Much as I hate to admit it, I firmly believe the internet has A LOT to do with the increase in poor spelling, grammar and punctuation. It started out as sort of a hip thing, where you could demonstrate to others you knew "the shorthand".
But somewhere along the way people have just gotten completely sloppy. Kids that are growing up on the internet every night, chatting with people on AOL or wherever, are probably getting an education in lousy English that sometimes overrides what they learn in school. IF they learn in school. Not lost on me either, is the whole language pluralism movement where some institutions consider things like "ebonics" to be a worthwhile thing to learn. Pitiful.
Far from being the thing that was supposed to have educated us more, the internet may inform, but it has produced a growing generation (of mainly younger people I suspect) that simply cannot spell or string together a proper sentence.
I'm surprised at the many supportive repsonses, but no one is answering my question. Is it just me or is there a massive increase in misused apostrophes in the last year or two? I admit I'm on the look out for it now, but a day doesn't go by without me seeing something horrid like "cat's" or "jump's". It's not just online either; I see these things in store signage, restaurant menus, my client's file names on their computers. It's everywhere.
It hasn't increased. What's happened is that you made your sig and otherwise decided to be the grammar guardian, but you kinda knew somewhere deep down inside that it's pretty obnoxious to be a grammar nazi. Therefore, as a by-product of, and in order to justify, your newly-found and rather petulant attitude, you looked harder for the incorrect apostrophes. In effect, your dilemma was as follows: "maybe I'm an asshole - or maybe there is a serious and growing problem and I must do my part to counteract it." You chose the less self-threatening, and more self-aggrandizing option. Classic case of cognitive dissonance. Wow people are so transparent.
I don't think there has been a massive surge in its misues, rather it has probably just become more apparent to you.
As long as I can remember being online I've seen the error everywhere.
And thank you for pointing out my spelling error in my other post. Instead of just responding to what I said you chose to attempt to publicly humiliate me. Good show!
Ironic.
I didn't even realize you had misspelled substitute. That's not what I was referring to. I was taking issue with your seeming contention that "it's just the Internet" and therefore its users can be held to a lower standard.
I was not pointing out your spelling error or trying to humiliate you.
Also, let me be perfectly clear, I'm not bemoaning harmless typos. Those happen to anyone. I'm talking about egregious errors in grammar and syntax (of which the "plural apostrophe" is a common, glaring example) that would be unacceptable at the grade school level. There is no excuse for those among a community of supposedly educated Mac geeks.
Much as I hate to admit it, I firmly believe the internet has A LOT to do with the increase in poor spelling, grammar and punctuation. It started out as sort of a hip thing, where you could demonstrate to others you knew "the shorthand".
God I despise shorthand. Every time I see someone use the ?word? "ur", it makes my skin crawl. Shorthand on the internet is like an intestinal virus. Putrid & growing. Ravaging the facilities of the places we frequent; our beloved cafés, music halls, and restaurants. Making them unusable. Leaving the stalls such an awful bloody mess, an explosion of filth, that even the most hardened member of the janitorial staff would loose his lunch, and his will to live.
Thank you sir, you have just (sadly) proved my point.
How much further does the English language have to degrade before you care?
if we are communicating effectively, does it matter?
grammar snobs can be quite annoying. i like how in this thread everyone is going out of their way to use uncommon words and interesting syntax in order to display their outstanding grammar skills. what's the point?
if we are communicating effectively, does it matter?
grammar snobs can be quite annoying.
Because if we don't attend to the basic rules of punctuation, we cannot guarantee that we'll communicate effectively. Language is an inherently imprecise means of communication, but it's the best thing we have at the moment. Don't you think we should do all we can to root out ambiguity? Especially when we consider that the apostrophe is used to indicate POSSESSION. We ought to be very, VERY careful about being fast and loose with that particular punctuation mark, considering it might make the difference between indicating whether something belongs to someone or not.
As for grammar snobs being annoying, trust me when I say this: bad grammar is far more annoying, and far more dangerous, than those few people who think everyone should've mastered these simple elements of punctuation in grade school.
The apostrophe for certain pluralizations has been present for as long as I can remember (30 years or so ... I'm older than that but don't remember much before that). In fact, I personally could see no justification for the apostrophe and I've always omitted it in spite of the common usage. (In fact, when I was in school, I might have been "corrected" for doing so.)
