I Am A Dork
Posted by
tgirsch
An actual e-mail that I submitted to the folks at ThinkGeek.com:
To Whom It May Concern:
I’d lose my geek street cred if I didn’t bother you about this, because it’s been bothering me and it’s geeky to point it out. Take, for example, this page:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/popculture/9fce/
You keep talking about “acronyms,” but I do not think that word means what you think it means. None of the examples you list are actually acronyms. It’s only an acronym if you pronounce it as a word, rather than just saying the letters. Thus, DOS and RADAR and laser are acronyms, and WTF and FTW are not — they’re initialisms.
Also, one more geek note, from here:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/sciencemath/3813/
Apostrophes indicate possession, not plurality. So it’s the stuff that chilis are made of, not “chili’s.”
Thanks for your time. I have to go back to my mom’s basement.
Sincerely,
- [tgirsch], Professional Dork
(Licensed in six states, plus the District of Columbia.)
I know it’s dorky to even send such an e-mail, but the “acronym” thing really bugs me.
Anyway, carry on with your day…
[One more note: I can’t find any agreement as to whether it should be spelled “chilis,” “chilies,” or “chiles.” The first two are both listed as valid, but third is my preference, mainly because that’s the Spanish spelling, and it’s where we stole the word from…]
I’ll point out that the title to this piece could just as easily been used as the title to the preceding piece
Comment 3/6/2008
Good for you.
Comment 3/6/2008
David:
Yes, I figured you would approve. Is the acronym/initialism thing listed in your King of Anglophonia series?
Ted:
True enough.
Truth is, though, I was worried that the title I did pick could be construed as disrespectful (which fans of the game will know it was not). I didn’t think it was appropriate to mix self-deprecating humor with what was supposed to be a modestly respectful eulogy.
Comment 3/6/2008
The acronym thing bugs the hell out of me too.
I’m also clinging to the “’s” for singulars that end in “s,” despite the fact that it seems to be on its way out.
Participating in a lot of sports talk, I often skirt the issue by often referring to Barry Bonds by his first name. But, when I talk about his homer records, I continue to type “Bonds’s record(s).” “Bonds’ record(s)” would refer, presumably, to the record for most homers (or strikeouts, etc.) by a father/son combo.
I wouldn’t mind if I was just considered a Luddite in this regard, but my frustration comes from the fact that others probably think they are right and I am wrong.
Also, I always waver about the possessive as it relates to a team. The Mets’s facilities? maybe, because that belongs to the (singular) organization. The Mets’ record? Maybe, because that is actually the work (property?) of the multiple individuals on the team who played the actual games. What do you guys think about that one?
Comment 3/7/2008
I’m firmly in the “if the word ends in s, no additional s after the apostrophe” camp. But it’s one of those things like “neighbor” that never looks right, even when it’s right.
While we’re on grammatical pet peeves, I have another. When people talk about the possessive “its” not having an apostrophe, they often describe this as being and “exception.” No, it’s not. You don’t write “hi’s” when you mean “his,” and you don’t write “her’s” when you mean “hers,” so why would you write “it’s” when you mean “its”?
Also, since I’m in the South, I have to comment on this. Even though I hate the “word” to begin with, it’s “y’all,” not “ya’ll.” In a contraction, the apostrophe goes where the letters used to be.
Comment 3/7/2008
Good call on y’all. It reminds me of the old Jeff Foxworthy routine, the one in which he holds up the “Southern flashcards.”
“Momynyms” - Momynyms went down to the store to pick up some meat.
Right on, with its/it’s too. I have admit that I use the wrong one way too often here. It’s not a matter of not knowing when to use which, it’s just a matter of typing without thinking (insert sarcastic comment here) and being lazy when it comes to proofing the post before I click “submit comment.”
Comment 3/7/2008
Myself objects to the frequent misuse of the first word in this sentence.
Comment 3/7/2008
this blog’s for you!
Comment 3/7/2008
R@d@r:
Augh! It’s like a train wreck. I can’t look away! Bastard!
Comment 3/7/2008
digg -
When I was in school - and this goes way back - I was taught that whether it was ’s or s depended on ease of pronunciation. As a general rule, if the letter before the final s was a vowel, you used ’s; if it was a consonant, you used just the apostrophe.
So it would be, for example, “Barry Bonds’ records” but “Daily Kos’s website.” And if you were talking about the complete family Jones, you wouldn’t say “the Joneses’s family history” but simply “the Joneses’ family history.”
tgirsch -
A bit of historical trivia for you: The reason we use the apostrophe to indicate possession is that it’s actually a contraction. Into the 1600s, in English it was usual to say, for example, that Bob owned that house by saying “Bob, his house.” The phrasing “Bob his” eventually got slurred into the contraction “Bob’s.”
Of course, it was also usual to say something like “Jane, her garden” but with actual legal possession being more associated with men and relative social power and all, it was the masculine version that became the standard.
