Almost-Real Worlds, and Getting Very Real about Malapostrophism
In this post, I write three mini-reviews of books that take place in alternate realities, and then I explore a world that’s all too real now (though not in a too terribly tragic way): the world of malapostrophicated writing.
One Hundred Years of Solitude
by Gabriel García Márquez
Fascinating history of a fictional family in a fictional place; full of pathos, existential horror, comedy, and a large dose of "magical realism". Yes, there are a lot of sordid and shocking details; but if something is to be a "true" chronicle then the bad must be included with the good. The prose style is a little heavy-handed and awkward at times, though this may be simply the result of translation; the full flavor of something written in one language can seldom (if ever) be carried over into another.
Parable of the Talents
by Octavia E. Butler
In this quasi-science fiction novel, the author of “Kindred” spins a dark tale about survival in a near-future American Dark Age. The protagonist is one of the founders of a new religion (who sees it as the only way to make people to cooperate so they can rebuild the country and eventually migrate to the stars); the brutal antagonists are fanatical thugs from a fascist regime who call themselves Christian. (One of their slogans, mentioned early in the book but not revisited, is “Make America great again”, though the book was written in 1995.) It all makes for good reading. The characters, settings, and the tenets of the new religion all sound as though they could be real. However, I was disappointed that, except in a couple of furtive hints that don’t lead anywhere, a logical third option is never entertained (between the new religion and the antagonists): a Christian denomination which opposes the thuggery, supports education and betterment of society, and is actually based on the teachings of Jesus. Or perhaps, drawing from the parable in the title, the whole story is allegorical. Maybe there will be a sequel dealing with that third option, though it will have to be by another author: Ms. Butler died in 2006.
1Q84
by Haruki Murakami
(There is a Japanese pun in the title, and it’s a part of the plot.) This is a strange bit of surrealism where characters go into a world that is not quite (but almost) the real world, encounter circumstances that are not quite (but almost) real, and act in ways that are not quite (but almost) understandable. There are creepy leprechauns, inexplicable cocoons, copies of characters, and there’s something wrong with the night sky. It’s all fascinating, eerie, weird, and difficult to put down despite its length – you want to find out what’s going to happen even though you know it’s not going to be anything “normal”. (In the last of the three sections, there’s something of a twist: you do know what’s going to happen eventually but have no idea how it’s going to come about.) I have two major objections to the book. One: there’s a persistent fetish which first gets annoying, then embarrassing, and finally infuriating (“ugh, that again!”). Two, more serious: there is a passage that consists essentially of statutory rape. It would not have affected the plot for Murakami to write the teenaged girl as an adult. This is a major (and creepy) flaw in the book, so I can't actually recommend it. However (and here I have a moral dilemna), the writing is clear and concise, without convoluted sentences – at times this contrast of simple style with bizarre plot is disconcerting, and maybe that's the point.
Okay, now about the apostrophes:
I know it’s being nitpicky, but one of my biggest pet peeves is what I call “malapostrophism”: using apostrophes incorrectly. A subtype is “hyperapostrophism” – the etymology is obvious, but I use it specifically to mean using apostrophes for plurals. It makes the writing difficult to read – when I encounter it, I often have to backtrack and re-read to try to figure out what the writer was trying to say.
So, yesterday when I encountered a Facebook post (on a group for writers, nonetheless!) that had three pluralizing apostrophes in eighteen words of nearly indecipherable text, I posted the following bit of pointed sarcasm in a separate thread:
ANYONE WHO USES APOSTROPHE’S LIKE THIS IS NOT A WRITER AND SHOULDN’T BE IN THIS GROUP.
I expected people would get a little laugh (I had done the exact thing I was denouncing there!) and move on. The result was entirely different.
1.) The trolls came out to party.
2.) Some interesting discussion actually happened.
I eventually deleted the thread because it was attracting too much attention. However, the following is about a third of the dialogue that ensued. I mentioned in the thread that the material might appear on this blog, and I’ve censored some of it, paraphrased most of it, and changed all the names to (wrong) initials (except for ME).
