Ask the Editor!

[dogzilla]

Due to popular demand... (okay, two people asked me questions in another thread) I'm starting this thread to advise you all on my opinions regarding grammar, usage, and whatever else you want to know about the technical aspects of writing.

Keep in mind that there are many different style guides out there and because of that, there really is no "correct" answer. I will try to explain several different schools of thought, when I am aware of them, but the bottom line is clarity. When in doubt, try to go with the least confusing option and once you take a position (about how you're going to use your commas, or apostrophes, or whatever), then make every effort to be consistent within any one given peice of written work. As far as internet postings and e-mail go... my feeling is the rules don't really apply since we're all coming to the 'net with different ideas about these things and it doesn't really matter as long as we understand each other. That said, netspeak, which I do not understand, grates on my very last nerve. There's only a certain small percentage of 'net addicts who use this shorthand communication, mostly in chat rooms, I believe. The reason it grates on my nerves is because it's like a foreign language -- we're not all privvy to how it works, like ebonics, so it's an ineffective way to communicate. You can only be effective with a select audience and I'm think elitism in language defeats the purpose of communicating in the first place.

So with that, here's a couple answers to the 's questions and feel free to post new, completely unrelated grammar, spelling, or usage questions. I fully expect this thread to drop like a rock, but sometimes y'all surprise me. Also, I should say that my expertise lies in the area of American English, although I am well aware of some British English differences (which is why I don't correct our friends across the ponds much, except for Daryl and I only do that to poke him with a virtual stick). My answers will be given from the American standpoint, but I welcome input on the British English, if it means that much to you. (You Brits get to use words like "wanker" which is way more fun.)

Apostrophes
First, know that the apostrophe is generally used to indicate possession. Example: "This is Dogzilla's bone; leave it alone, or she will bite your ankles." :D

Generally, you add an -s or -es to a word to make it plural. There are many exceptions, of course.

The major exception, which confuses the crap out of everybody -- and you will see this incorrectly used everywhere you go, in newspapers, on store signs, in advertising -- is its vs. it's. So I'll review this one time. The rule has not been cancelled, contrary to popular belief.

Its = possessive.
It's = It is.

This is the one instance where the apostrophe is used for a contraction instead of indicating possessiveness. (Sometimes I do better remembering the correct rule by keeping the exception in mind.)

So, according to the Chicago Manual of Style, "an apostrophe is never used to form the plural (remember plural and possessive are two different things - the plural form of "Ricks" is still "Ricks." We wouldn't add -es) of a family name." So saying that you are dining with the Ricks family, you would use "the Ricks's." If you were dining at the home of one of the family members, let's say Jeff lives alone... You'd say, "I'm dining at Jeff Ricks' home." (I think this might contradict what I posted in the other thread, but this time I have citations to back up my assertions. See Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Ed., section 7.18, pg. 282) Consider rewording the sentence if you find yourself trying to say something like, "Last night, we went over to the Rickses' to try one last time to give Jeff the missionary discussions. He threw us out on our asses." (Note use of -es to form plural of "ass." See? I can make grammar fun.)

In general, the possessive of a singular noun (one person, place, or thing) is formed by adding 's. The possessive of a plural noun (many people, places or things) is formed by adding only the apostrophe. Examples: Dogzilla's bone (singular, because of course, there is only one Dogzilla) vs. her dogs' bones (plural, because Dogzilla has two dogs). This rule also generally applies to proper nouns, such as names.

The list of exceptions to these general rules is what confuses people. I'm only putting a few here; the list goes on for several pages in my style manual.

• If the noun looks plural, but has a singular meaning, such as "species," then the singular form and the plural form are made the same way, and look the same. The possessive is formed by adding only the apostrophe. "Charles Darwin wrote about many different species' evolution."

• Names like "Euripides" - The possessive is formed by adding only the apostrophe for names that end with an -eez sound. "Pericles' quote, at the bottom of Dogzilla's post, is not funny."


• Words and names ending with an unpronounced -s. The Chicago Manual of Style says to use only the apostrophe if you are comfortable with this style and are sure the -s isn't pronounced, i.e. "Decartes' three dreams."


