I can’t recall how many arguments I’ve gotten into over the use of the possessive.Â I remember belonging to an organization that insisted on calling its gender-specific confabs “mens meetings” and “womens meetings.”Â
Now, whatever happened to the possessive apostrophe in these wordings, i.e., men’s meetings and women’s meetings?Â I was told (by a K-12 English teacher no less) that, since these meetings didn’t belong to the men or women but were being held for them, there was no possessive required.Â In other words, it wasn’t a men’s meeting but a meeting for men, so the rules of possessive didn’t apply.
Folks, I’m here to tell you it always applies.Â That’s whyÂ this Sunday isÂ called “Mother’s Day.”Â My only beef would be that, since more than one mother celebrates the day, it could just as easily be “Mothers’ Day.”Â Now in this case since the intent is to devote a day to each mother, I’ll drop my pluralizing objection.Â But it could never, ever be “Mothers Day”!
At least it does when it’s grammar by BoSox pitcher [tag]Curt Schilling[/tag]. Look at this comma splice-ridden monstrosity:
"Everyone has days and events in life they’d love to push the rewind button on, yesterday was one of those days."
Adding a simple and after the comma would’ve at least made the sentence grammatical, eliminating the common splice with a coordinating conjunction. However, I think he meant erase, not rewind, button. A rewind would mean a repeat, wouldn’t it?
Anyway, if you haven’t been following the real-life controversy, I thought I’d point out the grammatical aspects at least.
Even native English speakers will have trouble identifying subjects (and verbs) in sentences that deviate from the most basic, such as “the dog barks.” Here there are only an article (the), a subject/noun (dog) and a verb (barks). Easy enough.
However, look at this sentence and its optional verb forms and tell me the answer:
“A variety of options concerning repair of the train cars is/are on the table.”
Which verb is it, singular or plural?
I wanted to assignÂ so to the NotWord category, but a quick flip through dictionary.com turned up a preliminary okay for its usage.
I got going on this when I heard [tag]Rachael Ray[/tag], on one of her $40-a-day trips (yeah, what about the hundreds sheÂ spendsÂ on the hotel room, transportation, shopping sprees and so on?), say, “I was so hungry.”
Generally, to complete a so statement like this, oneÂ would have to sayÂ “so hungry that I could eat a horse,”Â or some such.Â However, dictionary.com gave its blessing to Raechel’s utterance, so long as it was oral and not written.Â Oral usage has more lattitude.Â If you use so in this way in writing, you still must include the completing that clause, the online dictionary warns.
Now, I know a lot of you are thinking, “That’s like so yesterday.”Â Sorry, I am so particular when it comes to grammar that….
The Republicans held a presidential debate last night (May 4, 2007) at the Ronald Reagan Library in Simi, Calif., and most noticeable was the absence of any mention of the current president, [tag]George W. Bush[/tag].
What was mentioned?
Sorry, folks, but I’ve been extremely under the weather (where did that saying come from?), so I haven’t posted anything in days.Â I hope to be back on my feet soon to titillate you with the latest in English faux pas.
Dictionary.com gives us the following definition for interjection: “a word or words, or some noise, used to express surprise, dismay, pain or other feelings and emotions.”
“Oh dear, so that’s what an interjection is.Â I never realized.”
The “Oh dear” (or “Oh, dear”) part of the above sentence represents the [tag]interjection[/tag].
Interjections are probably safest when used in spoken English, and unless you wanted to beÂ sarcastic or sardonic, you probably wouldn’t use one in formal writing.Â I could be wrong, and there may be legitimate reasons to use interjections in formal writing.Â To wit:
“Stop!Â Read no further until you have completed the last step.”
Maybe that works.Â If you’re writing a manual about how to defuse a bomb.
This video of former Soviet President [tag]Boris Yeltsin[/tag] and former U.S. President [tag]Bill Clinton[/tag] shows how one can never be sure if a translation is correct or not. Please listen carefully to the opening few lines. Watch it again if you have to. The video starts on the continued page.
Or is it just old age setting in?
I’m a native speaker and generally a good speller, having gotten my K-12 education before the liberal reforms of the 1960s ruined everything in public education.
But just today I’ve already had to look up two words to make sure my memory was correct. The first was pastime. I couldn’t convince myself that it wasn’t pasttime. Past-time I knew would have to be some kind of adjective, so I threw that out. The second was acquiescence. I just couldn’t remember if there were a c after the s, which I confirmed there is by going to dictionary.com.
The point here is that I can, as i age, see more clearly why people have a hard time with this language of ours. Fortunately, we now have resources at our (keyboard) fingertips to help us out. Maybe some memory-enhancing pills would help as well.
The headline is a non pre-sequitur, whatever the term for that is, but my subject is light, in a way anyway.
My penpal in Taiwan, who is also an English teacher and whose grammar (learned as a second language) is infinitely better than most native Americans, even college graduates, was perplexed when I used the phrase “[tag]lightbulb went off[/tag].”Â She thought it should be “lightbulb came (or went) on.”Â Made sense.
That got me thinking, so I scoured the Internet for about 10 minutes (figuring that was about all the subject was worth) to find the derivation of the phrase, but I failed.Â The best I could conclude was that it derives from the days of those old flashbulbs thatÂ would definitely go off in a flash, thus leading to the phrase “lightbulb went off,”Â indicating a flash of realization.
Anybody got a better idea of the roots of the phrase?Â If you do, please post a comment.