When apostrophes go bad: Do's and Don'ts

Because of MC Grammar, you basically know everything now. You know how to change a light bulb, and what sort of light bulb goes into an IKEA lamp. You know how to unscrew a fluorescent light bulb and also what wattage goes into a fluorescent light bulb.


And you also know all about apostrophes. You know that an apostrophe either indicates possession, such as Jane’s hat, or indicates a shortening of the word is or has, like Jane’s happy or Jane’s already left. When there is no apostrophe, it means that the ‘s’ is only there to show that there is more than one of something. You know that saying The kings come in splendour is a very different to saying The King’s come in splendour. Because one is plural and one is singular.


But did you know that it’s not all as simple as all that? Just when you thought grammar was simple, the real world has to interfere and fuck up your shit. This brings us to the debacle of Do’s and Don’ts


What’s happening with this term? Firstly, it’s inconsistent: the do has an apostrophe before the s but the don’t doesn’t. Secondly, why does the do have an apostrophe at all? It’s NOT possessive, is it? It doesn’t ‘own’ anything in the sentence, does it? No, it doesn’t.


But believe it or not, this is how it has to be. Why? For no other reason than the fact that it looks weird without it. It looks like ‘dos’, Spanish for ‘two’. It looks like you tried to write ‘does’ and failed. It looks like a whole other word, and this reason, and this reason only, it has an apostrophe in it.


And take a look at its partner in crime, don’ts. Don’ts won’t even tow the line for consistency’s sake and become don’t’s. Why? yep, you know it – because it that looks weird too. There are too many apostrophes (two), so the final result is that Do’s and don’ts is one of the biggest outlaws of grammar, and there’s nothing that any of us can do about it, but curse and shake our fists.


So how does it get away with it? Believe it or not, because it’s more correct than all the other options, and makes more sense. Let’s remember, the whole point of grammar isn’t actually to be correct for the sake of being correct, it’s to make sense, and to communicate to the widest audience possible. In this case, ‘Do’s and Don’ts’ is correct by association, meaning that because the other options are so confusing, it’s won by default. It’s like a handsome outlaw: you know it’s a murderous felon, but who can resist those dark locks and symmetrical jaw?



A word of caution though: in most other cases, you should always stop and pause for reflection before proceeding with an apostrophe. An apostrophe is like a beautiful woman or man that you meet at a bar. Sure, you’re knocked sideways by their longish hair, dyed criminally blond and almost pitch black at the roots, and the sensual darkish colouring just below their eyes that gives a hint of Mediterranean blood via Poland or Northern Italy, but don’t just dive in – get a good look at them! Is that intriguing peroxided hair and enticing dark roots just a result of the fact that they originally set out to be a glamour model, then sunk into the seamy world of hard drugs? And are those bags under their eyes just a result of Hepatitis B?



In the same way, when it comes to apostrophes, you need to ask yourself certain self-preserving questions. A common crime in grammar is to write something like I read 100’s of books online or the two large lion’s approached quickly. These are incorrect, because neither ‘1000’ or the lions, ‘own’ anything in the sentence, nor is the s a shortening of is. A good quality-control approach is to ask yourself ‘Am I actually writing 100 IS’, or, does ‘100’ actually ‘own’ something in this sentence? If the answer is no, and ‘100’ is just plural, then you don’t need an apostrophe.

Take note, grammar lovers, not everybody agrees on the state of Do's and Don'ts. Many people who also love grammar, will insist on taking a variety of measures, such as writing Dos and Don'ts, Do's and Don't's and also Dos and Dont's. MC Grammar says: increase the grammar peace, fellow word lovers. Although these version might be accepted in some situations, if you're writing something like an important document that a lot of people are going to read, it's best to stick to the modern, most widely accepted, and easiest to understand, Do's and Don'ts.


To finish off, let's check out this video from the 50's about dating. See how the video is correctly titled Do's and Don'ts? Now THAT's how to get a date.

Indecent Preposition

Alright. Again, MC Grammar hasn't exactly hit the mark with this week's post title. I am all too aware that it doesn't really work, since the movie I am cleverly pop-culture referencing is actually 'Indecent Proposal', not 'Indecent Proposition.' It would never have been called 'Indecent Proposition', because that doesn't have the same zing to it. Being MC Grammar and only achieving lukewarm wordplay is like throwing stones when you live in a glass house and wear a glass house-robe. Because of this failure, I hurl myself on my four-poster bed in frustration. But we have to try to keep a perspective, and focus on the reason we're all here: to learn about prepositions.

So what is a preposition? Well, a preposition links words to other words in a sentence, like 'with', 'under' 'without' 'on', and 'from'.

A preposition 'locates' an object For example,

The book is on the table

I am beneath the tree.

She held the book during class

I want to be on you

In each sentence, the preposition locates the object in time or space.

A prepositional verb 'introduces' nouns, and explains just what the hell they are doing. For example;

The boy climbed a tree.

There was rejoicing throughout the land

Each time, the preposition has 'introduced' the noun and linked the two nouns in the sentence together.

