Language matters! And don't you forget it.

[ratsy]

I struggle with the apostrophes too. It has been many years since I took any sort of grammar class so I do my best with the internet but sometimes I leave the web pages more confused! Apparently I struggle with a lot of things. And just when I think I have the dialogue punctuation down...someone catches a mistake.

That is why I practice writing and always try to learn and get better.

 

[JonH]

No, you don't. Sorry, but I disagree, and I think you don't. You just have to apply analytical skills and have a slight understanding of word classes.

Adding the "-'s" suffix is the way to make nouns possessive. It does not apply to pronouns.

If only it were that simple!

Try your hand at the possessive of the following two pronouns: everyone and everybody.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Contrast to a noun with a regular plural form...

"car"/"car's" - singular, not possessive/possessive
"cars"/"cars's" - plural, not possessive/possessive

Sorry DA, I'm confused (Like Springs as I am native English speaker I appear, paradoxically, to have to work harder at grammar - which is not helped as well that my second 'language' is mathematics...)

Are you saying that cars's is the correct plural possessive???

I'm pretty sure it's cars'. In fact I think for plural nouns ending in s, say to give another example: boys, the possessive is formed by just adding a apostrophe after the s. *


If I'm wrong I'm more than willing to be corrected on this




* because

1) cars's and boys's just looks weird
2) I'm sure in 43 years I've never seen such a combination of letters in print!

 

[Mouse]

*catches Harebrain and Mouse from their dead faints of horror.

I hope you know how hard I struggled not to change your Empress' to Empress's in my most recent beta.

And regardless of what you* might like, if/when you get published, your publisher might change it anyway. Mine will - I've read their style guide and know when my edits come back all my lovely James's will be changed to James'. Which is pppppaaaaaainfulllll.



*the erm, royal you. Not springs you. Everybody you.

 

[Darth Angelus]

Not at all, and sorry if I was snippy. I just think it's easy to assume everyone has an understanding. Like Hex, my knowledge of grammar isn't as good as it should be (I know what a sentence looks like, but I'd struggle to strip it down to the verb/noun/pronoun base). I have a bit more understanding now, which is great.

No, you weren't snippy.

If only it were that simple!

Try your hand at the possessive of the following two pronouns: everyone and everybody.

True, and maybe I should have been more specific. I am not sure what it is called in grammar language, but you are right, it does not apply to the whole word class, only to the basic personal pronouns, like "I", "you", "he", "she", "it", "we" and "they". It is pretty evident that the word "it" has more in common with the basic, short pronouns "I" or "you" than it does with "everyone" or "everybody", which are combined from other words.

Sorry DA, I'm confused (Like Springs as I am native English speaker I appear, paradoxically, to have to work harder at grammar - which is not helped as well that my second 'language' is mathematics...)

Are you saying that cars's is the correct plural possessive???

I'm pretty sure it's cars'. In fact I think for plural nouns ending in s, say to give another example: boys, the possessive is formed by just adding a apostrophe after the s. *


If I'm wrong I'm more than willing to be corrected on this




* because

1) cars's and boys's just looks weird
2) I'm sure in 43 years I've never seen such a combination of letters in print!

I looked around, and you seem right. While either seems fine when the non-possessive form end with an "s" for reasons other than plural, it does appear as if the "s" after the apostrophe should be excluded in cases where the first "s" represent plural form.

Guidelines for Using Apostrophes Correctly

3. Use an Apostrophe Without -s for Possessives of Most Plural Nouns
To form the possessive of a plural noun that already ends in -s, add an apostrophe:

the girls' swing set (the swing set belonging to the girls)
the students' projects (the projects belonging to the students)
the Johnsons' house (the house belonging to the Johnsons)

If the plural noun does not end in -s, add an apostrophe plus -s:

the women's conference (the conference belonging to the women)
the children's toys (the toys belonging to the children)
the men's training camp (the training camp belonging to the men)

I stand corrected.

 

[JonH]

I hope you know how hard I struggled not to change your Empress' to Empress's in my most recent beta.

And regardless of what you* might like, if/when you get published, your publisher might change it anyway. Mine will - I've read their style guide and know when my edits come back all my lovely James's will be changed to James'. Which is pppppaaaaaainfulllll.

*the erm, royal you. Not springs you. Everybody you.

Her Majesty would not be amused, considering the number of ambassadors to The Court of St James's she has accredited over the years. There again, she's not the one publishing your novel.

 

[tinkerdan]

I submit that affect and effect can be more slippery than that.

We usually say that someone effects repairs.

You think he's a mechanic and will effect the repairs.
In fact he's a fraud and only is only affecting repairs.

 

[Null_Zone]

I've never forgiven the English language from getting rid of the thorn. Simple laziness and it's all been downhill since.

 

[Ursa major]

The thorn's popularity spiked long ago, but all is not lost for some of the other discarded letters. For instance: if, when we ran into each other, we called out, "Yogh!" we could get it back in use. Or perhaps not.

 

[Ashleyne]

I like reading through this thread. It gives me ideas when writing dialogue. I do, however, consider it snobbish when people who use ‘proper’ English consider those whose speech is shaped by accent and dialect as inferior. If you can understand what people are saying, does it really matter if they use terms like ‘hospikal’ or ‘would of’? I know a lot of people who say ‘us’ instead of ‘me’ or ‘my’ and I find that it flows well within a sentence: Stop pestering us. You’re getting on us nerves.

Of course, when it comes to the written word, it’s a completely different story. It annoys me when people spell words within dialogue incorrectly just because the characters have a different accent. It’s patronising to readers who may share that accent: ‘Mi mathar’ is just as offensive as writing ‘Herro’.