And dogzilla, I also care about the way that you put an apostrophe with an "s". Is it just when you write American that you do something like "James's"? It seems to me that in British, they tend towards writing "James' " more.
That is correct; this is an American thing. And, since this is that kind of thread, "toward" should never end in -s. There is only one. (Same with backward, and forward, and usually regard, depending on how it's used.)


why is Jesus treated differently with the apostrophe S? I live in Southern California where lots of people are named Jesus. Do they all get the exception or just the one guy?
Hah hah! I had to go track down another editor who made this assertion to ask her what was the logic behind this, because when I looked it up, I discovered it was bullshit. Chicago Manual of Style clearly states that you omit the second -s (using the apostrophe only) when using a "for Jesus' sake" type of construction. However, when referring to a plural possessive, i.e. "Jesus's disciples" the double -s was used. The other editor tried to tell me there was something about when referring to dieties ending in -s. So when I asked about Zeus, her little brow furrowed and off we went to look it up in our vast collection of resource materials. The Gregg Reference Manual says, "If a word is hard to pronounce with the double -s, then use the apostrophe only," and "Jesus'" is cited as the example. I can't find anything in the Chicago Manual of Style that says not to use "Jesus's" so please disregard my earlier assertion. Evidently, there is no right or wrong answer with Jesus. (Heh. Which you all already knew. ;) )

That, my friends, is what happens when you believe what people tell you without researching the facts for yourself. :duh What better way to bring this thread to postmormon relevance.

Got any more questions?

[miss taken]

Where does the full stop go with regard to brackets. My editor friend had big arguments with the English (she went to BYU but is English) on the magazine she was editing, about this.

I think the US and English rules can be different. Just to confuse matters.!!!

Thanks for the information though. I found it really interesting. I don't know that I will remember it though.

Rules...damnable rules....

:) Mary

[dogzilla]

Where does the full stop go with regard to brackets. My editor friend had big arguments with the English (she went to BYU but is English) on the magazine she was editing, about this.

I think the US and English rules can be different. Just to confuse matters.!!!

Thanks for the information though. I found it really interesting. I don't know that I will remember it though.

Rules...damnable rules....

:) Mary

Clarification: Do you mean brackets like this: { } or [ ] or do you mean parentheses, like this ( ). And presumably, I think you mean "full stop" to mean, does the end punctuation go inside the brackets or parens, or outside?

The answer is it depends on how the backets or parens are used. When quotations are involved, things get tricky. In general, I put the end punctuation inside the parens if the sentence inside is a complete sentence (and has a full subject and verb). In the previous sentence, the end punctuation went outside the parens because the words inside did not constitute a complete sentence; they formed an incomplete sentence, or a phrase.

Does that answer your question?

[miss taken]

Clarification: Do you mean brackets like this: { } or [ ] or do you mean parentheses, like this ( ). And presumably, I think you mean "full stop" to mean, does the end punctuation go inside the brackets or parens, or outside?

The answer is it depends on how the backets or parens are used. When quotations are involved, things get tricky. In general, I put the end punctuation inside the parens if the sentence inside is a complete sentence (and has a full subject and verb). In the previous sentence, the end punctuation went outside the parens because the words inside did not constitute a complete sentence; they formed an incomplete sentence, or a phrase.

Does that answer your question?

AAArgh!!! I think so Dogzilla! Yes I did mean parentheses. Grief, even the names are not the same!!!

[dogzilla]

AAArgh!!! I think so Dogzilla! Yes I did mean parentheses. Grief, even the names are not the same!!!

Funny, they're called the same thing, but they are really two different languages, aren't they? :Crazy:

Here's a cute anecdote about that very thing:

When I first moved to Greenville, SC about a thousand years ago (sure feels like that), I didn't understand a word anyone said to me for at least a month. Probably more like three months before what sounded like English words started to seep through the filter of Southern American drawl, to my ears. (I nodded and smiled a lot.)

After about a year or so, the funniest thing happened. The manager where I worked (I was a technical writer at a BMW plant.) called a staff meeting and informed everyone that we were out of safety goggles and our supplier had backordered them, so if anyone was missing this crucial piece of required equipment, they had to beg, borrow, steal, or raid their cars or lockers. He specifically said several times, "Dogzilla does NOT have any safety goggles, so please do not come in here and bother her asking for them!" (My "office" was a desk underneath the assembly line, corralled inside a chain link fence. No kidding, they put the Dogzilla in a cage to work. I am not making this up. :cool: )

Not thirty minutes later, some Bubba who apparently had very poor listening skills, walked into the cage and asked me for safety goggles. :duh

I whipped around on him in a fury, as if Helamon had just told me that hydrogen power wasn't possible in our lifetimes, and said in a very thick South Carolina drawl (and boy, have I learned to turn that on or off on demand!):

"Now, alla y'all know we ain't got nunna them left!"

(It came out sounding like a single word, as good Southern does.) And I clapped my hands over my mouth in shock and horror. Here I am, with a bachelor of science in journalism and a minor in English, speaking like I stepped out of the trailer park yesterday. The thing was, Bubba didn't understand why I was so mortified. I explained how my grammar had rapidly degenerated in my short tenure in SC and he just shrugged and said, "Well... I understood you."

And right then and there, I realized that I hadn't used poor English at all. I had spoken fluent Southern and managed to successfully make myself understood clearly. (There was no question that I had no goggles.) Many of our crew were simple and/or uneducated people. I suddenly realized that, for the past year, most people I spoke to probably didn't understand half the words I said, just because I'm a smart-assed know-it-all college graduate and I use a lot of words with more than two syllables. No wonder I'd had trouble making friends. When in Rome...

My lesson learned: Sometimes it ain't about following the rules. If the person you're communicating with understands, that's what matters. (And this is why I leave puff alone, although it kills me to NOT copy his posts, edit them for punctuation and capitalization and re-post. :p)

[noodle]

I have one for you, Zilla. It involves "nonetheless." (Oh...was the period in the right place there, or should it have been outside the quotes? I've seen it both ways)

Anyhoo...I was writing something similar to the following the other day, and got confused about semicolons and commas. Here goes:

The weather had turned rather nasty; notheless, they chose to continue on their journey.

How would I write that properly in terms of commas and semicolons?

This is a great thread. :)

mamajama

[peter_mary]

I have one for you, Zilla. It involves "nonetheless." (Oh...was the period in the right place there, or should it have been outside the quotes? I've seen it both ways)

Anyhoo...I was writing something similar to the following the other day, and got confused about semicolons and commas. Here goes:

The weather had turned rather nasty; notheless, they chose to continue on their journey.

How would I write that properly in terms of commas and semicolons?

This is a great thread. :)

mamajama
How would write THIS: "My uncle found out he had a tumor in his intestines, and they removed it. Now he has a semi-colon." Could you properly say, "Now he has a ;"

I can NEVER figure this stuff out...but you knew that...

:D

[noodle]

How would write THIS: "My uncle found out he had a tumor in his intestines, and they removed it. Now he has a semi-colon." Could you properly say, "Now he has a ;"

I can NEVER figure this stuff out...but you knew that...

:D

OK, smart arse. :slap:

Has anybody read Eats, Shoots, and Leaves? I love that book. It's a humorous book on the proper use of punctuation, although since it is written by a British woman (I think), some of the rules may be a bit different. Miss taken and Zilla, am I correct?

mamajama

[dogzilla]

I have one for you, Zilla. It involves "nonetheless." (Oh...was the period in the right place there, or should it have been outside the quotes? I've seen it both ways)

Anyhoo...I was writing something similar to the following the other day, and got confused about semicolons and commas. Here goes:

The weather had turned rather nasty; notheless, they chose to continue on their journey.

How would I write that properly in terms of commas and semicolons?

This is a great thread. :)

mamajama

Good question!

"Nonetheless" would be used like "however." And the rule for punctuating such words depends totally on the style guide you prefer.

Chicago Manual of Style (henceforth to be known as CMOS) would tell you to do this:
The weather had turned rather nasty; nonetheless, they chose to continue on their journey.
(Which is exactly what you did. And p.s. I had your back on those typos. ;))

Associated Press (AP) would probably do this:
The weather had turned rather nasty. Nonetheless, they chose to continue on their journey.

Gregg Reference Manual agrees with both: "When independent clauses are linked by transitional expressions (such as nevertheless, however, or nonetheless), use a semicolon between clauses. You can also treat the second independent clause as a separate sentence.

Basically, you treat these words plus the semicolons, as if they are conjunctions: Their purpose is to connect two phrases or clauses. (Sing the Schoolhouse Rock song with me, children of the 70's: "Conjunction junction, what's your function? Hooking up words, and phrases, and clauses...") If you could substitute "; nonetheless," with "and" or "or" then you could use the semicolon.

This can get very tricky dependning on whether the clauses you are connecting are dependent, independent, complete sentences or incomplete... So the rule of thumb to follow: When in doubt, you probably don't even need to use "nonetheless, however, nevertheless" or any of those. (This is a reflection of Journalism School training: Why do we need it? Does it still make sense if you delete? Get rid of that thing! We've only got 13 column inches! Flotsam may advise you differently.) Most of the time, I find they are not only extraneous, but understood. Often, your sentence totally still works if you break it into two complete sentences and then omit the weird connector word.

Example:
The weather had turned rather nasty. They chose to continue on their journey.

I'd probably add something like "anyway" at the end of the second sentence, but it makes sense even if I don't, so again, being clearly understood is the name of the game.