XN: writers don't use all caps.
DI: Unless you’re yelling.
UT: Everyone has to start somewhere. Why not encourage better grammar rather than chastise people who don't know any better?
ME: I thought that's what I was doing: explaining what not to do, and giving a funny example.
UT: Perhaps it was your delivery.
KC: Poets seem do do whatever they want
KC: (I said do do ... Giggle)
UC: there is no need for two do's. One is plenty.
ME: There was an odd apostrophe used correctly.
BC: ...much to do about nothing.
KC: Whats the matter with you? Dont you see how having problem's like this just reveal how much of a sad sack youre?
ME: (Fix your apostrophes)
KC: Congrats for spotting the humor so quickly. If it upsets you, let me console you: they're, their. That’s not so bad now, is it?
ST: I l'ike' t'o pep'per apo'strope's r'a'ndo'mly t'hrou'g'hout my s'entenc'es
ME: Per’fec’t.
TK: ST, You shouldn’t be killed, at least not without torture first. It would squander a good teaching moment.
KB: Let’s say, you're typing on a phone and you hit the wrong button. Or maybe you don't speak English as a primary language. Or maybe you're working on it and never learned. Get over it.
UC: Or maybe it is how a character you’re building would use apostrophes.
ME: Those are reasonable exuses.
KB: And for the record, everyone makes typos. There've been days when I haven't been able to write a complete sentence without bungling it in some way. It happens. Fix it, and try to do better the next time.
ON: I mean, you just misspelled “excuse”! LOL
UC: So, if they don't know it was wrong, will they recognize the difference? (Asking for a friend, LOL.)
KH: I mean, it is a mistake that can also be unlearned very easily. But also...
KS: Writer, or English Teacher?
ME: Me? Both.
FN: Even more reason for you to be embarrassed for posting this.
EC: This [FB page] is a great place to increase your writing abilities. That is all.
ME: Most of the people who've trolled me on this post are practicing their writing abilities. They're using apostrophes correctly, at least (or incorrectly for jokes).
EC: You are correct, though to boot somebody out of this group is a bit harsh. I just finished writing a report for a scientific journa, to be published within two weeks. I can tell you even PhD's have issues with this. It is very common. It is no big deal as long as it is corrected before publishing.
FT: (I only listen to books)
GF: Of course the guy is in the comments is defending it as something that was supposed to be funny. If it was funny, we'd get it, and maybe even be laughing. But you made a ___, degrading comment and suddenly tried changing your position so you don't seem like an ___. Just recognise it was a ___ comment and don't be an ___ in the future.
ME: I didn't change my position. Malapostrophism, as I call it, is one of my biggest pet peeves, but I drew attention to it in an overblown way and made it funny by doing the very thing that I was railing against. I apologize if you didn't get it.
UT: Seriously though, if you're so good at this stuff, explain it and teach these group. Share your knowledge.
UT: * this, LOL. ___ auto correct.
ME: (Sorry; I didn't notice "these" instead of "this". I guess there wasn't a misused apostrophe in there... LOL)
JB: But why get rid of those apostrophe's when their already they're, even if there annoying? LOL (P.S.-- the third phrase of the sentence in the original post is not punctuated correctly. It doesn't have a subject, so it is not an independent clause, which means that there should not be a comma after "writer.")
ME: I think dependent clauses can have commas before them too, as in this example. But of course I could write "you" as the subject for that phrase.
KE: Try encouraging people instead of putting people down in a post like this. Honestly, we’re in a pandemic and it's affecting many people. Try to be more encouraging. What the ___ is wrong with you? “Shouldn't be a writer.” So teach them the correct way. Do you think everyone that writes really knows the proper way to write completely? Not quite. It's a continual learning process. But, joke or no joke, this is offensive.
FT: That’s why there are editors, right? I agree that there is a certain point when grammar is common sense, but if it is a small, albeit incorrect thing like that, just let people write
ON: Ummm, it’s called proofreading and editing!