As for possessive apostrophes, I have my own rules and I’m unsure whether they’re grammatically correct, but I like my rules:

Possessive apostrophe: The dog’s bone. Billy’s hat, etc. If it flows or sounds cute, then I don’t mind adding an extra ‘s’: The duchess's guards. The baroness's orders. If the extra ‘s’ doesn’t sound natural, restructure the sentence.

Plural possessive apostrophe: The children’s father. The crowd’s noise. If the plural ends in ‘s’, restructure the sentence to avoid ambiguity with the missin 'is' apostrphe.

Missing ‘is’ apostrophe: Cheryls’ gonna be here soon. The dogs’ barking too loud. The suns’ too bright. It's, that's, what's, who's and similar words are the only exceptions.

 

[Hex]

I like your rules, especially about whether to have the extra s after the apostrophe. It makes a lot of sense to me to have it where it works (or where I'd say it).

Missing ‘is’ apostrophe: Cheryls’ gonna be here soon. The dogs’ barking too loud. The suns’ too bright. It's, that's, what's, who's and similar words are the only exceptions.

I think, technically, the apostrophe in words like these come straight after the name -- so, for example:

"Cheryl is" becomes "Cheryl's"

"The dog is barking" becomes "The dog's barking"

"The sun is too bright" becomes "The sun's too bright"

Now my head hurts. I think I should go to sleep

 

[Ashleyne]

"

"The dog is barking" becomes "The dog's barking"

"The dog's barking the dog's bark." Hmm, I prefer "The dogs' barking the dog's bark." I suppose it's all about style, though. Like I mentioned: my rules may not be gramatically correct, but I like them.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

"The dogs' barking" means the barking of multiple dogs, as the apostrophe in that case does not denote a missing letter, but rather a possessive.

"The dog's barking the dog's bark" means the dog is barking his bark. The first apostrophe is for a missing letter (dog is = dog's), and the second is a possessive (the bark that belongs to that dog).

That really isn't a style issue, unless you're writing poetry where you can get away with anything in the name of poetic license.

I don't see the problem with writing dialect as it sounds, and I don't understand why that should be offensive. If you can't write "mi mathar" or whatever in some way that indicates the pronunciation, how on earth is the reader supposed to know that the person is speaking any differently than anyone else? You cannot simply say that he had a (fill in the blank) accent and expect everyone to know what that sounds like when it's written in perfectly proper English.

 

[Dave]

10 questions on grammar
BBC News - 10 questions on grammar

 

[Ursa major]

I got nine out of ten (and almost got another wrong for the same reason: not reading the text carefully enough).

 

[David Evil Overlord]

Computer spellcheck and grammar check doesn't help. I have a character who notes at one point that she didn't know if she could continue to lie her way out of trouble.

Word insists that she should not "lie", but "lay" her way out of trouble.

I keep telling Word that she's not that kind of girl...

 

[Ursa major]

Word claims that it's reporting verb confusion. It isn't really, because when you put lay in that sentence from the start, its doesn't query "lay" (and suggest it should be "lie").

Which is, I suppose, just about okay if one is writing about a lay preacher....

 

[Ashleyne]

"The dogs' barking" means the barking of multiple dogs, as the apostrophe in that case does not denote a missing letter, but rather a possessive.
That really isn't a style issue, unless you're writing poetry where you can get away with anything in the name of poetic license.

There’s a world of difference between creative writing and formal writing. Creative writers break rules all the time, so why can’t I? I write with clarity, not formality. All that matters is definition through consistency and I achieve that by taking care with my sentence structures:


I would write “The barking of the dogs strained my ear drums”, “The dogs barked, straining my eardrums” or simply, “The dogs, barking, strained my eardrums” (which would work without the commas, but I think the commas highlight the barking). Each different structure, pretty much, creates the same image of multiple dogs barking, without the need for (or confusion of) apostrophes.

Most dialects have a recognised written slang which was invented by the people of that dialect. You can also use speech patterns and word choices to help define a dialect: missing words, added words, interchangeable words etc.

There’s nothing wrong with mentioning accents and you can also rely on the setting of a story: if it’s set in London, they’re probably speaking in a London accent and you can show this by using recognised London slang, along with a London speech pattern.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

There’s a world of difference between creative writing and formal writing. Creative writers break rules all the time, so why can’t I? I write with clarity, not formality

But the rules are there to bring about clarity. Until a writer understands that, then any rule-breaking is more likely to result in something that is clumsy and (quite possibly) indecipherable than it is to foster true creativity. Anyone can break a rule. There is nothing creative about that, if it is done out of ignorance, or because one can't be bothered to learn the rules, or just to show that one isn't fettered by them. If creativity were that easy, where would be the art in that?

And if everyone were to make up their own rules as they go along, just because they can, clarity would very soon die an ignominious death.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think it depends what you want to achieve with your writing. If you're writing for creative reasons, for enjoyment, then of course write how you like and the way that feels good, irrespective of the rules.

If you're wanting to write professionally then using things like posessive apostrophes incorrectly will be a hinderance - agents and publishers won't want to take on a writer who has a lot of technical stuff to fix; they simply don't have time.

There are rules you can break once you're confident and have found your unique voice. Joe Abercrombie broke loads in his sample (in terms of when to break clauses or sentences.) But I think it's probably best to know the rules first. And I'm not sure posessive apostrophes is one that's easy to break because they're fundamental to the reader understanding the context (eg that there is more than one dog, or that the dog is wearing the collar and not the man.)

I could maybe see it if you were, for instance, doing an internal stream of conscience by a character who wouldn't know about posessive apostrophes, but in most standard stories, I think it would just look like you don't understand the rule.

But, as you say, it's entirely up to the writer what they do or don't employ. But if you are writing for clarity then apostrophes are absolutely essential to that clarity; without them the reader finds it hard to follow what's happening to who where.