’

Word: People (without s)
Tagged form: People’s

Word: Peoples (with s)
Tagged form: Peoples’


Case 3
Kirin: “Okay, got it, but what about possessive pronouns? Words like its, yours, his, hers. Why don’t they get apostrophes?”

Haven’t you been paying attention? You only add an apostrophe when you want to tag words together. However, possessive pronouns are words on their own. None of them consists of two words being joined together (tagged), so the apostrophe is unneeded.

Think about it. You wouldn’t write, “I think this laptop is your’s” because that expands to: “I think this laptop belongs to your.”
Yours, by itself, has already done the work of combining ‘belongs to’ and ‘you’.

Also, the opposite of yours is mine. If yours had an apostrophe, mine would need an apostrophe as well. Mine’. Min’e. Mine’s. You see my point.

In other words, because possessive pronouns are words on their own and not tagged words, and because they already do the apostrophe’s job by themselves, possessive pronouns don’t need an apostrophe – ever!
(Possessive pronouns include: yours, mine, his, her, theirs, ours, its*, whose*.)

*Examples in which you would use 'its' and 'whose':
"Shae, whose car was written off last week due to its engine disintegrating into dust, is going to the auction today."
"Whose car did you say it was?"
"Shae's; it's the car with its engine missing."

Kirin: “Yeah, yeah, that makes sense. But aren’t there, like, other itses and whoses, which are tags?”

Yes, there certainly are other itses and whoses, which are tags, but they're different. They come under contractions.


Tagging to indicate a contraction
Case 4
A contraction is an informal word that results from meshing two separate words together. An example of a contraction is the word doesn’t. It’s the contracted - and tagged - form of does and not.

Similarly, the word it’s is the tagged form of it and is or it and has. It’s (with the apostrophe) always means either 'it is' or 'it has', as in, “It’s really unfortunate that your car engine disintegrated into dust.”
So, if you put an apostrophe onto its in the *examples above, then you're indicating that the word has been tagged - that it is a combination of two or more words. That sentence will no longer make sense, and it will be in some serious need of proofreading.
Its = possession (belongs to it)
It’s = contraction (it is/it has)

The only other contraction worth noting is the word who’s – the tagged form of 'who is', or 'who has'.
Ask yourself, "Which two words am I tagging?" If the answer is you aren't, then use whose (see the *example above).
Whose = possession (belongs to someone)
Who’s = contraction (who is/who has)

Kirin (drunk): "Choice, thanks! One more thing. Can apostrophes be used to make singular words plu--"

No! Apostrophes cannot be used to make singular words plural. That’s what the letter 's' does. Apostrophes are, however, used to tag - either for possession, or for a contraction. That's all they're used for. That's all they will ever be used for. In other words, when you aren’t tagging, you shouldn’t be apostropheeing.

Read More

Matt defies standardised grammar and teaches a new grammar - part two

If the whole thing about split infinitives wasn't convincing enough that adherence to strict rules can be stupid, here's another:

Which of these sentences is correct?

1. The pack of wolves is hunting the chickens.
2. The pack of wolves are hunting the chickens.

Answer: both. You can decide. The rule is that there is no rule! (But there should be.)

Part two: group nouns are fiddly
What's a group noun?
Words like 'pack' are called group nouns. 'Faculty' is a group noun; 'group' is a group noun. There are thousands of group nouns.

British English tends towards treating group nouns as being plural, and therefore using 'are' in the case above rather than 'is'. Americans favour the opposite. In either dialect, no firm rule has been decided on. While one may be preferred, either is correct.

Personally, I favour logic, and therefore I think that there should be a rule for all cases in which group nouns are used. For the example above, I think Americans have it down pat, but their reasoning (none) is stupid.

Logic begins here.

Like everything in grammar, it's not the exact word choice (is or are) that makes you correct; and it's not really to do with what sounds right, either. Instead, it's what you mean by your word choice - what you're really trying to convey - that determines which word, which rule, you should use. Remember, language is a road, not a destination; so, when you're trying to get somewhere smartly, it's always right to take the smoothest road.

With that said, here is the rule that should exist for the above example:

The phrase 'of wolves' is prepositional; it describes the word 'pack'.
"The pack [of wolves, not potatoes, or fun-size Snickers] is/are hunting the chickens."

Prepositional phrases can be removed without harming the grammatical integrity of the sentence. So, which word would you prefer if we were to remove the prepositional phrase?

"The pack is hunting the chickens," or, "The pack are hunting the chickens?"

An interesting example: "Leonard's family is very big; Leonard's family are very big."
Different meanings entirely, no?

Still unsure about the is/are conundrum? Don't worry; it's less unreasonable than it looks.

Aside from omitting the prepositional phrase 'of wolves', we can also replace the first word of the sentence, 'the', with another, more convenient-for-Matt's-argument, word.

FOR INSTANCE, say we chose to use 'are' rather than 'is'.
"A pack of wolves are hunting the chickens."
"This pack of wolves are hunting the chickens, but that pack are not."
"One pack of wolves are hunting the chickens."

One pack are hunting the chickens.
'One pack are'
ONE, AND ONLY ONE, ARE!

Hmm.

Here's a helpful illustration:

Straight forward, right?

