----------------------------------------------------------------- THE BETTER WRITING SKILLS NEWSLETTER, June 2007 By Tim North of Scribe Consulting (http://www.scribe.com.au) http://www.BetterWritingSkills.com ----------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome to the June 2007 Better Writing Skills newsletter. IN THIS ISSUE 1. I'm ba-ack! 2. "People who" or "people that"? 3. Signs in stores 4. "Mothers Day", "Mother's Day" or "Mothers' Day"? 5. More on the simplification of English 6. Just for fun Your comments and questions are always welcome. Just send e-mail to: info@BetterWritingSkills.com Cheers, Tim North Perth, Western Australia ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. I'm ba-ack! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Well, I'm back from my holiday and am feeling thoroughly refreshed. I had the good fortune to spend three weeks holidaying in the south west of the USA last month. This was my first US holiday, and I enjoyed every bit of it. (Well, perhaps not the 24-hour, three-planes-and-four-airports journey there and back, but the rest was wonderful.) I flew into Vegas and spent a few days recovering from jet lag. I also saw a few shows. ("Mama Mia!" was wonderful.) I then hired a car and spent two weeks driving around Arizona and Utah staying in a variety of charming B&Bs along the way. Without wanting to sound sycophantic, let me say that everyone I met was unfailingly polite, and this friendliness contributed greatly to my enjoyment of the trip. I'm a keen amateur photographer, and the opportunity to take photos of the south-west landscape was my main reason for travelling. I was absolutely stunned by the magnificence of the scenery. It was breathtaking. If you haven't seen the south-west USA, do yourself a favour and take a holiday there. Explore the magnificent national parks; drive through the spectacular red rocks. You won't regret it. Heavens. I sound like a tourist brochure. :-) If you'd care to see a few of my favourite photos of the area, click on over to the following link: http://www.flickr.com/photos/8690768@N03/ Cheers, Tim. (Now safely back home in Perth, Western Australia.) ----------------------------------------------------------------- 2. "People who" or "people that"? ----------------------------------------------------------------- My first correspondent this month, Maree, wrote: The use of 'who' to refer to people (as opposed to objects and animals) seems to be fading away, even in formal usage. As in, 'people THAT have 4WD vehicles ...' Not happy! I know (and hope) that we are becoming less anthropocentric, but it still grates. I'm with you on this one, Maree. I'm more comfortable saying "people who" instead of "people that" as, I suspect, are most native speakers of English. A quick Google search reveals: "people who": 279 million hits "people that": 36 million hits This suggests that, at least among online writers, our team is still in front. :-) -- (c) 2007 Tim North: http://www.BetterWritingSkills.com ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Signs in stores ----------------------------------------------------------------- My next correspondent this month, Bruno, wrote: I have noticed that signs at Sears and Marshalls call some of their sections as "MENS", "CHILDRENS", and "WOMENS". I am wondering why they put an "S" at the end of a word that is already indicating plural (men, children, women). Well, Bruno, if a shop was to hang up a sign that said "Men", some people may think that's what they were selling! They may even do good business. :-) "Mens" written on a sign is probably a shortened form of "Mens clothing" or "Mens goods". Neither of these would work without the "s". For instance, "Men clothing" is clearly wrong. There is also the question of whether or not an apostrophe is needed here. For instance, should I write "Mens clothing" or "Men's clothing". I'll discuss this in the next article. Hope this helps. -- (c) 2007 Tim North: http://www.BetterWritingSkills.com ----------------------------------------------------------------- Do you know someone who'd like this newsletter? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Do you have a friend or colleague who'd find the Better Writing Skills newsletter interesting? If so, please feel free to send a copy of this issue to them. Alternatively, please tell them they can browse back issues here: http://www.BetterWritingSkills.com/newsletter.html Thanks for helping to make this newsletter so successful! ----------------------------------------------------------------- 4. "Mothers Day", "Mother's Day" or "Mothers' Day"? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Well it was Mothers Day while I was away, and yes, I rang my Mother. So now seems like a good time to revisit the burning question: Does "Mothers Day" need an apostrophe, and -- if so -- where does it go? Ask any group of people. After the bickering stops, the combatants will have settled into three camps. Let's look at all three in turn. Incidentally, because the names of holidays are written with an initial capital, we write "Mothers Day", not "mothers day". Choice 1. Mothers Day with no apostrophe ---------------------------------------- The argument here is that mothers do not own the day, so no possession is involved; thus, no apostrophe is needed. We are describing a day *for* mothers, not a day belonging to a particular mother or mothers. Choice 2. Mother's Day with an apostrophe before the s ------------------------------------------------------ Here the argument is that the day belongs to one specific mother (yours presumably). So, because possession is involved, "Mother's Day" needs an apostrophe before the "s". Choice 3. Mothers' Day with an apostrophe after the s ----------------------------------------------------- Here the argument is that the day belongs to all mothers collectively; thus, we need an apostrophe after the "s". And the winner is? ------------------ Well, let me stress that you can make a reasonable case for all three of the choices, so it comes down to whether you think that ownership is involved or not. In British English there is an increasing tendency to omit apostrophes when "for" is implied rather than "of" or "belonging to". An increasing number of editors of British English publications are thus opting for choice one (no apostrophe) arguing that Mothers Day is a day *for* mothers, not a day belonging to mothers. US usage, though, seems most commonly to include an apostrophe before the "s". Having said this, there is a great deal of inconsistency about the issue, and you will certainly continue to see all three forms in use regardless of where you live. In the article above we needed to choose between "mens clothing" and "men's clothing". As I would interpret "mens clothing" to mean "clothing FOR men", I (as a user of British English) would happily omit the apostrophe. Users of US English would be more likely to include it. Hope this helps. -- (c) 2007 Tim North: http://www.BetterWritingSkills.com ----------------------------------------------------------------- 5. More on the future of English ----------------------------------------------------------------- Over the last couple of months we've been discussing the subtle difference in meaning between "less" and "fewer", and we've pondered whether or not the difference is a worthwhile one. Last month I said: Hands up anyone who thinks that many learners of English [as a second language] care about the subtle, traditional distinctions between "less" and "fewer", "who" and "whom", or "further" and "farther"? Let's face it, most *native* speakers can't explain the differences between any of these pairs. :-) My final correspondent this month, Barbara, wrote in to say: * I can--all three!! * ... Others may do as they please, I will continue to use the one I think appropriate. I understand Barbara's position entirely. I should have added that I'm not suggesting that native speakers need to discontinue these traditional distinctions. I do feel, though, that over the next couple of generations, many of these subtle distinctions will fade away. Thanks to everyone who wrote in this month. -- (c) 2007 Tim North: http://www.BetterWritingSkills.com ----------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Just for fun ----------------------------------------------------------------- This month have a look at this list of "contronyms". The site defines a contronym (not a word I'd ever heard before) as words that are their own opposites. For example, "dust" can be used to mean the process of *removing* fine particles from a surface, but it can also be used to mean the process of *adding* fine particles. (For example, you may dust something with flour.) Once again I ask, how does anyone ever learn English? :-) http://rinkworks.com/words/contronyms.shtml Enjoy. ----------------------------------------------------------------- REPRODUCING THIS MATERIAL Permission is granted to reproduce those articles that are copyrighted by Tim North, subject to them not being modified or sold. Please provide a clickable link back to: http://www.BetterWritingSkills.com Additional freely republishable articles can be found here: http://www.BetterWritingSkills.com/free-articles.html FUTURE MAILINGS You can prevent (or receive) future mailings by visiting this page: http://www.BetterWritingSkills.com/newsletter.html This is a GENUINE service, and you will not receive any unsolicited e-mail as a result. You have my word on it. -----------------------------------------------------------------