SC: Not true. If your “writing” depends on nothing but punctuation, you should not be in this group. Writing is a style, and story is the strongest point. Style is expressive.
ME: The triumph of style over substance...
TK: Save us all some pain. Concerning apostrophes, DON'T USE THEM. Practice when alone; learn for one year.
Then you may [use them] if passed by a local review board. If you don't pass you cannot use apostrophes unless accompanied by a certified Writer.
TH: Some of us use phones to FB. Autocorrect acts like it owns some words. Mine likes to take MANY plurals and turn them into possessives.
ME: (Same here. I fix them.)
TH: I try to when I catch them. Autocorrect REALLY thinks it owns the last word of any sentence, though.
NC: Anyone who tells you writing requires perfectionism probably doesn't get much writing done. Writing is rewriting.
SK: Oh yeah. And the one that bugs me is saying: in the 80's - it's still pluralization and, as such, has no apostrophe. Similarly, it's amazing how often one sees this mistake: “that's it's problem”. This is an exception to the possessive rule. It should be: that's its problem.
ME: Its, meaning "belonging to it", has no apostrophe. But this actually makes sense. Possessive pronouns don't use apostrophes, otherwise it would be you's, he's, she's, we's, and they's (and my's!) instead of the irregular forms: yours, his, hers, ours, and theirs (and mine).
SK: Good point.
BP: I have an exception that I use, though I wouldn't go so far as to recommend it since I know it obeys no formal recommendations. And yet it is a common enough misuse that I'm field-promoting it to a proper usage unless someone offers a practical alternative. So consider this a challenge. Try to pluralize A LETTER. "How many occurrences of the letter A have I used?" This is a rephrase to dodge the pluralization of the letter A. But how many A's have I used? See the problem? I can't say "as" there.
ME: I've seen this done before and I thought it was part of proper usage. Also, abbreviations like this: I have two CD's.
DI: I know it's not okay to receive bad comments because they totally misunderstood you, which you thought its funny but the statement appeared somewhat provoking. I hope you are okay, Steven. People think differently, you know.
UN: I so love judge mental people's
TC: So basically anyone who has English as a 2nd language shouldn’t be a writer.
ME: I've taught ESL classes. Students who are learning English often seem to be more careful.
TC: Good for you... Please don’t try and say who should and shouldn’t be a writer... It discourages people who have stories in the works... I’ve seen people give up because of comments like your original post...
DI: Don't mind him, Steven. Your post is actually interesting. Search for a psychological explanation how people think differently of what they read.
DI: No one is perfect. We all make mistakes. Despite our failings, we still deserve respect (regarding our opinion, religion, the way we dress, etc.). Some people will love you for no reason and some people will hate you for no reason. Keep getting better; don't let anyone put you down. Let God take care of the people who keep treating you badly. Don't hold grudges for anyone.
LH: I really appreciate this. Thank you so much! ♥️
DF: …And ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which we shall not put!
ME: "Don't end a sentence with a preposition" is a rule for Latin, not for English. As you proved with your quote, it makes no sense in the context of how English works as a language. Same with "Don’t split an infinitive". And don't get me started about putting that period INSIDE the quotes or the parenthesis.
DF: And yet the sentence is understandable and made a point.
HN: Spelling and punctuation are low-level skills. Some of the world's best writers didn't give a ___ about either. This is a group for writers, not proofreaders.
BN: Name one writer who "doesn't give a ___" about spelling and punctuation.
DP: Calm down, grammar is something I expect my editor to find. I can still be a writer.
BH: D’i’e’ m’a’d’ a’b’o’u’t’ i’t’
GP: If writers wrote perfectly, there would be no need for editors, don't you think?
BD: Agree! The only people who say basic grammar isn't important are ___ who don't know how to use basic grammar.