Comment 3/7/2008
LarryE:
That’s fascinating, if true, but has the feel of folk etymology to me. Do you happen to have a cite on that?
Comment 3/7/2008
T -
Answer via email.
Comment 3/8/2008
LarryE,
You’re the last person I feel I’m qualified to debate with here (no offense to any others), but is it possible that the general rule (or even pronunciation) was just a concession to the rampant misapplication of what is technically correct? That happens all the time in grammar. I’m genuinely just asking here.
We can obviously debate whether concepts like “rules” and “correct use” actually exist in something that is fluid, and ever-evolving like language.
Let’s shelve that possible discussion for time being. But, do note I didn’t question “evolution” there.
Comment 3/8/2008
You know, I don’t remember if the acronym/initialism thing is my King of Anglophonia. If it isn’t, it probably should be.
About apostrophe usage: Dave Barry, in a tongue-in-cheek grammar essay, said something like, “The purpose of the apostrophe is to signal that an s is approaching.”
Long ago, in an online forum, I said that ’s as a possessive came from the old English “John his house” usage, and Damon Knight responded that that’s a back formation, not the real origin. So I wonder what the truth is.
Comment 3/8/2008
digg -
I don’t know, perhaps so. I was only pointing out what I had been taught some 50 or so years ago and that both forms (apostrophe and apostrophe-s) existed even then.
Then again, as you suggest, “rampant misuse” can become the accepted standard. Consider the case of “well” and “good.” Now, it’s accepted, even preferred, to say something like “I did well on that test” as opposed to “I did good on that test.” But when I was in grammar school, that was considered incorrect: “good” was a quality of achievement; “well” was a state of health. Thus, you could “be” well but you could never “do” well.
David -
The idea of a more complex, less easily pronounced, back formation sounds odd to me. I will say that I have read documents from the 1500s that contained the “John, his house” form but it seemed to disappear by the early 1600s. So if it was a back formation, it appeared and disappeared again. Which also sounds odd.
Overall, I can be convinced that “John, his house” is a back formation but the alternative of slurring the phrase until it became a contraction seems a good deal more natural.
Comment 3/9/2008
LarryE:
Consider the case of “well” and “good.” Now, it’s accepted, even preferred, to say something like “I did well on that test” as opposed to “I did good on that test.” But when I was in grammar school, that was considered incorrect
I find this surprising. Maybe this wasn’t always the case, but it seems pretty clear to me that “good” is an adjective, and “well” is an adverb, which is why you do “well” on a test. “Well” modifies “do.” As an adjective, “good” has to modify a noun, not a verb.
Comment 3/9/2008
T -
It really doesn’t matter: The purpose was just to illustrate that over the past 50 or so years what’s considered “standard” or “proper” usage has changed.
Comment 3/10/2008
Oh, I got that. I was just surprised that your particular example was ever considered proper the other way.
Comment 3/10/2008
tgirsch:
“When people talk about the possessive “its” not having an apostrophe, they often describe this as being and “exception.” No, it’s not. You don’t write “hi’s” when you mean “his,” and you don’t write “her’s” when you mean “hers,” so why would you write “it’s” when you mean “its”?”
I have to disagree. The possessive of one is one’s, which suggests that where pronouns take an s to indicate the possessive, they adhere to the normal rule of requiring an apostrophe. His, her and their would be special in that they are not formed in this way. On this reading, its is an exception.
And BTW the example of hers is a mistake - since it would never be followed by a noun anyway, it isn’t the same type of pronoun. Her is the correct comparison.
Comment 3/10/2008
Pejar:
The possessive of one is one’s, which suggests that where pronouns take an s to indicate the possessive, they adhere to the normal rule of requiring an apostrophe.
The rules for indicating the possessive for indefinite pronouns are different, because the pronoun itself doesn’t indicate possession. “His,” “hers,” and “its” are possessive personal pronouns, as are “yours” and “theirs,” and they are all formulated the same way — with no apostrophe.
And BTW the example of hers is a mistake - since it would never be followed by a noun anyway, it isn’t the same type of pronoun. Her is the correct comparison.
Bzzt, wrong answer.
“Her” isn’t a possessive pronoun. Depending on context, it’s either a personal pronoun (”I like her”) or a possessive adjective (”It’s her jacket.”) In the former context, possession doesn’t apply. In the latter context, it doesn’t take the place of a noun, and thus is not a pronoun at all.
His, hers, and its are the possessive versions of the personal pronouns him, her, and it, respectively.
[/pedantry]
Comment 3/10/2008
Singular nouns ending in s take ’s for the possessive. Except for Jesus. Plurals ending in s do not. I have spoken.
Comment 3/14/2008
WHAT A DORK! I DIDN’T UNDERSTAND ANY OF THIS
Comment 4/4/2008