I think before we go declaring what is definitely wrong and what is correct, we need to research some of the prevailing style manuals, as well as past and present grammar texts. Back when I was in high school, one common style manual was one by Turabian and also the University of Chicago Manual of Style.
Perhaps it's a rumor, but I've heard some variations in style were influenced by printers, who tended to try to minimize punctuation to save space and ink. For instance, I was taught that in a list, you always use commas (i.e., a, b, c, and d). Some style manuals specify the use of commas to separate everything except that preceding the "and" (i.e., a, b, c and d). The latter is certainly more prevalent these days.
The apostrophe for certain pluralizations has been present for as long as I can remember (30 years or so ... I'm older than that but don't remember much before that).
Like what? I have never heard of this phenomenon.
Quote:
I think before we go declaring what is definitely wrong and what is correct, we need to research some of the prevailing style manuals, as well as past and present grammar texts. Back when I was in high school, one common style manual was one by Turabian and also the University of Chicago Manual of Style.
Rules of English usage in the humanities are overwhelmingly determined by the Modern Language Association (MLA) style manual. It is important to note, however, that these style manuals are not really the measure for determining grammatical propriety. The MLA Style Manual and the Chicago Style Manual are both geared toward the process of preparation of a manuscript for publication, and while they do include lots of usage rules, they are not the final determination of grammatical accuracy.
Quote:
Perhaps it's a rumor, but I've heard some variations in style were influenced by printers, who tended to try to minimize punctuation to save space and ink. For instance, I was taught that in a list, you always use commas (i.e., a, b, c, and d). Some style manuals specify the use of commas to separate everything except that preceding the "and" (i.e., a, b, c and d). The latter is certainly more prevalent these days. [/B]
I don't know when the omission of the comma before the "and" went into effect (I suspect within the last ten years, as I've gotten conflicting comments on my essays during that time), but I can give you another for instance: I have heard that the most recent MLA Style Manual (the 6th edition, which I don't have...I'm sticking with 5 for now) argues that we should use single spaces instead of double spaces after terminal punctuation marks, reasoning that with monospaced fonts such double-spacing was necessary, but with the advent of the variable-width font (like Times New Roman) it is no longer necessary.
I don't know that this is necessarily a printer-related concern, but there you go.
If you want to think about something really odd, consider this: the letter "K" didn't really sort itself out until the 17th/18th century. In other words, we've only been using the "K" in a recognizable way for a couple hundred years.
Anyway. How does the old joke go? English is the kind of language that roughs up other languages in dark alleyways and rifles through their pockets for loose grammar.
Perhaps I should clarify that this has been in common usage, not in academic usage. I'll try to find examples.
That doesn't surprise me at all. Regardless, such usage of the apostrophe to indicate plurality is incorrect grammar. I'm thinking of things like the "1900's," which is, in the end, incorrect. It should be the "1900s" or the "1990s" or whatever. There is no elision, and thus the apostrophe is unnecessary.
The rule is incredibly simple: apostrophes indicate either the omission of letter or word (e.g. a contraction) or possession (e.g. Bob's car).
I don't mean to sound snide here, so please don't take any of this the wrong way. I just battle this all the time with my students, who never seem to get it right.
I don't mean to sound snide here, so please don't take any of this the wrong way. I just battle this all the time with my students, who never seem to get it right.
Not to be arguing correctness or incorrectness, but trying to find the origin of the practice:
Turabian, Kate L., A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, Fourth Edition, University of Chicago Press, 1973
p. 30ff: Plurals (examples omitted)
3:2 Proper names. Plurals of the names of persons and of other capitalized names are formed by the addition of s or es without the change of a final y to i as required for common nound.
3:3 Add s to all names excpet those ending in s, x, or z, or in ch or sh
3:4 Add es to names ending in s, x, or z, or in ch or sh
3:5 Capital letters. Form the plurals of most and multiple capital lettters used as nouns by adding s alone.
3:6 Small letters. For the plurals of all small letters, of capital letters with periods, and of capital letters that would be confusing if s alone were added, by adding an apostrophe and s
Seeing that this book was published by the University of Chicago Press, I wouldn't be surprised if the Chicago Style Manual states the same.
I've seen apostrophes and esses with acronyms throughout 20 years of military service, but I doubt you would consider the government as an authority when it comes to grammar and punctuation.
Here's a book contradicting itself:
Brusaw, Charles T., Alred, Gerald J., Oliu, Walter E.
Handbook of technical writing
New York, St. Martin's Press, 1997
p. 17: Form the plural of an acronym or initialism by adding an s. Do not use an apostrophe.
p. 45: The apostrophe (') is used to show possession, to mark the omission of letters, and sometimes to indicate the plural of Arabic numbers, letters, and acronyms.
(Later it does say to italicize a word if an apostrophe is used to call attention to the usage. It also says to use an apostrophe only if confusion would result without one.)
3:6 Small letters. For the plurals of all small letters, of capital letters with periods, and of capital letters that would be confusing if s alone were added, by adding an apostrophe and s
Gotcha. So if we were talking about all the "A's" earned on an assignment in a class, we wouldn't want people to be confused by the plural, since "As" is also a word. Makes sense. The problem is that this is a hack of the language in order to avoid revising what is most likely sloppy writing. In other words, in order to avoid having to write something like "There were several students who earned a grade of A on the assignment," we instead CHANGE THE USAGE RULE so that we can say "There were several A's on the assignment," completely disregarding the fact that the apostrophe has nothing whatsoever to do with the use it's being put to.
That's my complaint. But then, languages change over time. That's what they do. I just want to be able to understand people and not kill myself because instructions are written sloppily.
Quote:
Seeing that this book was published by the University of Chicago Press, I wouldn't be surprised if the Chicago Style Manual states the same.
As I understand it, it in fact was absorbed by the Chicago Style Manual.
Quote:
I've seen apostrophes and esses with acronyms throughout 20 years of military service, but I doubt you would consider the government as an authority when it comes to grammar and punctuation. [/B]
Heh. Well, the problem with English is that unlike France, there is no actual authority governing proper usage. There are lots of groups, and there are lots of style manuals, and there are lots of experts, but there simply is no governing authority like what France has (however silly we may think it).
I'm quilty of this sometimes. Wow, I think I just did it right for once.
For now on, I will remember midwinter's rule. Did I just do that right?
Yup!
I have to recommend Strunk & White's <i>Elements of Style</i> for all of this. It is hands down the best, most readable, most enjoyable style "guide" ever produced.
You can usually pick it up for about $4. White (E.B. White) wrote Charlotte's Web.
Apologists for "internet typing" have a leaky boat. The occasional discussion about grammar, spelling and punctuation is a good thing for any messageboard. Some people will never discover the mistakes of their ways without a friendly correction from someone who knows better.
I'm now curious to observe my own posts to see how often I'm violating the apostrophe rule. As far as the comma-before-"and" goes, I've been following the rule since sometime between 1985 and 1991.
I may cross-post some of this info on another 'board I'm on...so thanks for the post!
BTW, I do use periods as pauses quite often on the internet, and don't plan on changing my ways....(like that, see?)....I wonder what that's considered to be by grammarians.
Hmmm, makes me want to buy a book on grammar. And maybe grampa.
Apostrophe abuse is a common problem in many languages. In German, there's no genitive apostrophe and it's not used for plurals, either (only omission). A few years ago, people started to write things like Snack's and Peter's Souvenirs (should be Peters). It has become so common it's horrible.
One guy has compiled a huge collection of catapostrophes, here are some plurals:
BTW, I do use periods as pauses quite often on the internet, and don't plan on changing my ways....(like that, see?)....I wonder what that's considered to be by grammarians.
I do that also, but I was taught that you're only supposed to use three periods.
By the way, here are a couple of links that can be used for a quick reference. I posted one way up, but I'll post again...
Comments
But somewhere along the way people have just gotten completely sloppy. Kids that are growing up on the internet every night, chatting with people on AOL or wherever, are probably getting an education in lousy English that sometimes overrides what they learn in school. IF they learn in school. Not lost on me either, is the whole language pluralism movement where some institutions consider things like "ebonics" to be a worthwhile thing to learn. Pitiful.
