Re: [Leica] Apostrophes

[Ted Grant <tedgrant@islandnet.com>]

Mke the Editor wrote: and a bunch more:

>Sure. First, apostrophes.

Hi Mike,

Thank you, this is one post to keep handy as I know of what Mike means. (
having had my private lesson!) :)

Good one Mike and yes I really try to do it right. After you made me stay
behind  class for 5 weeks I had better get right from now on.:)

Now I have your "easy primer" handy I promise to use it as a check list
from now on. ;)

Kindest regards to the editor.

ted



>Everybody knows that the replaces missing letters in phrases
>such as "John's coming home," which is an abbreviation of "John is
>coming home." In that phrase, the apostrophe replaces the letter "i."
>Where most people get stuck is in applying the apostrophe for
>possession.
>
>What they don't realize is that the apostrophe replaces missing letters
>in these cases, too. Originally, possession was indicated by the word
>"his." Thus, to say that an axe belonged to John, in Middle English one
>would write "John, his axe." With the "hi-" contracted, this becomes
>English possessive: John's axe. (Yes, this is sexist: because what in
>Middle English would have been "Mary, her book" is not abbreviated to
>"Mary'r book," as it would be if the rule were consistently applied, but
>to "Mary's book," which is a vestige of "Mary his book." Oh well! The
>consolation is that this apostrophe-s gets extended to inanimate
>objects, too: "the Summicron's main advantage," and so forth.)
>
>The apostrophe before an "s" ALWAYS replaces missing letters, either an
>"i-" as in "is," "ha-" as in "has"--or else an "hi-" in this obsolete
>possessive sense. This suggests the best test of whether an apostrophe
>is needed or properly placed: simply insert the letters you suppose it
>replaces and see if the phrase still parses.
>
>At the Photo show in NYC, I was presented with the inaugural issue of a
>_printed_ magazine that announced on its t.o.c. page that it contained
>"Essay's, page 6." Augh! Then, on the very next page, we were offered
>"Editors comments." My mauled sensibilities are still vibrating.
>
>Possessive "its"--a thing belonging to it--never gets an apostrophe,
>even if the noun itself does, because it is...well, an it (i.e., not a
>noun). Thus,
>
>"The new TTL's shutter-speed dial is larger; and on the black cameras,
>its color is black."
>
>This makes sense if you think back to the apostrophe replacing the "hi-"
>in "his." Even if you have a low opinion of the Middle English, running
>around in metal suits and hacking away at each other with broadswords,
>you wouldn't presume them so stupid as to use phrases like "It, his axe"
>or "It, her book," would you? So if you run across the phrase,
>
>"It's color is black"
>
>And wanted to apply my test, just insert letters in place of the
>apostrophe: "It is color is black"; "it has color is black"; "it his
>color is black." You can see that those don't work. So leave the
>apostrophe out. What appeared on page six are not "Essay Is" but Essays
>(which were predictably woeful, in case there were to be any doubt).
>
>Plural "s" (two threadmount cameras, a set of Summicrons), does not need
>an apostrophe except when its absence offends the eye, as for example
>when you're pluralizing something such as "Nikon N90s."  Several of
>those would properly be "several Nikon N90ss," which is ugly. So we
>dispense with propriety, insert the apostrophe, and sigh. "I saw several
>Nikon N90s's adorning interlopers at the Leica convention" is an
>adequate use of the apostrophe, although inelegant and not strictly
>proper.
>
>On the other hand, anyone who ever pluralizes "camera" as "camera's"
>should be stripped of his or her college degree, assuming the one they
>possess isn't a forgery to begin with.
>
>Ahem. Just a little editorializing, there.
>
>In case you're wondering about the odd use of the apostrophe AFTER the
>"s," this is simply used when BOTH plural and possessive apply, but
>aren't pronounced. The editor's comments" refers to one editor. If you
>were talking about the comments of several editors, to be consistent you
>would write "the editors's comments." But we don't pronounce both s's,
>(Editorzzz-zzz comments), so we drop the second "s," and this is how the
>apostrophe appears to end up past the final "s"--it hasn't, really; it's
>just that the real final "s" has gone into hiding. So we write "the
>Editors' comments" when it's more than one editor we're referring to.
>
>Incidentally, this protocol of writing what you say also holds true when
>signifying the possessive of a word that ends in "s." Ansel's last name
>was Adams, not Adam; so if something belonged to him, it was Ansel
>Adams's. To write "Ansel Adams' book _The Negative_" is one of those
>instances of middlebrow faux-propriety, as when some people insecurely
>write "I" when they mean "me" because they think "I" is more likely to
>be grammatical. As: "it looks good to Alastair and I." Wrong-O. Anyway,
>if you say "Adams's," then write "Adams's."
>
>The only other thing that really grates on my ear on the LUG (and
>everywhere else) is "who" and "that."
>
>Think of what the word "points" to. Humans are "who" and things are
>"that." "Thanks to those that wrote me privately," "The Luggers that
>were at the Leica convention," "I've got a girlfriend that likes
>Leicas," etc., are borderline illiterate. Thank all those WHO wrote you
>privately; refer to the Luggers WHO were at the show; you have a
>girlfriend WHO likes Leicas, etc. To see how it grates on the trained
>ear, turn it around: "I bought a silver Leica M6 who I really like," "I
>prefer D-76, who I dilute 1+1." Again, people who never finished high
>school may be excused for not following this rule, since they had other
>things to think about. Others, well....
>
>Blatant misusage is rampant; but don't give in.
>
>Please realize that these suggestions are not offered under any delusion
>of my own superiority. It's just what I do for a living. Believe me, I
>realize full well that you could run rings around ME when it comes to
>what YOU do for a living. So don't think I'm being uppity with my snappy
>comments. Just trying to add a bit of humor to what is naturally a dry
>subject.
>
>--Mike the Ed.


Ted Grant
This is Our Work. The Legacy of Sir William Osler.
http://www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant