Out and About -- In the World at Large

[Ray]

That's, ah, "womens' shirts"....

(Ducks for cover)

[Stevie D]

That's, ah, "womens' shirts"....

(Ducks for cover)

Hello Ray...
Actually, no, sorry. This is an example of a possessive plural where the plural noun (women) does not end in 's'. In these cases the correct placement of the apostrophe is before the 's', hence "women's shirts" is correct.

Other similar examples:

• The children's artwork was highly praised.

• It is generally acknowledged that women's clothes have a much greater range of colours and styles.

• The men's skirts caused a few raised eyebrows.

etc...

More information here and here.

[renesm1]

Agreed!

[crfriend]

Anyone been out and about in the world at large lately in any skirts?

Sure! I wore one to work Monday morning. I've forgotten which one....

[dillon]

Anyone been out and about in the world at large lately in any skirts?

Sure! I wore one to work Monday morning. I've forgotten which one....

I was at some festival, can't recall where , but I wore a black stretch mini by Koppen with black leggings, then a camo skirt from Cabela's, then upon leaving, a soft grey patterned skirt by The North Face. And i'm wearing one now...

[Uncle Al]

As for 'speaking/writing' proper English, I'll give
you a quote from the actor Wil Smith. When asked by
an interviewer why he didn't speak 'like' a typical
Black Man, he responded with "My gran jumped my
case when I started talking like 'the locals'. She said
just because you're black doesn't give you the right to
disrespect the English language. You WILL SPEAK
CORRECT ENGLISH or I'll box your ears off"

OK-I'll go back under my rock



Uncle Al

[crfriend]

That's a fantastic story, Al, and it just proves that language is a learnt form of communications (just as much as, say, TCP/IP -- there's that protocol argument again) and requires some level of understanding as to how to execute it and have one's thoughts accurately and completely communicated to others -- both orally and in writing. Thanks for telling it.

What fewer understand is that the spoken language and the written language -- whilst they use the same words -- are very different animals and have different uses. The written language has the added burden upon it that one must not only communicate the bare essentials of a concept or idea, but one must also convey all the nuances that are frequently communicated non-verbally when speaking in the presence of others. Contemplate a time when one couldn't "reach out and touch someone" by telephone. 'Twas then that the written language was in its heyday -- and not just by various celebrated (and otherwise) authors; it was a common idiom when people sent letters to one another.

Of course, when one is composing a letter (which happens before one ever puts pen to paper) one should have appropriate time to do so, lest the reply seem "rushed" or leave important components of the conversation out. It's the sense of time that's been lost here. I suspect more folks can actually write well than do, it's a shame that nobody thinks there's time to put the effort in -- and by "taking the quick way out" the entire experience is cheapened for all involved, reader and writer alike.

[Ray]

That's, ah, "womens' shirts"....

(Ducks for cover)

Hello Ray...
Actually, no, sorry. This is an example of a possessive plural where the plural noun (women) does not end in 's'. In these cases the correct placement of the apostrophe is before the 's', hence "women's shirts" is correct.

Other similar examples:

• The children's artwork was highly praised.

• It is generally acknowledged that women's clothes have a much greater range of colours and styles.

• The men's skirts caused a few raised eyebrows.

etc...

More information here and here.

I did not know that, and I stand corrected. Wow. A new rule to learn.

[moonshadow]

I am satisfied that I have busted the notion that all writers are created equal, and thus like fashion, we all have our different styles and taste. Some more agreeable to others, and vice versa. Live and let live.

I have illustrated the evolution of language using sources such as the KJV of the bible.

Now I must bust the myth that once upon a time, great men wrote with perfect grammar and spelling.

Ahem...

"But this Affair having turn'd my Thoughts to Marriage, I look'd round me, and made Overtures of Acquaintance in other Places; but soon found that the Business of a Printer being generally thought a poor one, as I should not otherwise thing agreable. In the mean time, that hard-to-be-govern'd Passion of Youth, had in my Way, which were attended with some Expence and great Inconvenience, besides a continual Risque to my Health by a Distemper which of all Things I dreaded, tho' by great good Luck I escaped it."

-Snippet from the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
(all typographical errors, punctuation, capitalization, etc directly quoted from the text)

Yes there appears to be a gold standard in as far as grammar is concerned. Yet as elsewhere on this site, in regards to the rules of skirts for women and trousers for men, I ask the same question regarding rules of human communication.... who makes these rules?

What's wrong with having to "think" about whats being read? Why must we skim everything in a hurry?