BP: An insistence on formal obedience to apostrophe rules is sort of silly when you think about their emergence just before the use of possessive and contractions solidified [in writing]. They're relatively novel in the English language when you consider all of William Shakespeare's o'er and 'er for "over" and "before". The overall theme is that they're for shorthand when someone is shirking the rules for expediency at the expense of formality. The rules as they stand right now is that they're formally accepted as a dodge. Being a stickler for apostrophe rules is ironic given the nature of their very introduction to the language. And before you say "okay contractions save letters and syllables so how about possession?", I should point out that the older rules for the possessive were such that words would look pluralized by today's usage, so the apostrophe possessive had the added bonus of reliance on context to remove ambiguity between plural and possessive. Don't, scratch that. DO NOT get too bent out of shape over apostrophes. Chase commas. Some people litter THEM haphazardly.
KN: While knowing the difference between plural and possessive is something all of us who are writers should know, there's a much more tactful way of pointing that out. And while we're at it, I've been known to make some pretty off-the-wall typos that have left me wondering "How'd I ever do that and let it go?"
BQ: I couldn’t’ agree more!
KN: The one I always have trouble with is when to use "who's" and "whose." I always have to look that up.
FI: That one's easy. "Who's" is "Who is". So, if "who is" is not what you're trying to say, use "whose". "Whose" is a possessive.
UN: I joined this group because my neurologist thought writing would be good for me after I lost some of my memory and cognitive skills. I’ve been a little bit worried about mistakes, but I’d rather have less than perfect grammar than be a judgmental ableist jerk.
KN: Actually many famous writers were, for lack of a better way of putting it, poor writers. In other words, while their stories were great, their grammar, spelling and punctuation were often not the best.
NC: Writing is about telling stories. If you want to publish and make your writing look readable, then you should care about stuff like that. But at the end of the day, the real talent in a fiction writer is the ability to tell a good story.
Concerning that original post: I wrote “That first apostrophe hurt. The second made me almost throw my phone through the window. The third… well, you’ll hear about it on the news. MALAPOSTROPHISM. Fear it!"
MT: Ohhhh....this is the post that the one further up was complaining about.
DT: I might write a post complaining about the post complaining about this one. Meta.
KT: Postception.
One Hundred Years of Solitude
by Gabriel García Márquez
Fascinating history of a fictional family in a fictional place; full of pathos, existential horror, comedy, and a large dose of "magical realism". Yes, there are a lot of sordid and shocking details; but if something is to be a "true" chronicle then the bad must be included with the good. The prose style is a little heavy-handed and awkward at times, though this may be simply the result of translation; the full flavor of something written in one language can seldom (if ever) be carried over into another.
Parable of the Talents
by Octavia E. Butler
In this quasi-science fiction novel, the author of “Kindred” spins a dark tale about survival in a near-future American Dark Age. The protagonist is one of the founders of a new religion (who sees it as the only way to make people to cooperate so they can rebuild the country and eventually migrate to the stars); the brutal antagonists are fanatical thugs from a fascist regime who call themselves Christian. (One of their slogans, mentioned early in the book but not revisited, is “Make America great again”, though the book was written in 1995.) It all makes for good reading. The characters, settings, and the tenets of the new religion all sound as though they could be real. However, I was disappointed that, except in a couple of furtive hints that don’t lead anywhere, a logical third option is never entertained (between the new religion and the antagonists): a Christian denomination which opposes the thuggery, supports education and betterment of society, and is actually based on the teachings of Jesus. Or perhaps, drawing from the parable in the title, the whole story is allegorical. Maybe there will be a sequel dealing with that third option, though it will have to be by another author: Ms. Butler died in 2006.