Now, please understand that, while I believe that the 'is' rule applies to this example, it only applies because the intended meaning of the sentence is better conveyed with the word 'is'. The 'is' road is far smoother than the 'are' road for this one.

Now, here are some exceptions that give the 'are' argument, or are-gument, some dignity:

"Leonard's family are real-estate agents," sounds better than, "Leonard's family is real-estate agents."

"The team are conversing amongst themselves," sounds better than, "The team is conversing amongst itself."

But there's a subtle difference between these examples and the one with the wolves. The 'are' works better here because we aren't really talking about the family or the team as a unit; we're talking about the members within the family and the team.

We're really saying: "Leonard's family [members] are real-estate agents," and, "The team [members] are conversing amongst themselves."

So, the rule should be that, when you're talking about members, you should count the number of members to figure out if it's better to use 'is' or 'are', but when you're talking about packs or groups, it's better to count the number of packs or groups instead.

In other words, if you're talking about each wolf within the pack, use 'are', but if you're talking about the pack itself, use 'is'. Therefore, the pack of wolves [regarding the pack itself, as in, "Look at that pack go!"] is hunting the chickens.

Sadly, this isn't the rule. There are no rules. But I guess it doesn't matter too much. After all, we still have common sense, right? I mean, there's no law that says, "Slow down when you see flashing lights ahead," but you'd still be the fool if you didn't.

**********

Part One

Read More

Matt defies standardised grammar and teaches a new grammar - part one

Recently, Al Yankovic (Weird Al) published a song called Word Crimes, which immediately became my favourite song ever, because a) it parodied Robin Thicke's misogynistic Blurred Lines, and b) it promoted good grammar.

Al, in a gesture of poetic irony, took a song that bespoke society's decline in love and respect, turned it on its head and suited it in an armour sturdy enough to take on the almost-as-crucial decline of the English language.

Unfortunately, a meddlesome Third Group of people seemed to notice that Al, in his song, made a grammatical mistake of his own. This group singled out the error over and above all of the critical truths he very humorously conveyed.

What was his error? In one of the last lines, he split an infinitive.

Part One: It's quite all right to split an infinitive

Weird Al's sacrilegious line reads, "Try your best to not drool." Are you cringing yet? Because, according to a rule somewhere, you should be.

What's a split infinitive?
You split an infinitive whenever you slot an adverb between the words 'to' and 'be', or 'to' and 'go', or 'to' and whatever.

The line, "To boldly go where no man has gone before," is a famous example.

What's an adverb?
Adverbs describe verbs or adjectives. 'Run' is a verb; 'run slowly' is a verb plus an adverb. 'Go' is a verb, and 'to go' is also a verb, but it's called an infinitive.

'To boldly go' is a half infinitive, then an adverb, and then another half infinitive. Evidently you're not meant to break infinitives in half (split them).

Personally, I, if at all possible, prefer to soundly reason than to blindly follow.

The commandment that "thou'st an infinitive shall 't be split, else thy head," comes from Latin, from which much of English grammar was derived.

In Latin, splitting an infinitive would render the sentence useless. You couldn't do it and still make sense.

But - and here's where the sound reasoning kicks in - we don't speak Latin.

More sound reasoning:
Language is a road, not a destination, and there's no point having roads if you've got nowhere to drive. It's the meaning that's important, not the density of your silly infinitive. Just look at him! (Above)

My understanding is that language is how we communicate, not what we communicate.

Third Group's counterexample to sound reasoning:
Beyond pretending that English is Latin, in most cases, splitting an infinitive will make your sentence sound awkward. There's normally a better way to write the sentence than to split the infinitive. So, basically, the meaning of your sentence is usually conveyed better with the infinitive left whole.

What this is really saying, though, is that rules exist for a reason. Full stops, for one, separate sentences. Stop signs keep people from crashing. Un-split infinitives, well, they help keep things sounding nice.

The Third Group, however, rant about Weird Al's split infinitive with none of this reasoning in mind. Their argument goes as follows:

"He split an infinitive!"
...
...
...
"Burn him!"
...
...
...

Right. Anyway, in the song in question, Weird Al achieves two important things by splitting an infinitive: humour and rhythm. These things are important because Weird Al is trying to a) be funny, and b) write a song.  Funny things need humour and songs need rhythm. What they don't need are roads with dead ends.

The last three lines of the final chorus, with the emphasised words in bold, read like this:

Go back to pre-school

Get out of the gene pool

Try your best to not drool

A little bit rude, right? That was intentional. The joke wouldn't have been effective had the infinitive not been split and the line read instead, "Try your best not to drool," (preserving the sacred infinitive).

This is because the emphasis on 'not' (rather than 'to') is what communicates the idea that not drooling is an exception to the norm. The only other way that the humour would have remained intact would've been to, I guess, rewrite the entire line and break the rhyme, but that would compromise the rhythm, and in turn the humour... so, actually, no.

Splitting the infinitive made that third line incredibly effective because it achieved exactly what Al had intended.

It should be known: grammar rules work most of the time because, most of the time, following them is the best way to achieve the exact form of communication you intend. For instance, I have followed a heck of a load of grammar rules in writing this blog post.

But the rules do not always help. Take the word 'silence', for example. By itself, 'silence' is just a word; yet, you can find it in many a novel, alone, by itself, acting as an entire sentence. Gasp? Not yet.

