h a l f b a k e r y"Not baked goods, Professor; baked bads!" -- The Tick
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Although I taught English for 40 years I’m no supporter of unchanging grammatical rules.
All I ask for in my reading is consistency of usage: within a leaflet, a brochure, a newspaper, a magazine, a book, or one publisher’s range of publications.
Take apostrophes as an example. I’ve long ago
given up groaning if, throughout the item, someone has rendered “possessive its” as it’s every single time - so long as it is every single time and not every now and then, to make me stumble as I read.
I wouldn’t even care, in the cause of consistency, if a new edition of Fowler ruled that apostrophes be no longer used in written English, even though they do aid clarity occasionally, when “correctly” used.
But until that time, my half-baked idea, is that a mnemonic I successfully drilled into thousands of students might spread, through the ‘Bakery, to become as common as “i before e except after c”
.
I can dream can’t I?
Here’s the mnemonic.
Possessive its never splits.
Short-form it’s always splits.
The Elements of Style [online]
http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html
The classic. (This online abridged version omits the text I quote in my annotation.) [iuvare, May 02 2001, last modified Oct 04 2004]
[link]
|
| |
UnaBubba, clarify please: Do you mean the [, and] in lists or in compound sentences? To wit: [Tuna, mackerel, mako, and swordfish] versus [Tuna, mackerel, mako and swordfish] or [I eat all these fish, and then I'm done] versus [I eat all these fish and then I'm done]? |
|
| |
I remain, in pedanticism, |
|
| |
Obligatory "smart quotes" grumble. |
|
| |
Since "always" and "never" are both two-syllable words stressed on their first syllable and can therefore be exchanged without harm, your mnemonic isn't much of one. |
|
| |
This one doesn't suffer from the same problem (although it rhymes badly, but hey.) |
|
| |
An "it's" as in "it is"
falls into pieces;
"its" (the possessive)
is much more cohesive. |
|
| |
Consistency's first; Correctness' second.
fan boy
For; And; Nor; But; Or; Yet may be preceeded by a comma. [From a technical writing course years ago.] |
|
| |
A bloke I knew couldn't tell right from left so we used to give directions using "knife" and "fork". Seemed to work. |
|
| |
I don't have my Fowler's here to back up what I say, but I seem to recall it says the possessive form can be either "it's" or "its", either is correct.
I can understand your wish to use the latter usage (there can't be a plural form of it, so it should theoretically eliminate confusion between the possessive and short form), but this contradicts the standard rule for possesives, which always uses the apostrophe, relying on context to distinguish it from the short form.
Extra rules to add complexity annoy me, so I would tend to favour the apostrophe in all forms of "it's", making the usage much easier to remember. |
|
| |
waugs: <off-topic> i'm not a doctor or anything (although i play one on the halfbakery ;-)), but i've heard that mixing up left and right is a sign of dyslexia. i do that all the time when i'm giving directions to a driver. i mean to say "left" but it almost always comes out "right", and vice-versa. interstingly, my sister has the same problem, but she says it's becuase she grew up with french as her first language and has to subconciously translate "gauche" and "droit" into "left" and "right". </off-topic> |
|
| |
sorry, nothing to add that's on-topic. |
|
| |
Rods you bring up a very serious subject - the condition of language contributing to our erroneous default assumptions. Hofstaedter has dealt with this extensively and interestingly (I recommend Metamagical Themas to all who haven't enjoyed it -- parts are dated but it is still a fantastic read). |
|
| |
Right is right. Left is gauche, sinister. |
|
| |
Waugsqueke: I do the same thing...Talking about something, I'll just go completely blank, then start describing what I was talking about. 'Big flat thing, drawers, papers on it...' "A desk?" |
|
| |
Also with right and left...I THINK 'right', and say 'left', then feel like an idiot...So I usually point if it's possible.. |
|
| |
//...the possessive form can be either "it's" or "its", either is correct.// |
|
| |
"A common error is to write it's for its, and vice versa. The first is a contraction, meaning "it is." The second is a possessive." |
|
| |
>>The Elements of Style, Chapter I, page 1: "Elementary Rules of Usage"<< |
|
| |
<off topic>Speaking of aphasia, while I don't have it, per se, I did wake up one morning in a horrible condition (and no, it was not controlled-substance induced). I woke up and starting speaking, but every word I said came out as a different word entirely. I was forming complete thoughts, perfectly lucid, but my lips and tongue wouldn't respond at all, and instead I'd utter some garbled, well-enunciated balderdash. Funny for about 15 seconds, aggravating until about 5 minutes, downright scary after 2 hours. Fortunately, I just stopped speaking for the better portion of the day, and it seemed to pass. |
|
| |
[ "it's" or "its", ] As a rule of style controversy, I would normally refer anyone to the
New York Times Style book. But this is the organization which has decided at all plural
references to - now used as words - [ CD, TV ] and other "initial words" will be written
as CD's, TV's, not CDs, TVs.
This has led to such widespread abuse that it is difficult to understand some writers. Is
there a mnemonic for this? Who kno |
|
| |
Hey, this one rhymes; don't read the Times. |
|
| |
Should you spell your numbers too? |
|
| |
You can spell my number's too however you like, just
don't use too many comma's, or, we'll have to refer you to
[wagster]s, and [AfroAssault]s, rehab clinic for chronic
overcommaizer's, next to the apostrophe research
building. |
|
| |