To really understand me, you may have to realize that my husband and I talk grammar in our spare time.
Not that it's always the topic of choice (maybe because it tends to become argumentative), but neither does it come up infrequently.
Our most recent conversation stemmed from seeing Australia in theaters because we had a free movie ticket that expired before next weekend, when the movies that we really want to see came out.
Conversation after that movie went several different directions: filming style, dialogue, sensationalism, etc. ("Watching a movie," for us, is not just an activity that ends when the credit rolls.)
One of which came from my husband's observation. He is usually the one to notice (and correct) grammatical errors. Although, I believe it falls into the category of "pet peeves" for both of us; namely the use of "your" when "you're" is intended and "it's" when "its" is intended (and I sadly admit that Sam has had to correct me on the latter more than once...)
It's one thing to make a mistake, but it's another to not realize that a mistake was ever made, or to not care one way or another. OR, to publish something with a blatant mistake.
Now, we understand that it's a losing battle to try and correct that on online communities (although that doesn't always keep us from fighting.) Even in the classroom, it's a tough and constant battle. But when you see it in magazines and newspaper headlines... it really makes us wonder.
Anyway, this observation Sam made, it shows one of the reasons I love him so. In the movie they show a newspaper. Like normal people, I read the headline, got the gist of it, and figured out the message it was conveying. Sam did all the above, as well as recognize a blatant grammatical error in the headline of the newspaper shown in the movie. Who does that? Who notices that? But then, seriously, who would make that mistake? Or rather, who would let that mistake slip by?
Now, since I didn't notice the mistake myself I can't pinpoint where it was. But apparently, in one of the headlines they use "it's" when they should've used "its" (or maybe vice versa? Now I can't even remember..)
So this started a discussion of the nature of language. My first argument (since I've been know to make this mistake and have tried to rationalize where it comes from) is that "its" is an exception to a rule. We are taught to use an apostrophe to show possession. In the case of "its" since "it's" can also, and more appropriately, represent the conjuction of "it" and "is", "it's" became the representation of the conjuction and "it" showing possession was simplified to "its".
Sam, so smartly, countered that that didn't necessarily apply as pronouns in general don't use apostrophes to show possession. E.g. "hers". So if we were really looking at rules, that rule wouldn't apply to begin with, in order for "its" to be an exception to the rule.
This rabbit-trailed into a conversation about the correct way to identify possession of proper names that are either plural, end in "S", or both. Basically, whether or not a word ending in "s" and showing possession should have simply an apostrophe at the end, or an apostrophe followed by the typical "s".
That discussion never met a solid conclusion as the rules for that are abundantly varied. Although my favorite rule, and personal conclusion, has to do with the sound of language as opposed to the use and/or type of language (rules such as "if it's plural than you add the "s" after the apostrophe" OR "if the name is biblical, it should always have an apostrophe "s"" other than that never use the extra "s".)
The much more logical and natural way to do it, is if the show of possesion would add an additional syllable, then an apostrophe AND the additional "s" should be added. For example: "Chris's dog."
If the show of possession would NOT add an additional syllable, the "s" should be left off and the word should end with an apostrophe. Example: The Moores' house. I think that covers most situations.
But back on track with "its" and "you're". More commonly than "it's", "your" is the mistake that slips by general readers copy-editors alike. This can't even be rationalized with a "rule" that people may think they are following. "You're" is just going extinct. In that case, why even bother with an apostrophe? Why add an extra letter? It sounds the same - is there really any difference?
"Your...what?" is the common response Sam and I give to statements like "your funnee!1!" In that case.. "your funny... what?"
When we see that in online and texting messages, again, it's almost not worth the effort to correct. When we see it and mark it wrong on student papers... we have to fight despondancy and the fear that students won't even realize what or why we marked it wrong. When we see it in newspapers... we weep.
Is this the decline of language along with the decline of civiliation, that no amount of fight will prevail?
Is it not even a decline, just a natural change in language that we shouldn't even bother shrugging over, because it's going to happen anyway and it's not "bad" or even "good"?
Is correcting these mistakes something we should continue to strive for, either way?
Sam and I both have a desire for excellence. We both want to pursue the drive for excellence. But at the same time, we want to be worthwhile.