The word tells you one thing: that there was silence, but the word being by itself can show you other things, like suspense, tension, fear, and uncertainty. Had the sentence read like a sentence, "There was silence," then the emotions might not have been effectively conveyed.

The emotional value of the sentence is strengthened due to its simplicity (one word); and, if this is what the author intended, then writing "silence" as a sentence was entirely justified.

In saying that, a person should understand a rule before he dares to break it. He should know the rules by heart before he toys with them, otherwise it could very well be his head.

In a way, the Third Group is right. They know that you need a rule book before you can drive, but they're forgetting that no one drives without first having somewhere to go. And for that, you need a brain, too.

Read More

How to sound more intelligent - part three

You know, learning good grammar ought to be a responsibility for all native English speakers. My reasoning goes something like this: if four year-olds should know the alphabet, twenty-four year-olds should understand English grammar.

This third and final part is for those who've read and learned, or who already know, what I explained in parts one and two.

Part three: words you should stop misusing

Like someone who buys two pairs of shoes and over time wears only his favourite pair, so a lot of people neglect to say farther because they think that further does a better job. Even writers get this wrong. Writers of books!

Anyway, if you're one of these people, then, half of the time, you're wrong; you're wearing the wrong pair of shoes!

The words farther and further are not interchangeable.

Farther has to do with physical distance.
"Look there, Marie! The sprinter in first place is farther ahead than the chap in second!" - Captain Obvious

Further has to do with mental distance.
"Mrs Obvious rolled her eyes. Her last name notwithstanding, on the subject of education, she had progressed leagues further than her dolt of a husband."

Imply is the opposite of infer. The writer implies; the reader infers.

"Matt loves to write, but occasionally readers will infer something totally other than that which he was intending to imply."

Comprise cannot be used in place of consist or made up.
Comprise can be used in place of consist of or are made up of.

In other words, you can't say, "Clouds are comprised of water," because doing so is the equivalent of saying, "Clouds are are made up of of water."

Instead, say, "Clouds comprise water."

The Game of Thrones writers got it wrong when, on the subject of the Iron Bank, Tywin said, "A temple is comprised of stones." He should have said, "A temple comprises stones." Tsk tsk, Tywin Lannister. Oh, and Cersei made the same mistake in the same scene.

Now, before you get all funny: yes, I spotted the mistakes as I watched the show, but no, I wasn't trying to scrutinise.

In short
You move farther, you think further; your words imply, your ears infer.
Game of Thrones comprises awesomeness, but the script still needs editing.

Read More

How to sound more intelligent - part two

A lot of people - public speakers in particular - attempt to sound fancy by manipulating the English language in strange and obscure ways. They replace words like 'me' with 'I', saying things like:
"So when that Microsoft representative rocked up to our front door and offered Erwin and I the job, my heart, like, jumped out of my chest. I was so excited!"
Read: it's Erwin and me, not Erwin and I. See Part One.

It's like using a sword as a walking stick instead of a weapon. I mean, sure, it does the job, but it makes you look silly. Also, playing with grammar is a lot like playing with a sword. In a word: don't.

These same people also prefer to use 'myself' when they should have used either 'I' or 'me'. They do it like this: "If you have any questions, please talk to Leonard, Janora, or myself [me] at the end of the discussion." Argh! They remind me of those people who insist that the sun revolves around the earth, and not the other way around. Okay, fine, I don't know anyone who believes that, but you get the idea.

Part two: when to use 'myself' in a sentence

The word 'myself' is a reflexive pronoun. The reason that it's a reflexive pronoun is because it reflects onto an earlier noun used in the same sentence. The earlier noun is like its mother, and they're connected by an umbilical cord, which I can't draw.

'Myself' can be used here because it's referring to the 'I' preceding it. If there was no 'I' acting, then there would be no reason to use the word 'myself'.

All reflexive pronouns are the son or daughter or their mother noun.

As you can see, the reflexive pronoun gets its life from the mother noun to which it reflects. It can't breathe without it.

So, when you use a reflexive pronoun without giving it a mother noun, it suffocates. The reflexive umbilical cord has nothing to attach itself to, and the son or daughter dies.

So many people make this mistake, yet they wouldn't say, "Please talk to myself afterwards"; they'd say, "Please talk to me afterwards". The same applies here. When you add Leonard and Janora, nothing changes. 'Me' is still the correct term to use.

In short
reflexive pronouns come with umbilical cords. They must have a mother noun, or they will die. Moreover, you'll sound silly.

Part three: words you should stop misusing

Read More

How to sound more intelligent - part one

Some of the most common discrepancies in the spoken English language can weaken the best of us at the worst of times like a fatal chink on solid steel.

There are those of us who care enough to fix it, those of us who don't realise it's there, and those of us who don't care either way; after all, it's not like anyone else cares.*

*I do.

But it's one thing to have learnt good grammar before discarding it like a Best Buy circular because you opted for sounding cool rather than smart, and quite another thing to claim to appreciate things like brains, words and fountain pens, only to open your mouth and reveal to every passer-by that you are, in fact, the fountain pen. Don't look at me like you don't know what I mean.