1Q84
by Haruki Murakami
(There is a Japanese pun in the title, and it’s a part of the plot.) This is a strange bit of surrealism where characters go into a world that is not quite (but almost) the real world, encounter circumstances that are not quite (but almost) real, and act in ways that are not quite (but almost) understandable. There are creepy leprechauns, inexplicable cocoons, copies of characters, and there’s something wrong with the night sky. It’s all fascinating, eerie, weird, and difficult to put down despite its length – you want to find out what’s going to happen even though you know it’s not going to be anything “normal”. (In the last of the three sections, there’s something of a twist: you do know what’s going to happen eventually but have no idea how it’s going to come about.) I have two major objections to the book. One: there’s a persistent fetish which first gets annoying, then embarrassing, and finally infuriating (“ugh, that again!”). Two, more serious: there is a passage that consists essentially of statutory rape. It would not have affected the plot for Murakami to write the teenaged girl as an adult. This is a major (and creepy) flaw in the book, so I can't actually recommend it. However (and here I have a moral dilemna), the writing is clear and concise, without convoluted sentences – at times this contrast of simple style with bizarre plot is disconcerting, and maybe that's the point.
Okay, now about the apostrophes:
I know it’s being nitpicky, but one of my biggest pet peeves is what I call “malapostrophism”: using apostrophes incorrectly. A subtype is “hyperapostrophism” – the etymology is obvious, but I use it specifically to mean using apostrophes for plurals. It makes the writing difficult to read – when I encounter it, I often have to backtrack and re-read to try to figure out what the writer was trying to say.
So, yesterday when I encountered a Facebook post (on a group for writers, nonetheless!) that had three pluralizing apostrophes in eighteen words of nearly indecipherable text, I posted the following bit of pointed sarcasm in a separate thread:
ANYONE WHO USES APOSTROPHE’S LIKE THIS IS NOT A WRITER AND SHOULDN’T BE IN THIS GROUP.
I expected people would get a little laugh (I had done the exact thing I was denouncing there!) and move on. The result was entirely different.
1.) The trolls came out to party.
2.) Some interesting discussion actually happened.
I eventually deleted the thread because it was attracting too much attention. However, the following is about a third of the dialogue that ensued. I mentioned in the thread that the material might appear on this blog, and I’ve censored some of it, paraphrased most of it, and changed all the names to (wrong) initials (except for ME).
XN: writers don't use all caps.
DI: Unless you’re yelling.
UT: Everyone has to start somewhere. Why not encourage better grammar rather than chastise people who don't know any better?
ME: I thought that's what I was doing: explaining what not to do, and giving a funny example.
UT: Perhaps it was your delivery.
KC: Poets seem do do whatever they want
KC: (I said do do ... Giggle)
UC: there is no need for two do's. One is plenty.
ME: There was an odd apostrophe used correctly.
BC: ...much to do about nothing.
KC: Whats the matter with you? Dont you see how having problem's like this just reveal how much of a sad sack youre?
ME: (Fix your apostrophes)
KC: Congrats for spotting the humor so quickly. If it upsets you, let me console you: they're, their. That’s not so bad now, is it?
ST: I l'ike' t'o pep'per apo'strope's r'a'ndo'mly t'hrou'g'hout my s'entenc'es
ME: Per’fec’t.
TK: ST, You shouldn’t be killed, at least not without torture first. It would squander a good teaching moment.
KB: Let’s say, you're typing on a phone and you hit the wrong button. Or maybe you don't speak English as a primary language. Or maybe you're working on it and never learned. Get over it.
UC: Or maybe it is how a character you’re building would use apostrophes.
ME: Those are reasonable exuses.
KB: And for the record, everyone makes typos. There've been days when I haven't been able to write a complete sentence without bungling it in some way. It happens. Fix it, and try to do better the next time.
ON: I mean, you just misspelled “excuse”! LOL
UC: So, if they don't know it was wrong, will they recognize the difference? (Asking for a friend, LOL.)
KH: I mean, it is a mistake that can also be unlearned very easily. But also...
KS: Writer, or English Teacher?
ME: Me? Both.
FN: Even more reason for you to be embarrassed for posting this.
EC: This [FB page] is a great place to increase your writing abilities. That is all.
ME: Most of the people who've trolled me on this post are practicing their writing abilities. They're using apostrophes correctly, at least (or incorrectly for jokes).
