Here is the link to the Sydney Writers' Centre blog, in which they clarify how an apostrophe should be used. They have conceeded that my argument was correct.
I won't post their whole blog, but here are some interesting excerpts:
...So, back to the ‘Mens Room’. You’ll notice right away what’s wrong with our first two titles – the apostrophe is missing. It should be there, right before the ‘s’. The words ‘men’ and ‘women’ are plural already and therefore can’t be made more plural with the additional ‘s’. So why is there no apostrophe? Is it because the people making these signs don’t know it should be there? Is it laziness? Is it missing to save on ink, or just to make the sign look better? Whatever the reason, it is slowly becoming more acceptable to leave the apostrophe off in these cases.
Let me just clarify though, that I don’t agree it’s right to leave it off. It’s not. It’s completely wrong. There’s no such word as ‘mens’ or ‘womens’ or ‘childrens’. But I do think this is more about style than punctuation. Punctuation is there to make our meaning clear in writing. The apostrophe is indispensible in this but sadly, it is also one of the most neglected and misused punctuation marks, and this is probably why these erroneous style conventions have developed.
We’ve rightly been bought to task for our use of ‘Mens Room’ as an acceptable example in our newsletter tip yesterday... We really should have made it clear, though, that it’s considered OK only in a title and only as a style thing. It’s definitely NOT OK grammatically.
You can view the entire blog here: http://www.writingcoursesblog.com/2010/10/another-apostrophe-conundrum.html
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
Response to response from Sydney Writers' Centre 15/10/10
I love this debate!
If Mignon is correct with:
Here's an even trickier one: farmers market. The market is used by the farmers, populated by the farmers, but generally not owned by the farmers. So it seems reasonable to conclude that you don't use an apostrophe because the word farmers is there to identify the type of market. It's an adjective.
... then why do you use the apostrophe in Sydney Writers’ Centre?
The writers USE the centre, they even contribute to the work... but they don’t OWN it. If this argument is correct, then the apostrophe in Sydney Writers’ Centre is wrong. If it makes any difference, I believe your apostrophe is correct.
I think the debate now moves to the definition of ownership. In my opinion, ownership is to do with owning the purpose (of the room, market, centre, hospital etc) rather than the facility itself. Perhaps in legal terms the farmers don’t own the markets, but without the farmers the markets cannot exist, and therefore they own the concept. The same would apply to the writers’ strike. The writers are doing the striking, and therefore they own it.
As I said in my previous email, in English, where a word is used only as an adjective, we seem to only ever use singular nouns and therefore the risk of putting in an accidental apostrophe does not exist.
As always, there are always never-ending debates in grammar – and it’s healthy to have them. We might need to agree to disagree on this one, but unless style dictates it, I will continue to use the apostrophe.
Have a great day,
Gem.
If Mignon is correct with:
Here's an even trickier one: farmers market. The market is used by the farmers, populated by the farmers, but generally not owned by the farmers. So it seems reasonable to conclude that you don't use an apostrophe because the word farmers is there to identify the type of market. It's an adjective.
... then why do you use the apostrophe in Sydney Writers’ Centre?
The writers USE the centre, they even contribute to the work... but they don’t OWN it. If this argument is correct, then the apostrophe in Sydney Writers’ Centre is wrong. If it makes any difference, I believe your apostrophe is correct.
I think the debate now moves to the definition of ownership. In my opinion, ownership is to do with owning the purpose (of the room, market, centre, hospital etc) rather than the facility itself. Perhaps in legal terms the farmers don’t own the markets, but without the farmers the markets cannot exist, and therefore they own the concept. The same would apply to the writers’ strike. The writers are doing the striking, and therefore they own it.
As I said in my previous email, in English, where a word is used only as an adjective, we seem to only ever use singular nouns and therefore the risk of putting in an accidental apostrophe does not exist.
As always, there are always never-ending debates in grammar – and it’s healthy to have them. We might need to agree to disagree on this one, but unless style dictates it, I will continue to use the apostrophe.
Have a great day,
Gem.