It's one thing to maintain a standard yourself. It's another thing to teach and uphold others to it, especially when they are changing in spite of you (or to spite you..heh.)
On a completely different note. When Sam and I walked into the theater we quickly noticed that we were by far the youngest couple in there. Everyone else looked atleast 30+, and as far as we could tell, part of a couple. It's nice to know though that even old people go on movie dates.
;P
Monday, December 15, 2008
The Death of You're and It's
Posted by Flower Of Edo at 11:33 AM
Labels: apostrophe, australia, grammar, movie bloopers, possesion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


2 Comments:
A grammar mistake that bothers me a little bit is the use of a preposition as the last word in a sentence. The reason that it only bothers me a little bit is that occasionally I also have trouble writing smooth flowing sentences that do not end with a preposition. It sometimes seems so awkward to have a correctly positioned preposition in language that you are trying to have sound like the common language of today. I currently am reading an instructional volume for a Microsoft program. I believe these authors have written several books. A few times I have seen sentences in this book that end with prepositions. An example is a sentence that ends: “what you’re looking for.” The more formal “That for which you are looking” might be more correct but sounds awkward.
I have a feeling that if Microsoft allows this to continue, others probably are doing the same thing. Will the grammar experts change the rule about not ending sentences with prepositions, if common usage over the years allows its use?
On a separate note, the year is not that far away when you will not use the number "30" in relation to the word "old".
firstly, love your blog (and your coupleship), from reading the blub on the side and the first bit of this post. makes me, a single 25-year-old male with similar propensities for perfectionism/excellence/grammar ( :) ), have hope that somewhere out there, there's a female that will either be very similar/compatible, or just tolerant of my nature like your husband :).
Seconly: like this always happens, you wrote this in 2008 and I'm now writing this in January 2013. who knows if you will read this, or what you think of this matter in 2013. Or the commenter above.
But I have just come to this conclusion: I LOVE the fact that language evolves and constantly changes (so long as it only ever makes one able to express MORE and not less), I think that languages should be allowed to organically change as people see fit, as it fits the smoothness of what they want to say, and how they want to say it. That's the power and eloquence of language. In this context, I say, why not allow prepositions to become 'part of the verb' and thus be fine to go at the end of the sentence!
And my grandmother, who is a grammar/words fream/walking encyclopedia, dictionary and crossword and former game-show champion (still going strong using her brain daily at the age of 92), has inspiringly told me she sees nothing wrong with things like the following theoretical evolution: to distinguish between the singular and plural forms of the subject/pronoun 'you', add s, so you could say 'where are yous going?'. That said, it still doesn't sound very natural, does it, so any grammar change should only be whan it sounds natural (and this is how so many languages have BEEN shaped gramatically, like french dropping vowels to link words together), so my opinion now is that if it sounds smooth, LET IT EVOLVE.
I'm a languages buff, and to highlight my point: I HATE the idea of Esperanto, and I think that an artificial, static, boring language, that has no real-world physical society attached to it (which is the lifeblood of languages, and the course of their life, or death in some cases), should not even be thought about or wasted one's breath on. (There, I used a preposition at the end of a sentence :P.)
Now getting to the you're/your and its/it's thing. I HATE this so much, just like you. I feel like it's the 'death of you're' now. It riles me like nothing else. It's worse than misspellings, I SEE another word, another meaning, when I see the word YOUR, as opposed to YOU'RE. It's that simple. It does NOT fall under the case of a natural evolution of language which retains power of nuance and expression but which evolves for the purpose of convenience. It's just utter confusion and inferiority of expression.
Luckily, MOST trends do not give up power and range of expression, so when you want to use an old-fashioned turn of phrase/grammar order/use, it's useful for certain contexts like making a point in a more powerful or certain way, in a formal context, or just for effect. So the case study of modern power of expression using a range spanning both old-fashioned words/grammar AND the latest in internet acronyms and netspeak, is the vocalulary and vernacular of the venerable and NOT verbose veteran of the verb, Stephen Fry :). <3 <3 <3
As for the 'St. James's Palace' vs. 'Jesus' feet' conundrum, I know it's a headache, I still don't know what are exceptions to the rule (and what the rule even is) but I'm gradually increasing the amount of 's vs. just ' to my words in this case....eugh.....
Post a Comment