EC: You are correct, though to boot somebody out of this group is a bit harsh. I just finished writing a report for a scientific journa, to be published within two weeks. I can tell you even PhD's have issues with this. It is very common. It is no big deal as long as it is corrected before publishing.
FT: (I only listen to books)
GF: Of course the guy is in the comments is defending it as something that was supposed to be funny. If it was funny, we'd get it, and maybe even be laughing. But you made a ___, degrading comment and suddenly tried changing your position so you don't seem like an ___. Just recognise it was a ___ comment and don't be an ___ in the future.
ME: I didn't change my position. Malapostrophism, as I call it, is one of my biggest pet peeves, but I drew attention to it in an overblown way and made it funny by doing the very thing that I was railing against. I apologize if you didn't get it.
UT: Seriously though, if you're so good at this stuff, explain it and teach these group. Share your knowledge.
UT: * this, LOL. ___ auto correct.
ME: (Sorry; I didn't notice "these" instead of "this". I guess there wasn't a misused apostrophe in there... LOL)
JB: But why get rid of those apostrophe's when their already they're, even if there annoying? LOL (P.S.-- the third phrase of the sentence in the original post is not punctuated correctly. It doesn't have a subject, so it is not an independent clause, which means that there should not be a comma after "writer.")
ME: I think dependent clauses can have commas before them too, as in this example. But of course I could write "you" as the subject for that phrase.
KE: Try encouraging people instead of putting people down in a post like this. Honestly, we’re in a pandemic and it's affecting many people. Try to be more encouraging. What the ___ is wrong with you? “Shouldn't be a writer.” So teach them the correct way. Do you think everyone that writes really knows the proper way to write completely? Not quite. It's a continual learning process. But, joke or no joke, this is offensive.
FT: That’s why there are editors, right? I agree that there is a certain point when grammar is common sense, but if it is a small, albeit incorrect thing like that, just let people write
ON: Ummm, it’s called proofreading and editing!
SC: Not true. If your “writing” depends on nothing but punctuation, you should not be in this group. Writing is a style, and story is the strongest point. Style is expressive.
ME: The triumph of style over substance...
TK: Save us all some pain. Concerning apostrophes, DON'T USE THEM. Practice when alone; learn for one year.
Then you may [use them] if passed by a local review board. If you don't pass you cannot use apostrophes unless accompanied by a certified Writer.
TH: Some of us use phones to FB. Autocorrect acts like it owns some words. Mine likes to take MANY plurals and turn them into possessives.
ME: (Same here. I fix them.)
TH: I try to when I catch them. Autocorrect REALLY thinks it owns the last word of any sentence, though.
NC: Anyone who tells you writing requires perfectionism probably doesn't get much writing done. Writing is rewriting.
SK: Oh yeah. And the one that bugs me is saying: in the 80's - it's still pluralization and, as such, has no apostrophe. Similarly, it's amazing how often one sees this mistake: “that's it's problem”. This is an exception to the possessive rule. It should be: that's its problem.
ME: Its, meaning "belonging to it", has no apostrophe. But this actually makes sense. Possessive pronouns don't use apostrophes, otherwise it would be you's, he's, she's, we's, and they's (and my's!) instead of the irregular forms: yours, his, hers, ours, and theirs (and mine).
SK: Good point.
BP: I have an exception that I use, though I wouldn't go so far as to recommend it since I know it obeys no formal recommendations. And yet it is a common enough misuse that I'm field-promoting it to a proper usage unless someone offers a practical alternative. So consider this a challenge. Try to pluralize A LETTER. "How many occurrences of the letter A have I used?" This is a rephrase to dodge the pluralization of the letter A. But how many A's have I used? See the problem? I can't say "as" there.
ME: I've seen this done before and I thought it was part of proper usage. Also, abbreviations like this: I have two CD's.
DI: I know it's not okay to receive bad comments because they totally misunderstood you, which you thought its funny but the statement appeared somewhat provoking. I hope you are okay, Steven. People think differently, you know.