Far from being the thing that was supposed to have educated us more, the internet may inform, but it has produced a growing generation (of mainly younger people I suspect) that simply cannot spell or string together a proper sentence.
iChatA/V may only make it worse!
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
I'm surprised at the many supportive repsonses, but no one is answering my question. Is it just me or is there a massive increase in misused apostrophes in the last year or two? I admit I'm on the look out for it now, but a day doesn't go by without me seeing something horrid like "cat's" or "jump's". It's not just online either; I see these things in store signage, restaurant menus, my client's file names on their computers. It's everywhere.
It hasn't increased. What's happened is that you made your sig and otherwise decided to be the grammar guardian, but you kinda knew somewhere deep down inside that it's pretty obnoxious to be a grammar nazi. Therefore, as a by-product of, and in order to justify, your newly-found and rather petulant attitude, you looked harder for the incorrect apostrophes. In effect, your dilemma was as follows: "maybe I'm an asshole - or maybe there is a serious and growing problem and I must do my part to counteract it." You chose the less self-threatening, and more self-aggrandizing option. Classic case of cognitive dissonance. Wow people are so transparent.
Originally posted by rageous
I don't think there has been a massive surge in its misues, rather it has probably just become more apparent to you.
As long as I can remember being online I've seen the error everywhere.
And thank you for pointing out my spelling error in my other post. Instead of just responding to what I said you chose to attempt to publicly humiliate me. Good show!
Ironic.
I didn't even realize you had misspelled substitute. That's not what I was referring to. I was taking issue with your seeming contention that "it's just the Internet" and therefore its users can be held to a lower standard.
I was not pointing out your spelling error or trying to humiliate you.
Also, let me be perfectly clear, I'm not bemoaning harmless typos. Those happen to anyone. I'm talking about egregious errors in grammar and syntax (of which the "plural apostrophe" is a common, glaring example) that would be unacceptable at the grade school level. There is no excuse for those among a community of supposedly educated Mac geeks.
Originally posted by Moogs
Much as I hate to admit it, I firmly believe the internet has A LOT to do with the increase in poor spelling, grammar and punctuation. It started out as sort of a hip thing, where you could demonstrate to others you knew "the shorthand".
God I despise shorthand. Every time I see someone use the ?word? "ur", it makes my skin crawl. Shorthand on the internet is like an intestinal virus. Putrid & growing. Ravaging the facilities of the places we frequent; our beloved cafés, music halls, and restaurants. Making them unusable. Leaving the stalls such an awful bloody mess, an explosion of filth, that even the most hardened member of the janitorial staff would loose his lunch, and his will to live.
I hate shorthand.
I hate it. I hate it. I hate it.
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Yeah, I know the Angry Flower thing. It's very funny and let's me know I'm not alone.
<iknowit'sprobablyatypobutthisistoogoodtoresist>I' m glad it "let's" [sic] you know you're not alone.</iknowit'sprobablyatypobutthisistoogoodtoresist>
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Ensign Pulver
Thank you sir, you have just (sadly) proved my point.
How much further does the English language have to degrade before you care?
if we are communicating effectively, does it matter?
grammar snobs can be quite annoying. i like how in this thread everyone is going out of their way to use uncommon words and interesting syntax in order to display their outstanding grammar skills. what's the point?
Originally posted by progmac
if we are communicating effectively, does it matter?
grammar snobs can be quite annoying.
Because if we don't attend to the basic rules of punctuation, we cannot guarantee that we'll communicate effectively. Language is an inherently imprecise means of communication, but it's the best thing we have at the moment. Don't you think we should do all we can to root out ambiguity? Especially when we consider that the apostrophe is used to indicate POSSESSION. We ought to be very, VERY careful about being fast and loose with that particular punctuation mark, considering it might make the difference between indicating whether something belongs to someone or not.
As for grammar snobs being annoying, trust me when I say this: bad grammar is far more annoying, and far more dangerous, than those few people who think everyone should've mastered these simple elements of punctuation in grade school.
Cheers
Scott
I think before we go declaring what is definitely wrong and what is correct, we need to research some of the prevailing style manuals, as well as past and present grammar texts. Back when I was in high school, one common style manual was one by Turabian and also the University of Chicago Manual of Style.
Perhaps it's a rumor, but I've heard some variations in style were influenced by printers, who tended to try to minimize punctuation to save space and ink. For instance, I was taught that in a list, you always use commas (i.e., a, b, c, and d). Some style manuals specify the use of commas to separate everything except that preceding the "and" (i.e., a, b, c and d). The latter is certainly more prevalent these days.
Originally posted by Skipjack
The apostrophe for certain pluralizations has been present for as long as I can remember (30 years or so ... I'm older than that but don't remember much before that).
Like what? I have never heard of this phenomenon.
I think before we go declaring what is definitely wrong and what is correct, we need to research some of the prevailing style manuals, as well as past and present grammar texts. Back when I was in high school, one common style manual was one by Turabian and also the University of Chicago Manual of Style.
Rules of English usage in the humanities are overwhelmingly determined by the Modern Language Association (MLA) style manual. It is important to note, however, that these style manuals are not really the measure for determining grammatical propriety. The MLA Style Manual and the Chicago Style Manual are both geared toward the process of preparation of a manuscript for publication, and while they do include lots of usage rules, they are not the final determination of grammatical accuracy.
Perhaps it's a rumor, but I've heard some variations in style were influenced by printers, who tended to try to minimize punctuation to save space and ink. For instance, I was taught that in a list, you always use commas (i.e., a, b, c, and d). Some style manuals specify the use of commas to separate everything except that preceding the "and" (i.e., a, b, c and d). The latter is certainly more prevalent these days. [/B]
I don't know when the omission of the comma before the "and" went into effect (I suspect within the last ten years, as I've gotten conflicting comments on my essays during that time), but I can give you another for instance: I have heard that the most recent MLA Style Manual (the 6th edition, which I don't have...I'm sticking with 5 for now) argues that we should use single spaces instead of double spaces after terminal punctuation marks, reasoning that with monospaced fonts such double-spacing was necessary, but with the advent of the variable-width font (like Times New Roman) it is no longer necessary.
I don't know that this is necessarily a printer-related concern, but there you go.
If you want to think about something really odd, consider this: the letter "K" didn't really sort itself out until the 17th/18th century. In other words, we've only been using the "K" in a recognizable way for a couple hundred years.
Anyway. How does the old joke go? English is the kind of language that roughs up other languages in dark alleyways and rifles through their pockets for loose grammar.
Cheers
Scott
Like what? I have never heard of this phenomenon.
Perhaps I should clarify that this has been in common usage, not in academic usage. I'll try to find examples.
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Like what? I have never heard of this phenomenon.
Perhaps I should clarify that this has been in common usage, not in academic usage. I'll try to find examples.
That doesn't surprise me at all. Regardless, such usage of the apostrophe to indicate plurality is incorrect grammar. I'm thinking of things like the "1900's," which is, in the end, incorrect. It should be the "1900s" or the "1990s" or whatever. There is no elision, and thus the apostrophe is unnecessary.
The rule is incredibly simple: apostrophes indicate either the omission of letter or word (e.g. a contraction) or possession (e.g. Bob's car).
I don't mean to sound snide here, so please don't take any of this the wrong way. I just battle this all the time with my students, who never seem to get it right.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
I don't mean to sound snide here, so please don't take any of this the wrong way. I just battle this all the time with my students, who never seem to get it right.
Not to be arguing correctness or incorrectness, but trying to find the origin of the practice:
Turabian, Kate L., A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations, Fourth Edition, University of Chicago Press, 1973
p. 30ff: Plurals (examples omitted)
3:2 Proper names. Plurals of the names of persons and of other capitalized names are formed by the addition of s or es without the change of a final y to i as required for common nound.
3:3 Add s to all names excpet those ending in s, x, or z, or in ch or sh
3:4 Add es to names ending in s, x, or z, or in ch or sh
3:5 Capital letters. Form the plurals of most and multiple capital lettters used as nouns by adding s alone.
3:6 Small letters. For the plurals of all small letters, of capital letters with periods, and of capital letters that would be confusing if s alone were added, by adding an apostrophe and s
Seeing that this book was published by the University of Chicago Press, I wouldn't be surprised if the Chicago Style Manual states the same.
I've seen apostrophes and esses with acronyms throughout 20 years of military service, but I doubt you would consider the government as an authority when it comes to grammar and punctuation.
Here's a book contradicting itself:
Brusaw, Charles T., Alred, Gerald J., Oliu, Walter E.
Handbook of technical writing
New York, St. Martin's Press, 1997
p. 17: Form the plural of an acronym or initialism by adding an s. Do not use an apostrophe.
p. 45: The apostrophe (') is used to show possession, to mark the omission of letters, and sometimes to indicate the plural of Arabic numbers, letters, and acronyms.
(Later it does say to italicize a word if an apostrophe is used to call attention to the usage. It also says to use an apostrophe only if confusion would result without one.)
For now on, I will remember midwinter's rule. Did I just do that right?
" The rule is incredibly simple: apostrophes indicate either the omission of letter or word (e.g. a contraction) or possession (e.g. Bob's car)."
Omission of a letter or possession.
I have to remember that.
Ok, what other rules am I breaking? I'm willing to learn.
Originally posted by Skipjack
3:6 Small letters. For the plurals of all small letters, of capital letters with periods, and of capital letters that would be confusing if s alone were added, by adding an apostrophe and s
Gotcha. So if we were talking about all the "A's" earned on an assignment in a class, we wouldn't want people to be confused by the plural, since "As" is also a word. Makes sense. The problem is that this is a hack of the language in order to avoid revising what is most likely sloppy writing. In other words, in order to avoid having to write something like "There were several students who earned a grade of A on the assignment," we instead CHANGE THE USAGE RULE so that we can say "There were several A's on the assignment," completely disregarding the fact that the apostrophe has nothing whatsoever to do with the use it's being put to.
That's my complaint. But then, languages change over time. That's what they do. I just want to be able to understand people and not kill myself because instructions are written sloppily.
Seeing that this book was published by the University of Chicago Press, I wouldn't be surprised if the Chicago Style Manual states the same.
As I understand it, it in fact was absorbed by the Chicago Style Manual.
I've seen apostrophes and esses with acronyms throughout 20 years of military service, but I doubt you would consider the government as an authority when it comes to grammar and punctuation. [/B]
Heh. Well, the problem with English is that unlike France, there is no actual authority governing proper usage. There are lots of groups, and there are lots of style manuals, and there are lots of experts, but there simply is no governing authority like what France has (however silly we may think it).
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by MadMacs
I'm quilty of this sometimes. Wow, I think I just did it right for once.
For now on, I will remember midwinter's rule. Did I just do that right?
Yup!
I have to recommend Strunk & White's <i>Elements of Style</i> for all of this. It is hands down the best, most readable, most enjoyable style "guide" ever produced.
You can usually pick it up for about $4. White (E.B. White) wrote Charlotte's Web.
Originally posted by MadMacs
Ok, what other rules am I breaking? I'm willing to learn.
I dunno. Is there anything you don't understand or have problems with?
Cheers
Scott
Apologists for "internet typing" have a leaky boat. The occasional discussion about grammar, spelling and punctuation is a good thing for any messageboard. Some people will never discover the mistakes of their ways without a friendly correction from someone who knows better.
I'm now curious to observe my own posts to see how often I'm violating the apostrophe rule. As far as the comma-before-"and" goes, I've been following the rule since sometime between 1985 and 1991.
I may cross-post some of this info on another 'board I'm on...so thanks for the post!
BTW, I do use periods as pauses quite often on the internet, and don't plan on changing my ways....(like that, see?)....I wonder what that's considered to be by grammarians.
Hmmm, makes me want to buy a book on grammar. And maybe grampa.
One guy has compiled a huge collection of catapostrophes, here are some plurals:
http://www.apostroph.de/plural01.php
he also has a small international section:
http://www.apostroph.de/fremdsprachen01.php
Other sites:
The Apostrophe Protection Society
Friends Of The Apostrophe
Originally posted by drewprops
BTW, I do use periods as pauses quite often on the internet, and don't plan on changing my ways....(like that, see?)....I wonder what that's considered to be by grammarians.
I do that also, but I was taught that you're only supposed to use three periods.
By the way, here are a couple of links that can be used for a quick reference. I posted one way up, but I'll post again...
http://dictionary.reference.com/writing/
And here's a good link for common errors that comes from the link above...
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/