Part one: there's a difference between I and me

At some point in our childhood we were saying things like, "Me and Jimmy are going to the park." But then our parents were all, "Jimmy and EYE," and they'd repeat this phrase a gazillion times like they had grammar tourrettes. Then we hit adolescence and stopped caring about our parents' wellbeings, and about grammar. Okay, fine, we never cared about grammar.

The problem was, thanks to the adults in our lives, the word 'me' was expunged from our vocabulary and replaced with the far more pristine 'I'. So, ironically, for the few brats young adults of us who might have once cared about grammar, there was no room left for 'me'.

Stuff we were taught as kids:

1. Don't say 'me'; say 'I'
2. Put yourself last. Say 'Jimmy and I', not 'I and Jimmy'.

Fun fact #1: rule 2 is table manners, not actual grammar.

Fun fact #2: 'me' still exists.

Stuff I've learnt as an adult:

1. People who say "me and Jimmy" don't care about the rules, whether or not they know them. 
2. People who say "Jimmy and I" do care about the rules, but, more often than not, only know half of them.

Here's the other half:

'Jimmy and I' is correct in this sentence: "Jimmy and I are going to the park."

'Jimmy and I' is incorrect in this sentence: "A man approached Jimmy and I and offered us candy from his van." Such a nice man.

You: Why is the second sentence incorrect?

Me: I'm glad you asked!

Method A - easy answer:

When you take "Jimmy" away from the sentence, you're left with "I".

     "Jimmy and I are am going to the park." :)

     "A man approached Jimmy and I and offered us me candy from his van." :(

The second example sounds silly, right? 'Me' should have been used instead of 'I'. 

     "A man approached me and offered me candy from his van."

Much better, now add Jimmy.

     "A man approached Jimmy and me and offered us candy from his van."

Easy, right? I'm getting goosebumps.

In short 
the phrase "Jimmy and I" is not always correct. To find out which of 'me' or 'I' is correct, simply get rid of Jimmy. He was more a neighbour than a friend, anyway.

Method B - boring/technical answer:

'I' is a subject pronoun; 'me' is an object pronoun. The subject is the thing that acts; the object is the thing that gets acted upon.

"Jimmy and I are going to the park."

In this sentence, Jimmy and I are the subjects. They are going to the park, which is the object.

"A man approached Jimmy and me and offered me candy from his van."

In this sentence, the man is the subject, and he's approaching the objects, which are Jimmy and me.

Other subject pronouns include 'he', 'she' and 'they'. Other object pronouns include 'him', 'her' and 'them'.

In short, stick with Method A.

Part two: how to use 'myself' correctly

Read More

The difference between 'a' and 'an'

A lot of us get to thinking that there exists this arbitrary rule within the English language that enforces people to say 'an' when the word following it begins with a vowel.

For instance, we say, "An artichoke" and, "An umbrella", but the gurus of language didn't intend us to do so simply because "we have to use 'an' when the next word starts with a vowel." That would be like saying, "The sun sets because it's night time."

The real reason the 'n' was added was because it can break the flow of a sentence when two vowel or consonant sounds are spoken without something to break them up. It has nothing to do with the letter itself, only the sound it makes within that word.

In most cases, we get it right.

Example 1a: "Next year, I'm going to make an Easter egg out of vegetables because I'm a rebel."

Example 1b: "Will it be a teeny tiny Easter egg, or a massive, fatty Easter egg comparable to the size of a fully grown elephant?"

However, because this rule has nothing to do with the consonant or the vowel itself, there are exceptions. When people misunderstand the rule, they are unable to adapt to these exceptions, and they begin to sound silly.

Example 1c (incorrect): " 'Fatty' was an euphemism, but I wouldn't mind trying a small Easter egg made out of vegetables."

Why is it wrong? Because it sounds silly.

Example 1c' (correct): " 'Fatty' was a euphemism. Having said that, anyone who dares to eat an Easter egg made out of vegetables will be shot and killed."

The word 'euphemism' begins with a consonant sound (you), not a vowel sound. Therefore, use 'a'. The rule was invented to make the flow of words easier, not harder, and that is entirely dependent on how the words sound. Make sense? Moving on.

Example 2: "Janet Bunnyhop's autobiography, Chocolate Heaven, Vegetable Hell, portrays the significance of Easter in an historical setting."

A teacher in high school taught me to write 'an' in a phrase such as the one above because the emphasis on the word 'historical' is placed on the second syllable - that is, historical - which is a vowel sound, and because the first letter - h - is almost silent. In other words, you will only have a case like this when the word begins with an 'h' and the emphasis of the word is placed on the second syllable. You wouldn't say, "I'm quite an happy man."

For a long while I thought it was a stupid exception, because 'a' carries the sentence just as well as 'an' does. So I did some research, and guess what? It doesn't even matter! You can ignore the rule in this case and do whatever you like. Perhaps your accent might dictate which word improves the outpouring of your speech, but feel free to decide which one you prefer.

Remember, it's the sound of the phrase that determines whether 'a' or 'an' is more appropriate. Something to note is that, because most people, such as the man at your next job interview, don't realise that the rule is based on the sound, they'll see 'an historical' (and other such phrases) and think it's wrong. Best to stick with 'a historical', at least in print.

Read More

When to use (and not to use) quotation marks

The marks of quotation are perhaps the easiest marks of punctuation to use, yet so often they lead only to destruction. You know what else leads to destruction? Walking on your face.

Compare man walking on his face with man walking on his feet.

Silly, yes? That's because it's easy to walk on your feet, and impossible to walk on your face. For starters, you'd need to have two faces so that your weight can always be on one face while the other takes a step forward. As it happens, we don't possess the required amount of faces, so we'd have to sort of face-hop from place to place. I imagine the process would be rather destructive.

Fortunately it's easy to walk on your feet and not on your face. All you have to remember, when you get up in the morning, is not to walk upside-down.

But there's another reason why we walk on our feet and not on our faces. It makes us look more intelligent. Therefore, walking intelligently is easy. The criteria is as follows:

1. Don’t walk on your face.

You know what else is easy? Using quotation marks! It's like walking, provided that walking had two more rules.

*Only use quotation marks when,

1. quoting someone besides yourself

2. denoting sarcasm

3. writing dialogue

When my brother sent me this image, I was left wondering which of the three rules applied.

1. Forget the backwards quotation marks. Generally, if you're going to quote someone, the done thing is to tag the person whom you're quoting, otherwise you might as well have made it up, which defeats the purpose of having quotation marks. Fortunately no one patented the words, 'Thank you'.

2. If sarcasm was the intention, then the staff member who wrote this sign wasn't wanting to thank me, but to insult me. Yet, as Harvey Norman is a store that tries to sell me things rather than ruin my self esteem, I decided that blurting sarcastic courtesies to potential buyers was counter-productive.

3. Pretty lame dialogue.

The inevitable conclusion was, of course, that the writer either had no idea how to use quotation marks properly, or he/she had no idea how to underline text.

Do not use quotation marks when:

1. You aren't doing anything in the above list. Or, in other words, whenever you're trying to place emphasis on a given word or phrase.

Surrounding a phrase in quote marks in order to denote emphasis is just as helpful as surrounding it in commas, or @ symbols, or these things: ~ , which is to say that they do nothing. Except they don't do nothing. For people who know better, the phrase becomes sarcastic.

If you want to add emphasis to a phrase, underline it, use italics, or write it in bold. You could even try using CAPS, though that generally denotes yelling. The only punctuation mark that adds any form of emphasis is the exclamation point!

The writer of the sign didn't know that, and he/she is one of millions. Sad, isn't it? Who would put ~ thingies around the words 'thank you' to denote emphasis? I sure wouldn't. It's sort of a rule of life for me. Rule #1: Don't walk on my face. Rule #2: Don’t emphasise words with ~ thingies.

------------

Here they are again.

Only use quotation marks when,

1. quoting someone besides yourself

2. denoting sarcasm

3. writing dialogue

*There are some other, rare instances in which quotation marks can be used, but even then they aren't necessary.

Read More

Words that aren't words. Stop using them.

I have put together a list of eight words that, quite simply, aren't words. If you say/write them, you should probably stop. Some are spoken correctly but spelled horrendously, while others on paper look fine, but when spoken, make the earth cringe.

(Yes, every time you misspeak a word, somewhere, there's an earthquake).

It would be a top ten, but the highest ranking, 'yous' and 'totes', have achieved such infamy that they each have a post of their own. Links are at the bottom. As promised, here are the other eight.

Alot

Alot is not aword. Neither is apony or apoptart. Weird, right?

Aswell

It’s ‘as well’, with a gap for personal space in between.

Alright

You might not get the red underline for this one. Know why? Because it’s so disgraceful you should know better. ‘All right’ - now there’s a breath of fresh air.

Aks

As in, "Aks him for the cash."

It's entirely possible that at some point in my past, I heard this very command and thought, To what culture does this person belong? Surely killing is illegal there too, right? More importantly, why do they always axe their friends? Note to self: do not befriend this person.

Then it hit me. Oh, they meant 'ask'. Yet I folded my arms, brow creased. Note to self: do not befriend this person.

Dieing

Just look at the three vowels in the middle there and tell me that it makes even a smidgen of sense to pronounce that mutation of letters as ‘die-ing’. I’d probably go for ‘deeeng’, like a doorbell with an Australian accent. 

(The correct spelling of the word that describes someone whose health is presently waning to the point of no longer living is ‘dying’).

Ragland

When someone says "Ragland," I think of a meadow filled with old shirts and car engine-stained flannels, and then I say, “Oh, you mean Raglan. Yeah, sure, let's go.”

Some-think, any-think and every-think

A friend who needs better arguments recently uttered that words ending in ‘ing’ are sometimes pronounced with a ‘k’ stuck to the end to help conclude without having to trail off, since the ‘ng’ on its own doesn’t really 'finish'. I remained unconvinced, replying that any word ending with a vowel doesn’t ‘finish’, and therefore we should add a ‘k’ to them, too. (I was being sarcastic. Don't even think about it.)

Also, no one says 'think' when they mean 'thing'.

Some-pink

No one says this, either, except my childhood neighbour friend. He had a permanently-blocked nose and parents who didn't feel the need to correct him. He was trying to say “something”, but his ‘th’ became ‘p’, and then he added the ‘k’ like an epilogue to his verbal diarrhoea. I must have lost my note.