I can respect that many of us may not think highly of "gansta talk"... but when you really get right down to it... who are we to judge? Is the message not communicated in any event?

When the radio signal is weak, do we not listen more closely?

Also keep in mind, that 50 years ago, a good percentage of the western population couldn't read, and 100 years ago, most common folk couldn't read or write, save for maybe their name. I think most people are doing pretty darned good these days as far as literacy goes. Perfect? No. But the vast majority of modern common folks ability to read and write at the most basic levels is proliferating the expansion of new ideas, and thus making the world a more better, and tolerant place. Are they perfect writers? No. But recall the dark ages, when only those who could read were high Bishops. Common folks interpretation of the bible was considered heresy. And the knowledge of being able to read and write was equated with witchcraft. Folks simply had to accept doctrine from the pulpit at face value.

These days people are reading, writing, creating blogs, sharing ideas, asking questions and DEMANDING answers! It really is the "end times"! The end of the dark times, and (hopefully) the dawning of an age of enlightenment! Lets not silence people over a little harmless "bad grammar", and split hairs over the placement of an apostrophe.

[Sinned]

To a certain extent there is tolerance over the written language but it's a bit like the sense of dress that we exhibit here. There is a place for the casual, even slovenly look that seems to be favoured by the masses but if we don't show the example of good style, such as Carl, for example, shows, others as well, then we lose that sense of the higher plane of style. I enjoy dressing up in a dress shirt and/or nice trousers/skirt as T-shirts and jeans become too commonplace. There is place for both the relaxed and structured writing styles but we should become careful that the higher standard of the written becomes lost though lack of use.

Spoken English, as Carl says, is a completely different animal and we can get away with saying some really absurd things that come across understandingly as may comedy writers appreciate. Take the Four Candles sketch by Ronnie Barker as probably the supreme example of the art. The whole basis revolves around, not only the similarity of the words - four candles, fork handles - but the accent of the speaker. In any other accent the sketch wouldn't work. Sheer genius and the world is less without such as he.

[Stevie D]

...Lets not silence people over a little harmless "bad grammar", and split hairs over the placement of an apostrophe.

Moon - regarding my comment to Ray earlier, a little bit of background may be appropriate here. Ray and I know each other a little bit. We live not too far apart and in the past we have met up (skirted!) on a couple of occasions along with our respective partners. Because of this I was confident that he would not take my gentle correction amiss, and hopefully, so it has proved.

[crfriend]

I have illustrated the evolution of language using sources such as the KJV of the bible.

I have not once disputed that language is evolving. All languages do (except, perhaps, for French which has its own Academy to keep it pure), and this evolution should be considered a good thing -- so long as the mutations do not make an existing language incomprehensible to users of said language.

This [edited to fill in a couple of phrases accidentally omitted in the original] [0]:

"But this Affair having turn'd my Thoughts to Marriage, I look'd round me, and made Overtures of Acquaintance in other Places; but soon found that the Business of a Printer being generally thought a poor one, I was not to expect Money with a Wife unless with such a one, as I should not otherwise think agreeable. In the mean time, that hard-to-be-govern'd Passion of Youth, had hurried me frequently into Intrigues with low Women that fell in my Wayhad in my Way, which were attended with some Expence and great Inconvenience, besides a continual Risque to my Health by a Distemper which of all Things I dreaded, tho' by great good Luck I escaped it."

dates to a time before standardised spelling became commonplace, and the capitalisation of proper nouns came from German (and do recall that English is a Germanic language). The use of an apostrophe to contract the "ed" suffix is an idiom that is now dead save, perhaps, for very occasional use in poetry. But yet for the archaic feel to the passage, it remains entirely readable (with the constraint that one must also know the time-frame and context in which it was written) to this day; one might call it "quaint" save for the fact that it was penned by one of the greatest minds the United States has ever known.

The omissions did not sit with me well, even more than an hour after reading the original post, so I decided to do a little legwork to see what was missing. I found it, and a clearer -- and more familiar -- image of Mr. Franklin came into focus. He was a bit of a womaniser, and he approaches that rather deftly in this piece. Note how much the omissions broke up the flow and meaning. 'Twas the holes that bothered me.

"... intrigues with low Women...", I love it!

Yes there appears to be a gold standard in as far as grammar is concerned. Yet as elsewhere on this site, in regards to the rules of skirts for women and trousers for men, I ask the same question regarding rules of human communication.... who makes these rules?

