Wedding Couple Share the Same Sister??

As I've mentioned before, I enjoy reading the wedding feature in my local newspaper. It's sort of a mini romance novel each Sunday--a column about how two people met, their engagement, their wedding, and hopefully, happily ever after.



This week's featured wedding article contained a curious sentence. The reporter was explaining how the couple met and said this:



Turns out that Tonorey and Aldrich's sister had attended the same high school in Birmingham and he remembered her photo from the yearbook.



Common sense tells me that Tonorey had a sister and Aldrich had a sister and that the TWO sisters went to the same high school. However, the grammar used by the writer does NOT say that. When you have two names with an apostrophe plus S ONLY on the second name, that means that the noun following belongs to BOTH of those people.



Notice, too, that the writer used the SINGULAR of "sister." Whoops! I am guessing that is not at all what she meant. The sentence should read this way:



Turns out that Tonorey's and Aldrich's sisters had attended the same high school, and Aldrich remembered Tonorey's photo from the yearbook.



BONUS POINT #1: Notice that I added a comma before AND in this sentence because the material that comes after AND (Aldrich remembered Tonorey's photo from the year book) is a complete clause.



BONUS POINT #2: Notice also that I changed the pronouns HE and HER to the names of the people. I did this because it is not clear from the context who HE and HER might be.



I hope this helps the next time you need to create a double possessive. I also hope Tonorey and Aldrich live happily ever after!

Ad Brochure Cannot Keep Its "Its" Straight

I'm still proofreading the ad brochure I mentioned in my last post, and I am wondering why people find it so difficult to distinguish between ITS (belonging to an IT) and IT'S ( short for IT IS or IT HAS). Brent Watson did a column about reverse mortgages and said this:

The nation's elderly population is at it's highest in history and will be that way over the next several years.

Whoops! This sentence calls for the possessive form (IT referring back to the population). The sentence should read this way:

The nation's elderly population is at its highest in history and will be that way over the next several years.

I'll share some more sentence gems from the reverse mortgages column tomorrow, but the Subaru ad at the back of the brochure contains this sentence:

It truly has a flagship sedan that offers better performance, passenger volume, fuel economy, and standard AWD at a better price than it's FWD competitors.

Whoops again! This sentence also calls for the possessive form (IT referring back to the sedan). The sentence should read this way:

It truly has a flagship sedan that offers better performance, passenger volume, fule economy, and standard AWD at a better price than its FWD competitors.

Proofreading with Your Parmesan!

My 280.com advertising brochure for this month features a mouthwatering ad for Nino's Italian Restaurant in Pelham http://www.ninos-pelham.com/. The food sounds wonderful, but the person who wrote the "Southern Palate" review of Nino's needs to be more careful with the grammar and usage. In describing the lasagna, she wrote:

"This lasagna was even better than your moms with lots of gooey cheese and a generous portion of meat, the sauce was perfect!"

Whoops twice for this sentence! First, this lasagna is NOT being compared to your moms, and your moms don't come covered with gooey cheese! This lasagna is being compared to the lasagna your mother might make. Second, "the sauce was perfect" should be a completely separate sentence--partly to avoid a comma splice (run-on sentence) and partly because the point about the sauce should stand on its own and not be buried in the previous sentence. This part of the review should read as follows:

This lasagna was even better than your mom's with lots of gooey cheese and a generous portion of meat. The sauce was perfect!

BONUS POINT: I don't recommend frequent use of the exclamation point in formal business prose, but in a restaurant review in an ad brochure, it is certainly acceptable if you want to exclaim over the sauce!

Another run-on sentence appears in the last paragraph of the restaurant review:

"Don't be afraid to step out and try something different, this delicious dish is mild and includes a side of pasta."

This sentence, which refers to Eggplant Parmigiana, dilutes both parts by running them together. They should be separate and read as follows:

Don't be afraid to step out and try something different. This delicious dish is mild and includes a side of pasta.

More Incompetence with Apostrophes

My friend Mark LaFlaur, a free-lance editor in New York City, is also disgusted with the lack of understanding about when to use apostrophes. He and his wife recently spotted an ad poster for cable or cell phone service on the Long Island Railroad that read:

OPTIMUM?
ABSOLUTELY!

Beneath the headline, an apparently disgruntled customer had scrawled:

STINK'S

Again, as this blog has pointed out numerous times, it is NOT necessary to put an apostrophe before the S in a simple verb. Even a graffiti artist ought to have known it should be written STINKS.

Mark e-mailed a friend and commented that the new "rule" on this subject seems to be that, with any word ending in S, whether it's a noun, verb, or other part of speech, insert an apostrophe before the S in order to play it safe. You can't go wrong!

But the truth is, if you use that rule, you do indeed go wrong and create a Grammar Glitch that highlights your ignorance.

Mark's friend responded by commenting that "Today, huge numbers of people think that the possessive of IT is IT'S. (See yesterday's Fox News blog entry.) English language competence in the U. S. has taken another wrong turn, with some people now thinking that the way to make a plural of a noun is to add 'S. He backed up his point with two example sentences from a recent Huffington Post blog entry:

Agents are not career coach's.

Follow in the foot-step's of Tom Brokaw.

NOTE: When I checked the Huffington Post blog site, these two goofs had been corrected. They now read correctly as follows:

Agents are not career coaches.

Follow in the footsteps of Tom Brokaw.

Stay tuned. Mark LaFlaur is an excellent editor, and he has shared some other good examples of "Incorrect (or Questionable) Usage in Print." I will share more of them in coming days.

Another Apostrophe Issue: Who's Son???

Among the many e-mails I've received in the past few days about the tragedy in Haiti, one referred to "a cousin who's son and his family live and work in Haiti."

Fortunately, this young man was able to get his wife and daughter evacuated from the country, and he has remained to help with the recovery. I hope you will keep him and all of those who are suffering and those who are trying to relieve that suffering in your prayers.

Meanwhile, I will use this Grammar Glitch to remind readers about the possessive of the word WHO. If you wish to use WHO to refer to a person and then refer to something or someone that belongs to that person, the proper form is WHOSE.

You would only use WHO'S in place of WHO + IS or WHO + HAS, as in the examples below:

Who's (Who is) in charge of this project?

Who's (Who has) been eating my porridge?

The phrase in the original example at the beginning of this post should read as follows:

...a cousin whose son and his family live and work in Haiti."

NOTE: Sometimes I receive comments from readers who say that the examples in my blog are too simple and elementary. Perhaps so, but as long as I continue to come across them over and over again in print and in business correspondence, I will continue to point them out and try to correct them.

Got Gold? Need Punctuation Pointers! II.

The Roadshow ad appearing in newspapers this week has apostrophe errors that call for reminders, too. (Click on "apostrophes" in the index at right to see the other blog entries on this subject.)

Jason Delong, who wrote the copy for the Roadshow ad, quoted one expert who works for the Roadshow as follows:

"...I would go through the change in my parents grocery store looking for rare dates and errors...."

Because the grocery store BELONGED to this man's parents, the writer should have used an apostrophe. Because the man had two parents who ran the grocery store (plural), that apostrophe should have come AFTER the "s." The sentence should read as follows:

"...I would go through the change in my parents' grocery store looking for rare dates and errors...."

The other apostrophe error is one of updating an old rule. It is no longer necessary to use an apostrophe when referring to decades or centuries. Delong wrote these two sentences as follows:

"Old tin wind-up toys from the late 1800's through the 1960's are in great demand now."

"Old Buddy L toys from the 1920's to 1960's are in demand."

In the 2010s, it is perfectly acceptable (and preferred) to write decades and centuries without the apostrophe. These sentences can be written as follows:

"Old tin wind-up toys from the late 1800s through the 1960s are in great demand now."

"Old Buddy L toys from the 1920s to 1960s are in demand."

While you are cleaning out the closet and the jewelry box as you look for hidden treasures, why not also clean out your old grammar rules and bring them up to date.

Stay tuned. One more blog on this Roadshow ad will deal with hyphenated words and when NOT to create them.

"Magic & Tragic" Column Features Apostrophe Goof

The "Magic & Tragic" column in The Birmingham News this week got the ITS straight (without the apostrophe when possessive), but failed to use an apostrophe correctly in a different incidence of possession in the same sentence. Here is what I read:



UAB wants one of its former scientists research papers to be retracted because of concerns about fabricated findings.



