moving on

now that the election is behind us, let's get back to the important stuff, like linguistics!

saw this great article today, and while it's not exactly grammar-related, it touches on more of my language pet peeves. i think this list is great- i'd of course add "literally" to their list, likely near the top, but can't argue with any of their choices.

anything you'd like to add to the list?

happy fathers' day

what better way to celebrate the day than with a finkipedia grammar post, right?

today's question- what's the right title for the day? is it "father's day" or "fathers' day"? i don't think there's a right or wrong answer to this- like the posts on "myriad" here and here, i believe the ultimate answer is that they're both technically correct.

most of what i see used in print is the singular possessive ("father's"). the official holiday, first proclaimed by lyndon johnson and officially reproclaimed this year by president bush, assigns the title of "father's day". i would argue however that since we're celebrating all dads and not just one that the day should be more appropriately addressed in the plural possessive. someone out there must agree with me, because the wikipedia entry on father's day (titled using the singular) starts off with this comment:

• Although normal practice for English punctuation indicates that the holiday should be called "Fathers' Day" (as it is a plural possessive), common usage dictates that the ostensibly singular possessive "Father's Day" is the preferred spelling.

common usage be damned. band with me, my fellow grammarians. buck the trend and start recognizing all mothers and fathers by using the plural possessive when you send your best wishes. pledge your allegiance and make my fathers' day with a comment below.

back in metropolis

was back on LI this past weekend for the annual '89 friars golf weekend. used to be 2 rounds of golf per weekend, now down to one round of golf and one wild card day. golf this year was an adventure- played in 50 degree weather and a steady driving rain, lasted only 12 holes before we realized that the 80 bucks we paid to play wasn't worth getting pneumonia over.

second day turned out much better- hoops, stickball, mets/yankees game, poker, and plenty of old stories. hard to believe these stories are 20 years old now. yikes.

as if the weekend alone wasn't enough for a post, got a little gift as i was headed off the island. big flashing construction sign on the belt parkway with a message about nypd's attitude towards fireworks: "ZERO TOLARANCE". apparently they won't allow sparklers in NY but have no problems with public displays of spelling ignorance.

true heroes walking among us

tried to fit this in a comment on the last post, but the link was too long. for my fellow grammarians, i think you'll find this article enjoyable (and reassuring that there are some out there carrying out our mission). courtesy of big buddy, official finkipedia editor emeritus:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/dannywestneat/2004367117_danny23.html

look! another grammar rant!

i've hit you with most of my grammar pet peeves, but there are plenty more things that i come across that are worthy of a rant. here's one from today, the greeting of a letter from another physician: "to all perspective members,"

maybe there are some members of his organization that have a good outlook on things and get the big picture, but i believe he is addressing those of us who are not yet members. of course "prospective" is the term he was looking for (pun intended).

lose the extra "o"

rant time again...

straight from a communication to parents from the principal's office at our school (slightly paraphrased): "...it seems that they loose their mittens and hats very easily".

while not as prevalent as some of the other grammatical missteps i've soapboxed on before, this one has annoyed me for years: the misspelling of "lose" as "loose".

this isn't one i've seen (thank god) in any print media, but i've seen it quite often in personal communication. i didn't realize the word "lose" was that confusing, but unless i really am sending my kids to school with gloves that are too tight, it must be.

apostro-phed up

as promised, the long-awaited apostrophe rant...

more than any other grammatical mistake, the misplaced and misused apostrophe gets me all fired up. maybe because it's the most common, or maybe because when misused in public, it's the most ridiculous appearing. the two main uses for an apostrophe ( contraction and designation of possession) are equally abused, but because abused contractions (like "your welcome") are usually just homophone mistakes, i'll limit my rant to the possessive apostrophe.

the rules really are quite simple: if you want to show one thing belongs to another, put two nouns next to each other, then give the first noun an apostrophe and an "s", and the second noun now belongs to it. (any two nouns will do- it might not always make sense, but it will be grammatically correct). if there's no belonging involved, there's no apostrophe involved. that's it.

acceptable: "the computer's keyboard", "the water's edge", "a winter's night"
unacceptable (actual phrases from signage in THIS VERY COMMUNITY!): "hour's of operation", "hot dog's and hamburger's", "shirt's- $1.29"

special apostrophe occasions:

• plural possessives- if you want your first noun to be plural, the apostrophe goes after the "s" ("the cars' headlights", "their parents' joy").
• "its"- "it's" is a contraction for "it is" or "it has", and is not a possessive form. "its" is the possessive form of "it", used similar to "his" or "her". there is no such word as " its' ".

whew. now that's off my chest. next up, more top 5's.

i literally hate this word

what good's a blog if you can't rant from time to time? herein starts a new occasional feature- fink's language pet peeves. it's my attempt to better the world through the proper use of the english language.

i'm literally appalled by the literal overuse of the adjective "literally". from radio and TV interviews, to podcasts, to daily conversation, not a day goes by anymore that i don't hear someone incorrectly use the word "literally".

examples:

• "i was literally blown away by that movie". no, you weren't, because you're obviously standing in front of me still using incorrect language.
  
• "they literally moved 2,000 miles just to be near a white castle." maybe a true statement, but a superfluous use of the word.

the word should be used to describe a situation where an action that has a figurative meaning is carried out in the truer yet possibly less likely way.

example:

• "while collecting seashells, i was literally swept off my feet by the waves."

this ends todays complaining. tune in next time for a lesson on apostrophes.