That's the odd thing. Quite unlike TCP/IP which is an engineered protocol for communication between computers, human language is an evolved protocol -- and there are dozens of them -- that in essence have lives of their own, growing and changing over time. Change is fine and good, but if change happens too quickly to one of these protocols communication in it may become impossible. If, for instance, English mutates out of a form which I can find use it, I could adopt another -- say Russian or Italian.

So, aside from assorted types who try to slow the evolution down to keep things more or less comprehensible to them ( ) nobody "makes the rules". It's the same thing with skirts on guys: we're very deliberately pushing on one of the boundaries of convention. In so doing, we are sure to confuse others in our vicinity who know, by virtue of convention, that only women dress in skirts. There's no practical reason for it, of course, but that's just the "way it is".

Also keep in mind, that 50 years ago, a good percentage of the western population couldn't read, and 100 years ago, most common folk couldn't read or write, save for maybe their name.

I'm not sure about your area, but around here we pretty much hit the peak of literacy-rates in the region I live, and it's been falling since then in spite of what the standardised test-scores say. Literacy-rates in the early 20th century here were pretty good as well. Things, overall, I do not think are getting any better.

But recall the dark ages, when only those who could read were high Bishops. Common folks interpretation of the bible was considered heresy. And the knowledge of being able to read and write was equated with witchcraft. Folks simply had to accept doctrine from the pulpit at face value.

Recall that's why those were considered the Dark Ages. It had nothing to do with a lack of solar illumination, it had everything to do with it being the Dark Ages of Intellectualism (itself becoming a bad word as we enter Dark Ages, Round II).

[0] From The Portable Benjamin Franklin at Google Books.

[moonshadow]

Dennis, StevieD, Carl, and anyone else following this,

Please allow me to reiterate once more, that I'm not taking any of this personally. In fact, I can fully understand the disapproval of very vulgar and crass speech, online and offline. While I may have become somewhat numb to the style, mainly because I hear it so often, I too enjoy good conversation with folks who know how to use big words, and at least try to sound intelligent. Still though, there are words that I have taken up, that I previously wouldn't have considered. Phrases like "that's really cool", or "that really sucks" are somewhat vulgar, yet have become common place, however I do admit to using them, more often than I probably should.

A most recent one that I am resisting as best as I can is the use of "my bad". This is a phrase that irritates the ever living s__t out of me. "sup man... oh my bad dude" *UUUAAGHHH!* So yes, I too have my language prejudices. "Your bad?" or is it "you're bad"? Hell, the way it's said there's really no way to know for sure! And I always assumed "bad" in this sentence was in the context of a noun? What is a "bad" anyway? But I digress.

Anyway, I am rather enjoying this debate and if I may say, am learning quite a bit that I'm sure my 7th grade English teacher tried to teach me many moons ago. Also, I don't really believe that my writing style is that bad. After all, on this thread, and in many others I have hooked some responses from some of the more intelligent and thoughtful members on here. That tells me that not only is my writing legible, it is being read and not dismissed. The fact that I had Carl googling the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin I take as compliment! So again, I am not taking this personally. My writing, while may not be perfect, is somewhat like my credit score... still better than 95% of the American population if I do say so myself.

My overture* on this matter has been more or less aimed at the defense of the writing "underdog", those who are doing the best they can with the knowledge they have, and a plea for thoughtful people to not dismiss that which seems "sloppy". Often times we must dig through garbage to find pearls of wisdom.
* - there's a word I hadn't ever used before.... hoping I used it in the correct context.

This [edited to fill in a couple of phrases accidentally omitted in the original] [0]:

"But this Affair having turn'd my Thoughts to Marriage, I look'd round me, and made Overtures of Acquaintance in other Places; but soon found that the Business of a Printer being generally thought a poor one, I was not to expect Money with a Wife unless with such a one, as I should not otherwise think agreeable. In the mean time, that hard-to-be-govern'd Passion of Youth, had hurried me frequently into Intrigues with low Women that fell in my Wayhad in my Way, which were attended with some Expence and great Inconvenience, besides a continual Risque to my Health by a Distemper which of all Things I dreaded, tho' by great good Luck I escaped it."

Ahh,I stand corrected! my bad! *aaahhh!* I admit to it being a somewhat difficult passage to quote directly out of the book. It is indeed very far removed from my typing style, in addition, I actually quoted from a hard copy paperback of the autobiography that sits on my shelf, that has a tendency want to close on it's own. In fact, quoting the book required wedging the book under the monitor to hold it open.