Oops. Not only is it necessary to show that ITS means belonging to UAB, but it is also necessary to show that the research papers in question belong to a scientist. It DOES get complicated because you have a reference to "one" and then to a group of "scientists" and then to the "papers." The "to be" phrase also complicates the sentence.



My suggestion would be to untangle things before deciding how best to show that the papers belong to the one former scientist. I would rewrite the sentence this way:



UAB wants the research papers of one of its former scientists retracted because of concerns about fabricated findings.



Written this way, I conclude that the apostrophe is not needed, but the sentence is now grammatically correct, and we know that the writer is referring to ONE scientist and a GROUP of that person's papers. Did you get that?

Apartment Manager Needs Usage and Apostrophe Editor

This notice appeared recently on the door of a senior citizen apartment building. Most seniors I know had a good grammar education in school, so I wonder how many of the residents cringed when they read this notice.

First off, the middle section uses the incorrect THEIR where it should be THERE. The phrase should read as follows:

...which means that there will be no elevators!

Second and third, FRIENDS HOUSE is indicating that the house belongs to a friend and FAMILY MEMBERS HOUSE is indicating that the house belongs to a family member, so an apostrophe is needed to show POSSESSION. The first statement in the last paragraph should read as follows:

If you can stay at a friend's house or at a family member's house, that would be even better. (Notice that I also added a comma after the second HOUSE to mark the end of the introductory clause. I might also pose the question: Better than what?)

ALERT! Do NOT use apostrophe to form plural!

I've written about this before, but there it was again in plain sight in this morning's Hoover section of The Birmingham News. In an article about Hoover not requiring sprinkler systems in new homes, News staff writer Val Walton created this sentence:

Hoover Fire Marshal Frank Brocato said he can understand the city's reasoning in not making the sprinkler's mandatory given the difficult economic times.

The word "sprinkler" should be made plural by simply adding an "s," NOT an apostrophe "s." The apostrophe should only be added when referring to something that BELONGS to the sprinkler, as in "The sprinkler's source of water varies from house to house." I've also rearranged the wording a little for more clarity. I think the above sentence should read as follows:

Hoover fire Marshal Frank Brocato said that, given the difficult economic times, he can understand the city's reasoning in not making the sprinklers mandatory.

Notice also that the reporter used an apostrophe correctly on "city" to show that the reasoning belongs to the city.

Have a great day, everyone!

Blog Reader Asks About Apostrophe with a Name

A reader wants to know about using an apostrophe with a last name that ends in "s." He wonders whether the following example would be possessive or simply plural:



I'm going over to the Sanders this afternoon.

Here is my reply:

If your friend's last name ends in "s," you have two choices for using the PLURAL--Your friend and his family can be referred to as the Sanders or the Sanderses. Most people would probably choose "the Sanders" with this last name. Someone named "Harris" would probably choose "the Harrises."

As far as whether your sentence example is plural or possessive (or both), it is at least partially a matter of perception.

"I'm going over to the Sanders this afternoon."--This is certainly correct and would be my choice.

However, you could also say "I'm going over to the Sanders' this afternoon." This suggests that you are IMPLYING "the Sanders' house," which would be possessive. Note that the apostrophe goes AFTER THE "s."

To clarify, why not just say, "I'm going over to the Sanders' house this afternoon." Then you have no ambiguity.

An Apostrophe Problem at Associated Press

I've said it before, and I'll say it again--an apostrophe should NOT be used to create the PLURAL of a noun. The following sentence appeared in an Associated Press story this past week:

Her attorney has said that the diaper's were her children's and that she did not wear them during her trip from Texas.

This sentence, of course, refers to the woman who drove non-stop to Florida to confront her rival for the affections of an ex-astronaut. (If you wrote this story as a novel, people would claim it was too unrealistic.)

The word DIAPERS should simply be PLURAL--that is, you add an "s" to show that she had more than one of them in the car. No apostrophe needed.

The word CHILDREN'S shows possession, so it is appropriate to add the apostrophe and then the "s" to indicate that the diapers supposedly belonged to the woman's children.

The sentence should be punctuated as follows:

Her attorney said that the diapers were her children's and that she did not wear them during her trip from Texas.

You could simplify this sentence even more by changing the use of "children" to a smoother form:

Her attorney said that the diapers belonged to her children and that she did not wear them during her trip to Texas.

***************************