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

Just for the lolz

Text communication is a wonderful thing. Obviously. Writing is communication, and I love to write. Unfortunately, a casual text conversation does not account for body language or tones of voice, most notable when it comes to one word responses like "lol", or short phrases like "okay then". Such comments are useful and quick, but they're also terribly vague; and, more often than not, they don't mean what they're supposed to mean.

I wrote a simple guide to clarify the kinds of physical and verbal responses that I, and many other people, exhibit when we make these types of comments.

Response: hi; hey; hello; hiya; hi there; herro

Expression: Smile

What I might be thinking: How wonderful to hear from you, you awesome person, you; please don't think me sad for not adding an exclamation mark. I greeted you, didn't I?

Response: good; good thanks; well

Expression: N/A

What I might be thinking: I am good. That is all.

Response: not much; nothing much

Expression: N/A

What I might be thinking: Quite a lot, actually, but I lack the energy to explain.

Response: uh huh; mhmm; mm; m

Expression: N/A

What I might be thinking: Please, go on.

Response: huh; I see

Expression: Possible head nod

What I might be thinking: Interesting; I have nothing else to say; I hope you don't think I want you to stop talking to me; I'm playing a game and you're distracting me.

Response: busy

Expression: Frown

What I might be thinking: I'm playing a game and you're distracting me, but you're still awesome.

Response: interesting

Expression: Possible head nod

What I might be thinking: I have nothing else to say, but I've said "huh" three times already.

Response: k; kk; riteo; yes sir; yessum; yes boss; yes m'lord

Expression: N/A

What I might be thinking: Okay; agreed; confirmed; roger.

Response: lol

Expression: Possible snicker; possible half smile; possible nothing

What I might be thinking: I see; funny; acknowledged.

Response: ha

Expression: Smirk

What I might be thinking: Good one.

Response: haha

Expression: Potential silent laughter

What I might be thinking: That was funny. It certainly deserved more than a "lol", but it was no "hahaha".

Response: hahaha; LOL

Expression: Audible laughter

What I might be thinking: You and your funniness; this is why we're friends.

Response: mwahaha; kekeke; fufufu

Expression: Rubbing of hands; malicious smile; wide eyes; cackle

What I'll be thinking: I eat my friends.

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

Why I didn't study at the Auckland University of Technology University

It was late last year when indecision plagued my mind. The days were becoming longer, the air warmer. Summer was coming, and I had no idea what to do with my life! After much indecision and frustration, a plethora of infinite possibilities was hammered down to a much more surmountable two. The options were:

1. A Masters in Creative Writing at AUT

2. An Advanced Diploma in Applied Writing at Northtec

Both were one year courses, both full time. Thing is, I still had to make a decision, which was, like all decisions, hard. So, being the outside-the-box thinker I am, I decided to do something unspeakable. I decided to cheat Fate. I decided… to apply for BOTH!

Naturally, both institutions got back to me with promising information, playing their respective cards, talking themselves up and whatnot. Some things I noted were that AUT requested a portfolio five times longer than that of Northtec, AUT's site was more sophisticated and easier to navigate, and AUT had a far better reputation. Yet, I was swayed towards Northtec for one simple reason.

Turns out AUT wasn't (and still isn't) its full name. It's AUT University! Or, in full, Auckland University of Technology University.

Not wishing to study at a tertiary institution that can't proof-read - or, at least, explain - its own name, I wrote them an email to withdraw my application.*

I get it. They don't want their university confused with, say, an airport. But there's a reason why you don't go to the ATM machine.

So now I'm studying at Northtec, and it's going rather well. I mean, my thesis-type assignment in this course is, wait for it, the novel I'm writing! Woo!

Still, I shake my head. Surely a reputable institution such as AUT University, which offers advanced courses in Creative Writing, would have editors smart enough to note the jarring, mouthful-of-a-name University University they represent. The name hasn't changed, however, so I can only infer that they do not. I think I made the right choice.

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

*This scruple - and, believe me, it was a mammoth of a scruple - was not actually what vanquished my indecision, but that doesn't mean it wasn't flippin' annoying!

