July 23, 2018

Double Possessives and the Power of 'Of'

Bill in Williamsport, Pa., has a question about an odd possessive construction: “Joe is a friend of John’s.

To Bill, this structure seems redundant and awkward because it uses both “of” and an apostrophe to show possession. He prefers the more direct variation “Joe is John’s friend.”

Is he right? Is “a friend of John’s” redundant? In a word, yes. So if this were math or logic, “a friend of John’s” would be nonsense. But language isn’t always mathematical or logical, and when it’s not, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

 “A friend of John’s” is something called a double possessive or a double genitive. The word “double” captures the problem Bill laid out: it uses two methods to show possession where only one is needed. “Of” creates possessives. So does an apostrophe plus an S. Here's my recent column that takes a thorough look at what's wrong — and what's right — with double possessives.

 

Click player above to listen to the podcast

« Older Entries

July 16, 2018

6 Tricky Possessives That Can Trip You Up

TOPICS: , , ,

 

Possessives shouldn’t be difficult. In many languages, they’re not. In French, for example, to talk about the car belonging to Robert, you just say “the car of Robert”: la voiture de Robert. Spanish works the same way, with “de,” meaning “of”: el auto de Robert.

English isn’t as fond of simple formulas. We rarely use “of” to show possession. Far more often we use an apostrophe plus an S. It sounds simple, but in practice it’s anything but.

For example, when you’re talking about two phones on the table, one belonging to Beth and one belonging to Sam, are they Beth and Sam’s phones, or Beth’s and Sam’s phones?

Why do expressions like “three years’ experience” take an apostrophe?

If two attorneys general are on the same case, whose case is it?

Why is “whose” possessive while “who’s” is not?

And how do you show it when two passersby share ownership of something?

Here's how.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

« Older Entries

July 9, 2018

Underway/Under Way, Never Mind/Nevermind, One-Time/Onetime

TOPICS: , ,

No matter how many years I work as an editor, no matter how much advice I dole out in this column, some words will always scare me.

Perhaps it’s because they came to my attention early in my editing career, when I cowered at the base of a steep learning curve wondering how I’d ever scale it. Or perhaps it’s because these words are just hard.

Behold: “underway.” Is it one word? Is it two? Do you hyphenate it as an adjective? Or do you just need an advanced understanding of adverbs to master it?

The answer (and this is why it still unnerves me) is: all of the above. Here's my recent column on "underway/under way," "one-time/onetime" and some other terms that still befuddle.

 

Click player above to listen to the podcast

« Older Entries

July 2, 2018

5 Tips for Better Writing

TOPICS: , ,

Good grammar is important for good writing. But to be honest, that’s usually the easy part.

Avoiding subject-verb agreement errors such as “I goes” and pronoun case errors like “Me want” isn’t exactly difficult. Good basic grammar is usually a no-brainer, but good writing is another matter.

 There are a million ways to write badly while still observing the laws of grammar. So here, based on my work editing inexperienced writers, is my recent column with some tips for improving your prose.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

« Older Entries

June 25, 2018

'That Works Out Great' or 'That Works Out Well'?

TOPICS: , , , ,

Ned in Albany had a question about the phrase, used in this column, “that works out great.” He asked, “Isn’t ‘great’ an adjective and what’s it modifying here? Shouldn’t it be ‘well’ in uncorrupted English?”

Well, no. Adverbs are subtler beasts than most of us are taught. We tend to think of them offshoots of adjectives. “Quick” is an adjective whose job is to modify a noun. “Quickly” is its adverb equivalent and its job is to modify verbs.

Often, that works like a formula. Add “ly” to an adjective and you have an adverb. But not always. If you’re fast at typing, you don’t type fastly. If you’re right about how to cut a pineapple, you don’t cut it rightly. If you wear ugly clothes, you don’t dress uglyly.

Here's my recent column about mastering the complexities of adverbs.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

« Older Entries

June 18, 2018

Another Reason Not to Double Space (and more from the mailbag)

TOPICS: , ,

 

 I recently wrote a column pointing out that the practice of putting two spaces between sentences is obsolete, rooted in the days when typewriters gave every character the same amount of space.

Reader Cyndy, a professional typesetter (now referred to as a “desktop publisher”) who studied typesetting in college, had a lot of extra insight.

“When typing on a typewriter was the norm, double spaces indeed made the paragraphs easier to read. But when typesetting on computers came along, the issue of justifying a paragraph became the issue. (No staggered right anymore. It was a smooth line on both vertical sides of the paragraph or story.)

If you put a double space in there, justifying the type may have caused it to be ragged on the left side, because if the sentence ended at the end of the line and there was a double space, then there would be a space at the beginning of the next line, thereby killing the smooth vertical line.

Here's some more good stuff I got from readers recently.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

« Older Entries

June 11, 2018

Little Signs Your Writing Wasn't Professionally Edited

TOPICS: , ,

In the pro-wordsmithing realm, error-free prose or nearly error-free prose serves an important purpose.

It says you’re serious about serving the reader. Your form reflects on your content: Careful, meticulous grammar, spelling and punctuation signal that you put great care into your information-gathering, too.

When text isn’t professionally edited, I notice. And obvious grammar errors aren’t the only mistakes that tip me off. Little tells — rules professional editors follow that other people don’t know about — always give the amateur away.

Here are just a few of the tells that can tip your hand.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

« Older Entries

June 4, 2018

It's not you, semicolon. It's me.

The semicolon and I got off to a bad start. I was an insecure teenager sitting in typing class wondering why this obnoxious little punctuation mark deserved one of just eight coveted spots under my fingertips. In true insecure-teenager style, I figured I was the problem. The only punctuation mark on which I was told to rest a finger must deserve the honor. If I didn’t understand why, surely my own ignorance was to blame. It’s not you, semicolon. It’s me.

Many years later, when I finally hunkered down to learn proper semicolon use, something miraculous happened: I discovered I had been right to hate the semicolon all along.

Here's what I learned.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

« Older Entries

May 28, 2018

Actually, sometimes spell-checker can save you

TOPICS: , , ,

We editors love to criticize spell-check. We know too well how this tool designed to save you from embarrassing errors can let you down. If you type "Please remain clam," which as I reported in this space a few months ago one unfortunate writer did, spell-check won't know that you wanted to type "calm."

 f you write something about chickens attempting to escape their coup, your software will let you, utterly failing in its responsibility to tell you that you meant "coop." If you're talking about a street vendor pedaling his wares, spell-check won't realize you meant "peddling."

But in our more candid moments, many of us will admit that spell-checker isn't so much an enemy as a frenemy.

Yes, we love to hate it. But we could hardly do our jobs without it. The ugly truth is that it's already better than humans at a number of tasks. Here's my recent column  laying out some of the ways in which spell-check can save you.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

« Older Entries

May 21, 2018

Stay for Awhile or A While?

TOPICS: , ,

 

"Stay for awhile" is, technically, a grammar mistake. A preposition like "for" takes as its object a noun phrase — a noun or pronoun with or without modifiers. "For" is a preposition, but "awhile" isn't a noun. It's an adverb. So it can't be the object of "for."

"A while," on the other hand, is a noun phrase. It can be the object of the preposition "for." So "Stay for a while" is correct.

But if you take out the preposition, the dynamic changes, which is why both "Stay awhile" and "Stay a while" are correct. Here's a column I wrote a while back explaining why noun phrases like "a while" can function adverbially even though adverbs like "awhile" can't function as nouns.

Click player above to listen to the podcast

« Older Entries