Oh, and yes, your period was in the correct place, depending again upon which style guide you consult. Associated Press always, always, always places the end punctuation inside quotation marks, which makes it very easy to remember (I love AP and tend to follow it if no other style is dictated to me by, say, my employer.). When I looked this up, I noticed there's a different rule for each different end punctuation mark. Egad.

Gregg says:
"Periods and commas always go inside the closing quotation mark. This is the preferred American style. Some writers in the U.S. like to follow the British style: Place the period outside when it punctuates a complete sentence, inside when it punctuates only the quoted material. Place the comma outside, since it always punctuates the sentence, not the quoted material." Crazy Brits, with their complicated rules. Keep it simple and go with AP style. ;) Note, that's what I did with punctuating the parenthetical statement above.

This is the part where editors are like gardeners: you'll never get two of us to agree on how something should be done.

[dogzilla]

OK, smart arse. :slap:

Has anybody read Eats, Shoots, and Leaves? I love that book. It's a humorous book on the proper use of punctuation, although since it is written by a British woman (I think), some of the rules may be a bit different. Miss taken and Zilla, am I correct?

mamajama

Yes, and I have read it. That's one of the must-reads for all editors! We geeky types love that book.

The other great handbook I recommend for anyone is Strunk and White's The Elements of Style. It's written in easily accessible language, it's simple, concise, and not too confusing, throwing in a bunch of complicating gobbledygook. Also, the authors had a sense of humor (Like the Eats, Shoots, and Leaves lady), so it's not painful to look stuff up in there if you're not doing this sort of thing for a living, like I do.

I also feel compelled to tell all who are reading this enlightening thread that I do not talk this way. I write pretty close to properly just to stay in the habit, so I don't do stupid shit at work. (Nothing is more professionally embarrassing than an editor making a huge punctuation or grammatical error in a memo. It's like when the dentist says, "oops!" :eek: ) But if you get a chance to meet me, you will notice that I talk like everybody else and do not constantly interrupt to correct other people's grammar. While pedantry is its own reward ;), I think it's conversationally rude to make people feel stupid or self-conscious. So no worries; I wouldn't embarrass anyone IRL. Well, maybe I'd embarrass P_M, as punishment for sarcasm... :p

[dogzilla]

How would write THIS: "My uncle found out he had a tumor in his intestines, and they removed it. Now he has a semi-colon." Could you properly say, "Now he has a ;"

I can NEVER figure this stuff out...but you knew that...

:D

Hey, P_M, what's this look like to you?

*


(Hint: The puckery brown thing one finds at the, ahem, tail end of the intestines.)

:p

[peter_mary]

Hey, P_M, what's this look like to you?

*


(Hint: The puckery brown thing one finds at the, ahem, tail end of the intestines.)

:p
Ah...the TERMINUS of a : (Or, as the Brits would say, "TERMINASS")

Hurshell, I believe, has a badly behaving *

:D

[dogzilla]

Ah...the TERMINUS of a : (Or, as the Brits would say, "TERMINASS")

Hurshell, I believe, has a badly behaving *

:D

Yes he does... :Puking

[noodle]

Good question!

"Nonetheless" would be used like "however." And the rule for punctuating such words depends totally on the style guide you prefer.

Chicago Manual of Style (henceforth to be known as CMOS) would tell you to do this:
The weather had turned rather nasty; nonetheless, they chose to continue on their journey.
(Which is exactly what you did. And p.s. I had your back on those typos. ;))

Associated Press (AP) would probably do this:
The weather had turned rather nasty. Nonetheless, they chose to continue on their journey.

Gregg Reference Manual agrees with both: "When independent clauses are linked by transitional expressions (such as nevertheless, however, or nonetheless), use a semicolon between clauses. You can also treat the second independent clause as a separate sentence.

Basically, you treat these words plus the semicolons, as if they are conjunctions: Their purpose is to connect two phrases or clauses. (Sing the Schoolhouse Rock song with me, children of the 70's: "Conjunction junction, what's your function? Hooking up words, and phrases, and clauses...") If you could substitute "; nonetheless," with "and" or "or" then you could use the semicolon.

This can get very tricky dependning on whether the clauses you are connecting are dependent, independent, complete sentences or incomplete... So the rule of thumb to follow: When in doubt, you probably don't even need to use "nonetheless, however, nevertheless" or any of those. (This is a reflection of Journalism School training: Why do we need it? Does it still make sense if you delete? Get rid of that thing! We've only got 13 column inches! Flotsam may advise you differently.) Most of the time, I find they are not only extraneous, but understood. Often, your sentence totally still works if you break it into two complete sentences and then omit the weird connector word.

