ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

we be ventin'

While I do consider myself a Grammar Fiend, I am a little bit confused over the usage of "its" and "it's".

possessive vs contraction, unless im forgetting more

i always just remember it as it's = it is, i mean that's what i say in my head. contractions need apostrophes and possessives don't need them (i.e., hers, whose). that's my mnemonic device.

Guys, I think he's just quoting the OP.

oh, i thought he was a genuine grammar fiend and wanted help. now i feel stupid.

That means he would not get a winners or losers' share

Is that the correct use of apostrophe? I mean, I know the share is also the winners' share, but I was working on the analogy of, say, 'He would not get his mum or dad's share'. No, wait, I think I've answered the question myself now - that's not a good analogy. Apostrophes for both, right?

i hate shit like that, i never know how to do it. i'd say apostrophes for both because it makes sense but i hate hate how slightly awkward it always feels.

If it were singular you wouldn't say "winner or loser's share", would you? Therefore apostrophes for both.

Yep, I've gone with apostrophes for both, but you're right, it's one of those ones that just niggles no matter which way you turn it.

xpost

Yep, thanks Zelda, obvious when you put it like that - I tied myself in a knot thinking about it and just ended up making a cup of tea instead.

AP style for possessives is like:

Mike, John, and Martin's company

so following that rule it seems like it would be "winner or loser's share" and thus "winners or losers' share," but there could be some exception I don't know about

I guess the difference is that the winner's share and loser's share are separate things, while there is just one company that belongs to Mike, John, and Martin?

I think that's what it is, yes. That's why the mum and dad analogy wasn't right.

Mike, John, and Martin's company

That's rather ambiguous, though, because instead of talking about a company that belongs to Mike, John and Martin, you could be talking about two people (Mike and John) and one company (which belongs to Martin).

Ok, RESUMES: Third person or First person?

I.e. do you write "performs research for litigation" or "perform research for litigation"?

why would you use third person for yr resume

kinda yeah what que said

"Perform research," but I hadn't really thought about it as first-person vs. third-person, it's just the convention.

Depends--what is it that's being resumed?

For talking about my current job, I tend to make verbs into nouns, so 'performance of' rather than 'perform' or 'performs'. For past jobs, it's past-tense, ie. 'led project x to completion' or whatever. I have no idea what kind of rationale might be behind this - it's just the way I've always done it.

why not just 'research for litigation'

I use lots of -ings in my CV. I'm so crap at grammar terminology I don't know what they're called. Gerunds? Present participles? Anyway - them.

"Please note that our unit is based in __________Offices (as per above address), and not ______________, to where your correspondence has been addressed. "

fuck's sake someone pls

"We have moved. Please use our new address: _____________"

hmp i'm trying to zing a snotty solicitor who wants a reply yesterday to letters he's sending to the wrong address tomorrow. redrafted it anyway.

ha, ok. "Wrong Addresses Never Knowingly Expedite Replies"

Further unctious correspondence, knowingly erroneous, receives silence

am i cray-zay to think that when people say "to coin a phrase" right after they've used a HUGE CLICHE that it makes no sense???

are they saying this on Opposite Day?

no unless EVERY DAY is OPPOSITE DAY

Is supposedly humorous acknowledgement of cliche-usage, no?

But does anyone now use it in its proper sense? I imagine it started to get used ironically, people eventually started to take the ironic meaning as its real meaning and bingo. I'm sure there are other examples of this, although I can't think of any right now.

When it's used after a massive great cliché I can read that as sarcasm, but it seems to be used at all points along the scale from genuine coinages through "I heard this last week, do you like it?" to all levels of cliché-dom that it doesn't seem to mean anything at all.

(like half of everything ever said, then, but it bothered me when I was younger because I wasn't sure if I might be misunderstanding it completely)

xp, Zelda Zonk probably otm

if people are that defensive about their usage of cliches perhaps they shouldn't use them in the first place JUST AN IDEA

this isn't really a grammar thing

what cliche are we talking about, for the record.

any cliche

but yeah i think people just basically have no idea what it means now, and i am astonished at how irritated this makes me. "to coin" is a wonderfully evocative verb!! keep your hands off if you don't know what you're doing

funny, i would almost say to coin a phrase is a cliche

that's true - if one used "to coin a phrase" in its modern, TOTALLY WRONG sense, one might feel obligated to continue stupidly tacking on "to coin a phrase" in some kind of recursive, infinite spaz reflex

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/concise.htm

where should I post something about when people say "I'm such an X geek!!!" or "I'm such a nerd for X!!!!" all the time wherein X is a subject of which they seemingly have only an elementary awareness/a superficial interest? it's here

Phrases you hate...

coldnrad

jeez, do you know someone who's mentored is a "mentee"? I would've guessed "mentoree."

those seem like they are both right?

yes, and also their first name is 'hugh'

Right, cos I'm an employeree of the company I work for...

but you're not employered by them

Ah, bless our wonderful language. I'm not really sure why this is an argument - there is no such word as mentoree (cf. tutoree).