Response from Sydney Writers' Centre 15/10/10
Hi Gemma,
Thanks for your feedback. We agree that this is a contentious issue and appreciate you taking the time to email us. We debated it at length in the office and realise that we could have explained it better with a different example. We should have explained further that leaving the apostrophe out has also become acceptable in some cases due to issues of style. If you go back to the ground rules of grammar, it should be: Men's room, Women's Room. However, even noted grammarians have conceded that this has evolved:
In The Little Green Grammar Book, Mark Tredinnick says:
You can get away, by the way, without an apostrophe in some of these where they’re working, often in titles, as descriptive, not owning, possessives:
Mens room, Childrens orchestra, Womens Hospital, Fathers Day.
Acclaimed Grammar Girl, Mignon Fogarty says:
When the phrase includes a plural, as with writers strike, it can be a tougher call. I believe it's pretty clear that the writers don't own the strike, and that the word writers is there to tell us more about what kind of strike it is. So I'd leave out the apostrophe. On the other hand, I'd include the apostrophe in homeowners' association, at least when the homeowners actually own or control the association that manages their property.
Here's an even trickier one: farmers market. The market is used by the farmers, populated by the farmers, but generally not owned by the farmers. So it seems reasonable to conclude that you don't use an apostrophe because the word farmers is there to identify the type of market. It's an adjective.
For full explanation go to http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/grammar-apostrophes.aspx
Interestingly, Mark Tredinnick is the only one who used ‘Mens Room’ as an example. Although note that Mark is considered an expert is this area, showing that it's certainly an issue for debate. I’ve checked with our own grammar guru, Deb Doyle, and she agrees that this is wrong. The bottom line is that we should not have used "Mens room" and "Womens room" as an example. So apologies if we confused the issue further!
We’ll clarify in next week’s tip. Thanks again for taking the time to email.
Thanks for your feedback. We agree that this is a contentious issue and appreciate you taking the time to email us. We debated it at length in the office and realise that we could have explained it better with a different example. We should have explained further that leaving the apostrophe out has also become acceptable in some cases due to issues of style. If you go back to the ground rules of grammar, it should be: Men's room, Women's Room. However, even noted grammarians have conceded that this has evolved:
In The Little Green Grammar Book, Mark Tredinnick says:
You can get away, by the way, without an apostrophe in some of these where they’re working, often in titles, as descriptive, not owning, possessives:
Mens room, Childrens orchestra, Womens Hospital, Fathers Day.
Acclaimed Grammar Girl, Mignon Fogarty says:
When the phrase includes a plural, as with writers strike, it can be a tougher call. I believe it's pretty clear that the writers don't own the strike, and that the word writers is there to tell us more about what kind of strike it is. So I'd leave out the apostrophe. On the other hand, I'd include the apostrophe in homeowners' association, at least when the homeowners actually own or control the association that manages their property.
Here's an even trickier one: farmers market. The market is used by the farmers, populated by the farmers, but generally not owned by the farmers. So it seems reasonable to conclude that you don't use an apostrophe because the word farmers is there to identify the type of market. It's an adjective.
For full explanation go to http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/grammar-apostrophes.aspx
Interestingly, Mark Tredinnick is the only one who used ‘Mens Room’ as an example. Although note that Mark is considered an expert is this area, showing that it's certainly an issue for debate. I’ve checked with our own grammar guru, Deb Doyle, and she agrees that this is wrong. The bottom line is that we should not have used "Mens room" and "Womens room" as an example. So apologies if we confused the issue further!
We’ll clarify in next week’s tip. Thanks again for taking the time to email.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Email to Sydney Writers' Centre 14/10/10
I’m not usually one to argue with Grammar Girl, but I personally disagree with the lack of possessive apostrophe in “mens room”.
In these cases, the room DOES belong to the men (if X is FOR Y then doesn’t X belong to Y? E.g.: if the dress is FOR me, then it BELONGS to me). The same applies to “farmers markets” – the markets DO actually belong to the farmers as they have the responsibility of running them.
Some organisations do choose to use correct grammar; for example “The Children’s Hospital at Westmead”. The hospital is FOR the children and therefore it BELONGS to them, even if they don’t actually own the building.
Funnily enough, your own organisation, Sydney Writers' Centre, also uses the possessive apostrophe.
I recently conducted a Readers’ Survey for my company magazine – a survey OF the readers – and therefore it belongs to them.