Example:
The weather had turned rather nasty. They chose to continue on their journey.

I'd probably add something like "anyway" at the end of the second sentence, but it makes sense even if I don't, so again, being clearly understood is the name of the game.

Oh, and yes, your period was in the correct place, depending again upon which style guide you consult. Associated Press always, always, always places the end punctuation inside quotation marks, which makes it very easy to remember (I love AP and tend to follow it if no other style is dictated to me by, say, my employer.). When I looked this up, I noticed there's a different rule for each different end punctuation mark. Egad.

Gregg says:
"Periods and commas always go inside the closing quotation mark. This is the preferred American style. Some writers in the U.S. like to follow the British style: Place the period outside when it punctuates a complete sentence, inside when it punctuates only the quoted material. Place the comma outside, since it always punctuates the sentence, not the quoted material." Crazy Brits, with their complicated rules. Keep it simple and go with AP style. ;) Note, that's what I did with punctuating the parenthetical statement above.

This is the part where editors are like gardeners: you'll never get two of us to agree on how something should be done.

Cool! Thanks for the lesson, for correcting my spelling, and especially for teaching me what is now my favorite symbol: *. Damn, I LOVE what I learn on this site!

[elder_nomo]

Thanks for this thread, Dogzilla. It's really interesting - I love it. I wonder if lots of us like this topic so much because we were all good little mormons and like to follow the RULES???

Oh, and thanks for answering all my questions about Jesus. (Yeah, that was pretty much the only one I had left, the apostrophe thing).

[hamar]

Hey dog! I've been away all week and I'm a little late coming to this thread and it is late and I need to get to bed (been up since 5 a.m. and driving most of the time). I wuz jus wonderan if you would let me jus send you my business letters and maybe you could edit them for me before I send them to my clients? :o

[puff]

Yes he does... :Pukingall i have learnt from this thread is that americans do not use the term wanker , which is abit out of date hear to , so things have moved on to tosser , so what term do americans use for tosser , you know , just in case i go there one day ..

[Jeff_Ricks]

Apostrophes
First, know that the apostrophe is generally used to indicate possession. Example: "This is Dogzilla's bone; leave it alone, or she will bite your ankles." :D

Generally, you add an -s or -es to a word to make it plural. There are many exceptions, of course.

The major exception, which confuses the crap out of everybody -- and you will see this incorrectly used everywhere you go, in newspapers, on store signs, in advertising -- is its vs. it's. So I'll review this one time. The rule has not been cancelled, contrary to popular belief.

Its = possessive.
It's = It is.

This is the one instance where the apostrophe is used for a contraction instead of indicating possessiveness. (Sometimes I do better remembering the correct rule by keeping the exception in mind.)

So, according to the Chicago Manual of Style, "an apostrophe is never used to form the plural (remember plural and possessive are two different things - the plural form of "Ricks" is still "Ricks." We wouldn't add -es) of a family name." So saying that you are dining with the Ricks family, you would use "the Ricks's." If you were dining at the home of one of the family members, let's say Jeff lives alone... You'd say, "I'm dining at Jeff Ricks' home." (I think this might contradict what I posted in the other thread, but this time I have citations to back up my assertions. See Chicago Manual of Style, 15th Ed., section 7.18, pg. 282) Consider rewording the sentence if you find yourself trying to say something like, "Last night, we went over to the Rickses' to try one last time to give Jeff the missionary discussions. He threw us out on our asses." (Note use of -es to form plural of "ass." See? I can make grammar fun.)
Oh it was all so simple for a few hours when I read your other thread, Dogzilla, and thought I only had to remember one rule for properly using my last name. Now you've done burst my bubble. :slap:

Jeff

[dogzilla]

Hey dog! I've been away all week and I'm a little late coming to this thread and it is late and I need to get to bed (been up since 5 a.m. and driving most of the time). I wuz jus wonderan if you would let me jus send you my business letters and maybe you could edit them for me before I send them to my clients? :o

Sure! My freelance rate is $40/hour. Pretty cheap, if you ask me! :cool:

[dogzilla]

all i have learnt from this thread is that americans do not use the term wanker , which is abit out of date hear to , so things have moved on to tosser , so what term do americans use for tosser , you know , just in case i go there one day ..

I'm not sure what "tosser" means, or I would tell you. :o

[noodle]

I'm not sure what "tosser" means, or I would tell you. :o

Tosser
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A tosser is a British and Australian slang term for a disliked or incompetent person generally synonymous with wanker.

The literal meaning of the word tosser once meant a heavy drinker but now is the same as wanker — someone who masturbates. (Cfr. "to toss off".)