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

Five words that aren't words but should be. Start saying them.

This list was harder to think up than I anticipated, and not because the non-words are used so scarcely that I'd almost forgotten about them. Anna, a friend who can vouch for me that these non-words should be words, put it nicely when she said,

"The problem is we use them so normal-like, that they aren't stored in our heads as weirdly words."

Just so; I hope they become stored in your heads as nothing less than funtastic.

Trouché

Trou∙ché

Exclamation

Used to acknowledge taking a 'hit' (as in the word touché), only that the hit was also true. A combination of touché and true.

1.         "Aah! My house is on fire!"

            "That's probably because you left the oven on."

            "Trouché."

Goog/Googs

Verb or Noun

An abbreviation for Google.

Examples:

1.         "I'm bored. How long does it take for the fire truck to get here?"

            "I dunno, why don't you Goog it?"

2.         After using Google to find the answer to your question: "Thanks Googs!"

Possibtentially

Poss∙ib∙ten∙tial∙ly

Adverb

Both able to be done and possible. A combination of possibly and potentially.

Synonyms

Proboplausibly

Examples:

1.         "Do you think Mister Muggles is still alive?"

            "Possibtentially."

Zactlo

Zact∙lo

Adverb

The alien term for exactly. It's also more fun to use.

Examples:

1.         "Mister Muggles has an acute sense for danger."

            "Yeah. Plus it wasn't like I put him in the oven."

            "Zactlo!"

Hugify

Hug∙i∙fy

Expression or verb

Used upon magically making something bigger than its ordinary size, that is, after hugifying an object or person. The exact duration of hugification is irrelevant.

Examples:

1.         "Oh look, here comes the fire truck."

            "Hugify!"

            "Huh? Whoa! You just supersized that truck! How did you do that?"

            You smile knowingly. "I'm a wizard."

            "Couldn't you use your magic to extinguish the flames?"

            A lengthy pause. "Trouché."

Read More

YOLO and Idiocracy

I recently saw a film called Idiocracy, in which Joe Bauers gets cryogenically frozen for 500 years, only to reawaken to a world full of idiots. The premise makes the assumption that families who are more productive tend to be less intelligent, more intelligent couples produce less kids, and, therefore, the intelligent die out, and the stupid survive.

Makes sense, I thought; but it wasn't until the year 2505 that I was rendered fully petrified.

In this new society, Starbucks is a brothel of sorts, rubbish dumps reach higher than Everest, and plants are 'watered' with Gatorade because "it has electrolytes". When Mr Bauers asks a bunch of loiterers for directions, they get mad and one of them says, "You're starting to sound faggy." When he pleads with a stranger to help him, and promises gold for his assistance, the stranger replies, "I like moneys." And when Joe enquires where he can get water to drink, the response is, "What, like, water from the toilet?"

I can't speak much for the film's premise since, as it happens, I'm not exactly playing my part in spawning a formidable team of mini-Matts. But needless to say, this extreme decline in human intelligence (and with it, the English language) left me asking, "Could this be happening right now?" And you know what? I think it could, evidenced by the infamous term "YOLO!"

It's a shame it's white. There'll be no hope of concealing my vomit.

Aside from the fact that saying YOLO makes whatever you've just said, are saying, or are about to say contain 100% less integrity, it's also a contradiction. You only live once, yes, so why are you wasting your breath (and reputation) saying YOLO? The term destroys itself, yet no one seems to notice.

Thankfully, not one of my friends takes it seriously. For instance, when Naomi says it, she puts on an extremely pompous English accent and drags the word until you've forgotten whatever it is she was on about. And then we all laugh.

Like 'yous' and 'totes' and other mutations of language, YOLO must only be said as a joke or a jest. We must expose the mutation for what it is, for there are those who do use the term seriously, and it's these people who serve only to pave the slippery slope down which intellect itself will soon tumble and fall... from a teetering pile of junk (a metaphor for crappy words and acronyms) the size of Mount Everest.

And as for the mini-Matts, well, at least now I have a sensible reason to have kids!

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