I think, technically, if “mens” was an adjective, then it would simply be “man” – just like we refer to a “computer room” and not a “computers room”. “Mens” is not even a word because you can’t have a plural of a plural. I actually cannot think of a single example where a plural would be used as an adjective: coat room, dish washer, cup holder, letter box, photo album. In all of these things the second noun is designed to contain multiples of the first, but we always describe those as singular. The two words then combine to provide a new noun that is more specific. In my example above, if I wanted to just describe the survey, I would have called it a “Reader Survey”, not a “Readers Survey” without the apostrophe.
I guess what I’m saying is there is no distinction between an adjective and a possessive noun in these instances. If you can find me an example of where a noun is used, plurally, to describe another noun, and is NOT possessive, then I’m genuinely prepared to eat my words. I have actually spent the last half hour trying to challenge my own argument so that I don’t look like an idiot when I send this email.
I think the apostrophe is missing either through years of laziness forming a habit in the industry, or because it simply looks neater on the sign. I have no problem with it being acceptable, just as long as people know WHY it is acceptable. Just like “Drive Thru” is incorrect but acceptable.
All good writers break the rules sometimes. I do it myself. Often. The important thing to me is that I know I have broken the rules for a practical purpose. I can live with a missing possessive apostrophe if I know it is just because it saves space on a sign. If I believe that the apostrophe is missing because the writer didn’t realise that it was actually possessive, then I get a little bit angry on the inside.
Anyway, I just wanted to pass on the feedback that I think your ‘clarification’ actually confused the issue and I’m sure the reader who questioned the lack of apostrophe in “mens room” would have been happy enough to accept that it is just a commonly broken rule.
It has taken me far too long to write this email so I’d better get back to work.
In the mean time, please keep up the good work. I really do enjoy the weekly grammar tips, and even if I don’t agree with them, I am thankful that there are still some people in this world who care enough to debate them.
In these cases, the room DOES belong to the men (if X is FOR Y then doesn’t X belong to Y? E.g.: if the dress is FOR me, then it BELONGS to me). The same applies to “farmers markets” – the markets DO actually belong to the farmers as they have the responsibility of running them.
Some organisations do choose to use correct grammar; for example “The Children’s Hospital at Westmead”. The hospital is FOR the children and therefore it BELONGS to them, even if they don’t actually own the building.
Funnily enough, your own organisation, Sydney Writers' Centre, also uses the possessive apostrophe.
I recently conducted a Readers’ Survey for my company magazine – a survey OF the readers – and therefore it belongs to them.
I think, technically, if “mens” was an adjective, then it would simply be “man” – just like we refer to a “computer room” and not a “computers room”. “Mens” is not even a word because you can’t have a plural of a plural. I actually cannot think of a single example where a plural would be used as an adjective: coat room, dish washer, cup holder, letter box, photo album. In all of these things the second noun is designed to contain multiples of the first, but we always describe those as singular. The two words then combine to provide a new noun that is more specific. In my example above, if I wanted to just describe the survey, I would have called it a “Reader Survey”, not a “Readers Survey” without the apostrophe.
I guess what I’m saying is there is no distinction between an adjective and a possessive noun in these instances. If you can find me an example of where a noun is used, plurally, to describe another noun, and is NOT possessive, then I’m genuinely prepared to eat my words. I have actually spent the last half hour trying to challenge my own argument so that I don’t look like an idiot when I send this email.
I think the apostrophe is missing either through years of laziness forming a habit in the industry, or because it simply looks neater on the sign. I have no problem with it being acceptable, just as long as people know WHY it is acceptable. Just like “Drive Thru” is incorrect but acceptable.
All good writers break the rules sometimes. I do it myself. Often. The important thing to me is that I know I have broken the rules for a practical purpose. I can live with a missing possessive apostrophe if I know it is just because it saves space on a sign. If I believe that the apostrophe is missing because the writer didn’t realise that it was actually possessive, then I get a little bit angry on the inside.
Anyway, I just wanted to pass on the feedback that I think your ‘clarification’ actually confused the issue and I’m sure the reader who questioned the lack of apostrophe in “mens room” would have been happy enough to accept that it is just a commonly broken rule.
It has taken me far too long to write this email so I’d better get back to work.
In the mean time, please keep up the good work. I really do enjoy the weekly grammar tips, and even if I don’t agree with them, I am thankful that there are still some people in this world who care enough to debate them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)