Regarding the choice of the passage, it was completely at random. Although I do somewhat fancy the fact that it's theme does rather place ones tongue in cheek with regards to some of the subject matter on this site!

I'm not sure about your area, but around here we pretty much hit the peak of literacy-rates in the region I live, and it's been falling since then in spite of what the standardised test-scores say. Literacy-rates in the early 20th century here were pretty good as well. Things, overall, I do not think are getting any better.

On this matter, I am forced to concede (mark the day on the calendar!). Upon further consideration of my remark in my last post, I realize the comment was overly optimistic of modern western culture, and ultimately didn't hold water. I realized this morning even in my own house, failing literacy has taken hold. Particularly in the fact that my daughter Amber can not read cursive writing, despite my various attempts over the years to teach it. When I write in cursive (and I almost always do on paper), I might as well write in another language. She, and her peers unfortunately can not read works such as Benjamin Franklin's autobiography, or the King James Bible, and would most likely even look at post from some of the more educated members here with some amount of confusion. But they can read text and youtube comments all day long.

I pride myself that I can pretty much read all of the English languages. From the writings of high society and the aristocracy, to the lowly dribble that passes for English in the dark alleyways and ghettos. It allows me a full sample of the American life, and to better understand why people are the way they are.

But woe unto those who get too dogmatic about some matters, such as writing and speech. While constructive criticism is welcomed, some may view it as "snotty" and more intelligent views may be dismissed. Because I am generally pretty easy going, I normally will continue to read a comment through even though I realize I am being insulted (not saying that is the case here, just speaking generally). Often times re-reading the offending remark to make sure I'm not taking anything out of context before I stick my foot in my mouth.

In other words, we would do well not to put ourselves on a pedestal out of reach of the "common man", else he will never hear our message, and the dark ages will ultimately return!

Oh, and you misspelled "standardised" Carl.

Excellent debate gentlemen!

[moonshadow]

Side note: I will honestly apologize for my use of the wrong word on occasion. I do generally proof read my post here, but sometimes I still miss one or two. It's not always the fault of spell check, or auto correct, sometimes I just use the wrong word.

Many times it is due to the fact that I can type pretty fast. I can type almost as fast as I can talk (assuming I'm talking slow and legibly). Some of my longest post on this board were written in just a matter of minutes. (and you all thought I spend ALL of my time on this site! ) However this has the undesired side effect of occasionally typing the wrong word.

It's a simple case of the good old fashioned "brain fart". Similar to how we might say the wrong word, or get tongue twisted.

Using "isle" as opposed to "aisle" was just a matter of my own ignorance however. Not the fault of auto-correct, spell check, or even typing too fast, but simply proof that Moon Shadow doesn't know everything, and am indeed human.

Lesson learned. Thanks Tom.

[Sinned]

We often poke fun at each other over grammar rules and spellings. Nothing is meant by it. If we point things our it is for your benefit not to show how uneducated or how super-intellectual we are ( we aren't, maybe a little better than average but certainly not in the Steven Hawking league ). Your writing style is not mine nor is it Carl's but for the most part there are few faults with it so don't think that we think of you as a "hick" and you go on more about your supposed lack of education. We learn more and get eddycated more once we leave school than we ever do whilst there. You admit to interests in astronomy, pagan religions and a host of other topics that would never gain a toe-hold in any school's curriculum. You certainly know more about the physics of matter and the search for the ultimate answer to life, the universe and everything than I was taught in Grammar School.

Remember though that some of the examples you give are from spoken English and that obeys a completely different set of rules than written. We break sentence structure, shortening of words, mispronounce words to name but a few of the ways we strangle the language. Also Carl is right in that English evolves in the society that employs it. In the Caribbean there is Creol English that is extremely difficult to follow because the English was incorporated into local languages and dialects. There was a programme on a few years back that had an excerpt of an interview with someone who hailed from somewhere in the Pennines ( the backbone of England ) and his accent was so strong that he was incomprehensible even to us in North England.

So worry not and don't denigrate your achievements as you have developed, and will develop more. And just as an example you don't see how many times I re-open a post to correct faults, change bits and even add things to aid clarification. All you see is the finished article.

Anyway, to get back to the theme of this thread, although I have appeared in a skirt at work it has been is rather particular circumstances and some, who were not in attendance that day, haven't seen the spectacle. In fact one of my colleagues who hasn't seen me in a skirt and only wears trousers herself was incredulous when I said that I went out in a skirt. I have agreed to call in next Tuesday skirted before I start work. Should be interesting.