-------------------------

Totes

http://sanctuaryofsynonyms.blogspot.co.nz/2012/04/totes.html

Yous

http://sanctuaryofsynonyms.blogspot.co.nz/2012/12/the-yous-epidemic.html

Read More

Yous has babies: Yours and Yours's

It was as I exited the mall that I saw it. A double-sided blackboard detailing the specials at Esquires. Except, it didn't read 'specials', but rather... 'speciels'. Noting the prominence of foreign workers within the café, I simply donned a wry smile and carried on. Not an unkind man, I was even willing to forgive and forget, even turn my slanted smile into a cheerful one, so long as the spelling on other side of the board was no different. Yet, a deep, ugly cringe left no doubt left me unrecognisable after I turned my head. SPESHALS!

Anecdote aside, if you're going to get something wrong, then at the very least be consistent!

Deep down, we all know that the pronoun 'you' can apply to any number of people at a time. This means that 'yous' is unnecessary in every instance it gets said. But if you're going to insist on speaking poorly, then you really ought to add an 's' to every word derived from the word 'you'. For instance, after your daily jog, you might stop by your neighbours' house.

You note their car, both awesome (it can fly) and green. "That's a mint car yous of got," you say between short breaths.

"Thanks," your friendly and intelligent neighbour replies, "but we hardly use it ever since we got our teleportation device. It takes us anywhere in seconds!"
"Oh, mean. Can I see yours teleportation device?"

"Sure can. Come on in."

You step inside. It's the most amazing house you've ever seen, the descriptions irrelevant to the blog post in which you're presently featuring. "Wow, this place is real nice. Is it yours's, or are yous renting?"

Why leave 'yous' to fend for itself? Give it some friends. Since you've already turned 'you' into 'yous' in cases where two or more people are the subjects of 'you', naturally you should also do the following. 

It's consistent, it's logical, and it clearly makes your language sound aeons cooler than your everyday lingo. Look, Gollum is on the right track.

What? So, you're saying that Gollum is not your role model? But... the language and all... I just thought... Pshh, whatever.

Read More

The 'Yous' Epidemic

Childhood was a nightmare. School bullying; cat got run over; broadband was called something like 'dial up'; and there was the unforgettable epidemic of 'yous'. Not 'use', 'yous'. As in, "I'll give yous a gold star if yous'd learn to speak English." Eugh!

Enduring the profanities of those whose pastimes it was to pick on kids richer than them, and for whom I felt sorry because it gave them little time for videogames, was cake next to other blasphemous obscenities with which my poor ears were forced to contend. Among them, 'yous' was the worst. I had my first encounter when I was seven.

"Mrs Black gets angry when we're late! Yous better hurry up."

The word was petrifying. Even when the bell rang, the sound of which normally sets my feet into action, I stood there. The playground emptied; tumbleweed hovered; I felt like I was floating. I blinked moisture into my eyes, but instead the memories came flooding back. His face, adorned with freckles and glasses, refused to fade from my mind. The lisp made his verbal abuse indistinguishable from 'youth'. And as he spoke, saliva sprayed from between his metal-plated teeth. The word emerged like a shark trying to speak while consuming its prey. Violent, traumatising and... unnatural.

Today I still remember the culprit's face; it's been tattooed onto my memory, black and white like a wanted poster's sketch. Except before he could be detained, his sick language infiltrated the minds of every other kiwi in this country. I hear it more than ever; and each time it revives the pain. Battle scars.

Such language isn't even remotely productive. Believe me, I've fought to justify its use: 'you's' as a contraction for 'you is'; oh wait, there's no situation where that works, ever. Or 'yous' for colloquial banter, like 'lols' for old people since, you know, old people say it! But even this doesn't hold water, since 'lol' is but a poor acronym whose lowly status has long been established. 'You', on the other hand, is a perfectly crafted word, like 'Raglan' without the 'D' and 'everything' without that vulgar 'K'! It is clear that 'yous' has no place in anyone's vocabulary.

I know there are others who've seen the light, those of you similarly afflicted by the plagues which haunt the English language. It is you who ask, "What must we do?" And, with great pain, I must say that there is no known cure. But hope is not lost, for I do have one suggestion: one other than, "It's 'you', without the 's'," since that response only turns you into a pedantic nut. My advice is this: mimic and exaggerate their mistakes,

"What are yous up to today?"

"I's gots as physicses labs ats ones, ands Douglases's gots twos tutses froms elevens untils twelves fifties."

With hope they'll realise saying 'yous' makes them sound like they're simultaneously being tasered.

Immediate results are unlikely; but the more we wait, the more the curse spreads. Even those once thought immune are finding the taint to be too much to bear. Ignorance and apathy are pitfalls which we're becoming careless to avoid. Well stand up, I say. For if you're finding yourself in one of these pits, then may my advice be a torch to light your way, or a map if your pit is, in fact, a twisted and abysmal cave crawling with 'yous'-spreaders. 

If it is, then we may already be too late.

Read More

Does Grammar really Matter?

Grammar and Punctuation¹: a volatile blend of simplicity and complexity. Simple in purpose, yet horrendously difficult to master. Each one of us knows what the term means - it isn't rocket science - but when it comes to hearing its application, I oftentimes close my eyes, picturing a cave occupied by men and women. They wear the skins of primitive beasts, and their tools are a collection of stones and bones. Fittingly, like the mammoth they slew and from whose bones they procured, grammar and punctuation is too great a beast to simply tame. It must be laid to rest.

Forsooth, some say that grammar doesn't matter; that it is an old-fashioned mix of arbitrary rules belonging to a minority who refuses to adapt; that those who claim to be well-versed are all compensating for things of actual significance that they lack; or that it is only relevant in some situations, like during a job interview or an exam.²

Such claims are bold, but they are no bolder than the ones proclaimed from those who hold a different view. Indeed, some would go so far as to say that grammar and punctuation might be the Achilles heel of today's Western society.

To those who uphold the former-most view, that language is changing, and that we ought to change with it: I agree. Language is always changing, much like fashion. Yet, no matter the fashion, there are standards; and in every instance, there is a scale ranging from inappropriate to over-dressed, with just right sitting in the middle. It is the same with grammar. There are standards, even today - standards that many people would rather do away with. I might want to wear shorts and a tee shirt instead of a suit to my wedding, but you would all gawk at me (or not attend) if I actually did. Likewise, I gawk at the eight out of ten native English-speaking people who can't differentiate 'have' from 'of'.

Granted, this comparison fails to shed any light as to why grammar and punctuation matters in the strictest sense of the word, and it even appears to support the claim that grammar is only important in some situations, like during a job interview or an exam. Perhaps that is because this claim is spot on. Just like most things, finely-tuned grammar only truly matters when its counterpart, poor grammar, bears unwanted consequences. Applying sun block at the beach matters because, if I don't, I'll get burnt. Correctly-punctuated writing matters in an exam because the alternative is to lose marks. Following is a spam email I recently received.

------------------

T-Mobile Nederland BV
Waldorpstraat 60,
2521 CC Den Haag,
The Netherlands.
online-client service.

CONGRATULATION!

From T-mobile NL we are proud to inform you that your email address have
won you 850,000.00euros from our online anual coordination.

Chose an option which you will like to receive your winnings presenting
along side your winning reff number: NL/VV5-421/0031012.

(1). Come to the Redemption centre here in the Netherlands.
(2). On-line Bank Transfer
(3). Courier Delivery service

Congratulations once again.
Regards,
Robijn van-kloose.
Award Coordinator for T-mobile NL

------------------

A sore thumb is a grave understatement in illustrating just how jarring this email is to anyone with half a brain. Indeed, it is completely submerged in discrepancy. You might have noticed that the word in capitals is missing a letter. Just one letter of a fifteen-letter word, yet we all notice it, and I'm sure we would all agree that it is unacceptable. Even with the 'S', the word itself, capitalised to grab the reader's attention, is a tell-tale sign of spam, yet the typo (I'll give them that much) is icing on the cake. Then there are 99 others. You see, even if I would have been so easily fooled, this one slip up is the ultimate sacrifice of credibility.

Credibility. It matters.

Things that uphold credibility: research, enthusiasm, confidence, good grammar.

If you can't back up a claim, prepare to be criticised. If your tone is dry and stale, prepare to be ignored. If you sound as confused as the people you're trying to instruct, prepare to be questioned. If your grammar is atrocious, then you can forget about everything else; you're going in the spam folder! Essentially, in all cases where you want to be taken seriously, strong grammar and punctuation strictly does matter.

via cheezburger.com

But what about in all other cases? Does grammar matter on Facebook, on Skype, or in casual emails? Your first response might be: no, it doesn't. You have nothing to prove on these mediums; you type like you talk; and there is no reason to put any effort into it. Fair enough, I say. And once again, I completely agree. In fact, I see no need to comment on the structure of someone's imperfect Facebook status when there isn't any pressing reason for them to write it correctly. If everyone understands it, and it makes sense, then that's all that matters. My hope is that, in cases where grammar does matter, they know what to do, and they'll get it right.

There is a difference, however, between a man who knows better but simply doesn't care, and a man who strives to get his grammar and punctuation correct, yet falters at the last word. My view is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, it's only when there's a genuine mistake that I consider addressing the author. In such a case, my train of thought plays something like this: "If John has made a grammatical mistake despite making an effort not to, then he is likely to make the same mistake at a later time when it may prove detrimental." What is the next step upon this realisation? Do I point out the food caught between his teeth, or do I leave it unnoticed, hoping that he won't be too embarrassed when he eventually gets given a mirror?

In essence, grammar and punctuation on mediums like Facebook doesn't matter, or at least it wouldn't matter if these social mediums were the be all and end all of communication. But they aren't. Eventually, you will write something - a report, an essay, a personal statement - in which your understanding of grammar and punctuation will be your backbone. A good performance requires practice. Whether or not your grasp of English needs a polish is entirely up to you. Perhaps you know it well enough; but when it comes down to it, will you know where to place the apostrophe, if any? Should there be a comma before the quotation, or not? And can you properly distinguish its and it's, or there, their and they're? Your lecturer can. Your employer can. If you can't, then teach yourself. Google it, learn it, then practise it. 

Facebook, text, email - they might not matter right now, but they will matter when it's too late. For the sake of a job interview or exam, it's not unheard of to, you know, prepare.