UN: I so love judge mental people's
TC: So basically anyone who has English as a 2nd language shouldn’t be a writer.
ME: I've taught ESL classes. Students who are learning English often seem to be more careful.
TC: Good for you... Please don’t try and say who should and shouldn’t be a writer... It discourages people who have stories in the works... I’ve seen people give up because of comments like your original post...
DI: Don't mind him, Steven. Your post is actually interesting. Search for a psychological explanation how people think differently of what they read.
DI: No one is perfect. We all make mistakes. Despite our failings, we still deserve respect (regarding our opinion, religion, the way we dress, etc.). Some people will love you for no reason and some people will hate you for no reason. Keep getting better; don't let anyone put you down. Let God take care of the people who keep treating you badly. Don't hold grudges for anyone.
LH: I really appreciate this. Thank you so much! ♥️
DF: …And ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which we shall not put!
ME: "Don't end a sentence with a preposition" is a rule for Latin, not for English. As you proved with your quote, it makes no sense in the context of how English works as a language. Same with "Don’t split an infinitive". And don't get me started about putting that period INSIDE the quotes or the parenthesis.
DF: And yet the sentence is understandable and made a point.
HN: Spelling and punctuation are low-level skills. Some of the world's best writers didn't give a ___ about either. This is a group for writers, not proofreaders.
BN: Name one writer who "doesn't give a ___" about spelling and punctuation.
DP: Calm down, grammar is something I expect my editor to find. I can still be a writer.
BH: D’i’e’ m’a’d’ a’b’o’u’t’ i’t’
GP: If writers wrote perfectly, there would be no need for editors, don't you think?
BD: Agree! The only people who say basic grammar isn't important are ___ who don't know how to use basic grammar.
BP: An insistence on formal obedience to apostrophe rules is sort of silly when you think about their emergence just before the use of possessive and contractions solidified [in writing]. They're relatively novel in the English language when you consider all of William Shakespeare's o'er and 'er for "over" and "before". The overall theme is that they're for shorthand when someone is shirking the rules for expediency at the expense of formality. The rules as they stand right now is that they're formally accepted as a dodge. Being a stickler for apostrophe rules is ironic given the nature of their very introduction to the language. And before you say "okay contractions save letters and syllables so how about possession?", I should point out that the older rules for the possessive were such that words would look pluralized by today's usage, so the apostrophe possessive had the added bonus of reliance on context to remove ambiguity between plural and possessive. Don't, scratch that. DO NOT get too bent out of shape over apostrophes. Chase commas. Some people litter THEM haphazardly.
KN: While knowing the difference between plural and possessive is something all of us who are writers should know, there's a much more tactful way of pointing that out. And while we're at it, I've been known to make some pretty off-the-wall typos that have left me wondering "How'd I ever do that and let it go?"
BQ: I couldn’t’ agree more!
KN: The one I always have trouble with is when to use "who's" and "whose." I always have to look that up.
FI: That one's easy. "Who's" is "Who is". So, if "who is" is not what you're trying to say, use "whose". "Whose" is a possessive.
UN: I joined this group because my neurologist thought writing would be good for me after I lost some of my memory and cognitive skills. I’ve been a little bit worried about mistakes, but I’d rather have less than perfect grammar than be a judgmental ableist jerk.
KN: Actually many famous writers were, for lack of a better way of putting it, poor writers. In other words, while their stories were great, their grammar, spelling and punctuation were often not the best.
NC: Writing is about telling stories. If you want to publish and make your writing look readable, then you should care about stuff like that. But at the end of the day, the real talent in a fiction writer is the ability to tell a good story.
Concerning that original post: I wrote “That first apostrophe hurt. The second made me almost throw my phone through the window. The third… well, you’ll hear about it on the news. MALAPOSTROPHISM. Fear it!"
MT: Ohhhh....this is the post that the one further up was complaining about.
DT: I might write a post complaining about the post complaining about this one. Meta.
KT: Postception.
Comments
Post a Comment