For those times where grammar and punctuation strictly matters, every other instance may or may not matter in retrospect. It is your call to make. But it's all part of a constitution, and governing that constitution is a language that probably stems from your childhood. Do you remember? You learned a 26-letter alphabet, and you came to appreciate 26, not 25, distinct characters as the building blocks for communication. Today, not once do you forget one and replace it with more of the others. You accepted the whole package. It was either that, or nothing at all. Creating your own language, choosing your own rules, it doesn't work. You speak English, a constitution complete with standards and guidelines. Typing "your" when you mean "you're" is like spelling CONGRATULATIONS without the S. It's incomplete and, quite frankly, irresponsible. This, my friends, is why grammar and punctuation matters. It's the same reason the letter 'S' matters in the English alphabet. Forget everything else. You can punctuate and spell how you like on Facebook; you can rebel against your employers with a typo-ridden resume; but you can't then call it English. English has 26 letters; it has spelling and grammar rules; and it has punctuation marks.

If you say "should of" or "yous" or "Some-think", then by all means, keep saying these things. I trust you of all people are the smartest of us all, for your grasp of language is so firm that you feel confident to play with it, as if the tendon above the heel bears no limit to its stretch.

----------------

1. As both nouns are part of the same constitution, I'm treating them as a single term. For instance, "Parks and Recreation" IS a TV program.

2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7E-aoXLZGY I love this!

Read More

More Betterer

Let's face it. English is too damn demanding. We have to spell words, use commas and full stops, and then decide how many exclamation marks to use at the end of something remarkable!! And then that's not all. Nowadays we're having to contend with… with…  double superlatives! "Say what?" You ask, your tone aghast and your face warped with shock. Precisely.

Let's be clear. Saying things like "more nicer" and "more stronger" don't make any sense. But not saying them is yet another cumbersome task for the burden of speechcraft. All these regulations - it's hard enough as is not to break the law without worrying about the rules of… how do I say it… language! Well, worry no more. For I offer you the most moral code of moral codes: if you really don't want to give something up, justify it!¹ After all, if you can't beat'em, join'em.

The phrase "more better", along with all its variations, has become widely used in today's declin- I mean Western society. It probably stems from the fact that some words allow you to attach "er" to the end, like 'cuter', 'smoother' and 'funnerer', while others don't, like 'satisfied-er' and 'beautiful-er'. In the case of the latter two, one should say "more satisfied" or "more beautiful". Halt! All of a sudden we have two different utensils for the exact same piece of pie, and only one of them ever serves as proper etiquette. It's only natural, therefore, that they sometimes get mismatched, or we simply become too accustomed to our spoon of choice.

There are two main reasons why a man shouldn't say terms like "more better".

1) They don't make sense.

2) They sound retarded. The 'er' in "better" does the same job as the word 'more' preceding it. Forsooth, they mean exactly the same thing and do exactly the same job. Thus, if you say something like, "My new job is a lot more better," it's like saying, "My new job is a lot betterer," or, "My new job is a lot more more bett," to either of which I'd ask, "Who hired you?"

But this phrase, which simply leaves the word 'more' completely and utterly redundant, has been ingrained into your minds like the alphabet. Like how one plus one is two and not, in fact, sixty-five. It's part of the basics, and cannot be simply erased without you questioning the authenticity of your very own childhood. Fortunately there is no such need to wipe your memory. At least not yet.

It should be noted that I'm a man who doesn't just complain, but comes up with solutions as well. In fact, I can think of an entire one reason that completely justifies the use of 'more better'. Take Bobbery, for instance. Bobbery broke his leg last Sunday. It's now Tuesday. Life sucks because he's maimed and can't do much. But he can still talk - and his mouth is now his only remaining source of dignity. Screw that up, and he might as well be a fish.
Sarmeena, one of his good friends, pops in for a visit. "How's the leg?" she asks.

"Well," Bobbery begins, "it's more better than it was yesterday."

"Uh, what did you just say?" she says, her tone aghast and her face warped with shock. Rightfully so.

"Sarmeena, I can explain."

"I'm listening," she concedes, proving her loyalty as a friend through thick and thin.

Bobbery takes a deep breath. "You see, yesterday I was feeling a bit better than Sunday; but today I'm feeling much better than yesterday."

"So?" Hostility is creeping into her tone now.

"So, the amount by which I feel better today in relation to yesterday is greater than that which I felt yesterday with regards to the day before."

The ensuing silence is awkward, and Bobbery senses that the threads of their friendship are wearing thin and farther between. Much to his relief, she simply laughs and flicks her hair. "Oh, why didn't you just say so?" And she proceeds to share her chocolate with him, chocolate that she was about to keep to herself. It's berry and biscuit.

So what did Bobbery mean, exactly? Simple. The improvement in Bobbery's health between Monday and Tuesday was greater than the improvement between Sunday and Monday. Thus, he feels more better today than he did yesterday. So long as this explanation can apply to your uses of the term 'more better' or any of its variants, you will be able to defend ridicule, embarrassment and the Facebook-approved certainty of your friendships.2 You can thank me laterer.

------------------------------

1.    Sarcasm

2.    This justification actually holds no water at all. "More better" still sounds retarded because Bobbery could (and should) have instead said, "even better," or, "better yet". Fortunately you probably didn't read this far.

Read More