Put simply, a preposition explains what shit is doing in a sentence together. If a preposition was a person, it would be that person at a party who knows everyone, so when you walk in and exclaim 'Hey - I didn't know they knew each other!', preposition is all like 'oh yeah, didn't you know? They live in same apartment block', or 'oh yeah, they used to go to the same yoga class' or 'oh yeah, they've only just met, but they're really going for it, huh?'

Now, here is the tricky part. Some people think that prepositions should never go at the end of a sentence. They think that, for example, instead of saying 'who do you live with', you should say 'with whom do you live?'

The problem with trying to stick to this rule is that you end up talking like Yoda. When Winston Churchill was knocked for ending a sentence with a preposition, he answered 'This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put!' Snap, Winston.

MC Grammar reckons that the only time you shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition is when it's unnecessary. For example,

I've got the money that I'll be paying you with.

Here 'with' is extra – you didn't need it. You could have just said 'I've got the money that I'll be paying you'. This is the only time that the prepositional rule should be used.

The main reason that some people still stick to this rule is because of that jerk that I hate, Latin. That's right, Latin's back, telling English what to do, calling it fat and short-sheeting its bed in the middle of winter. In Latin, prepositions tend to get attached to the object that they are 'introducing.' For example, The Latin word for 'wine' is 'Vinium' But in the saying 'In Vino Veritas' (In wine there is truth) 'Vino' shows that it's the wine that is the subject of the saying. This means that prepositions can never be found at the end of sentences in Latin, and as a result, in English we are never meant to do it either.

Not only is this stupid, but really impractical. Some more demure grammar peeps will try to not to rock the boat by suggesting that instead of saying

Who do you want to speak to?

You should say

To whom do you want to speak?

Why? If the whole point of grammar is to communicate with each other, and a person is already doing that just fine, like in the first sentence above, why complicate things? The good news is that grammar brothers and sisters have been calling bullshit on this rule for over a hundred years - in 1902, Harvard Professor Adam Sherman Hill pointed out that it was a bit crap, and then in 1918, James C. Fernald really went for the jugular in 'A Senseless Tradition', claiming that 'there was never any sense in the rule, and people go on using the prohibited idiom every day.'

Snap, James C. Fernald. You're right. It might have been OK, back in the day when 'whom' was not an out-dated form of language, but these days it's just silly, and trying to defend it is like trying to say that fat-dripping is a good thing to put on your toast instead of butter - just because they used to do it doesn't make it right or good. In fact, it explains a lot of health problems that old people have now.

When all is said and done, the rule around prepositions is one that we don't need to worry about, but it's still good to know what exactly a preposition is. You can throw it into conversation at any time, impressing people with your highly-tuned grammar skills. And in the rare cases where it's helpful to know when you've overdosed on prepositions, it could make all the difference.

Let's finish up on this humorous 'Grammar Wizard' cartoon from the Perry Bible Fellowship, that pretty much sums up the whole situation. And ask yourself; do you really want a world where this might happen?  

MC Grammar loves...

Online dictionaries that give you audio pronounciations, so you can avoid making embarrassing mistakes when throwing out chunky word moves at parties. Check it out!

'Alot' or 'a lot'? MC Grammar investigates.

MC Grammar is pretty much the full package when it comes to education, natural intelligence and razor-sharp commonsense. When a problem presents itself to me, I just use the holy trinity of these three qualities to get me through any situation, so I always come up smiling, as well as giving off a warm glow of subtle sexuality and symmetrically good looks.

But even MC Grammar finds it hard to fight his way through the swampy marsh of the confusion surrounding alot and a lot. That’s right, even I had to stop and think about it for a minute.

I don’t know what it is about this tiny speck of grammar, but it’s confused even the greatest minds of history, leaving them to weep, crumpled on the floor in expanding pools of their own urine.

So is it ‘alot’, or ‘a lot’? It’s a lot. 'Alot' isn’t a word. However, it’s used so much that sometimes, even MICROSOFT WORD doesn’t always recognise it as a spelling mistake.

So why all the confusion? Well, these two words feature so much together that it’s hardly surprising that people have started to think that they're the same word. But just because they hang out all the time doesn’t mean that anything’s going on. You’ve got to understand, THEY ARE JUST FRIENDS – for the time being anyway. Who knows what will happen after an evening of just the right amount of fruity lexia, when everyone else has gone home early and since they’re so relaxed around each other, lot just crashes on a's couch for the night, and before they go to bed, a finally opens up about how bad her last break-up was and what she’s looking for in a new relationship, and then they realise how close they’re sitting next to each other.

But until that happens, the rest of us who are just trying to get through every day on the rough streets of grammar have to accept that they are separate words, and alot should always be ‘a lot’.

All the single clauses!

If Beyonce Knowles was a piece of grammar, what would she be? I'll tell you.

But first, let's get retrospective for a moment. With MC Grammar, you have explored a lot of wonderful parts of grammar. Our minds have become so entwined that sometimes, when you're writing a letter, or trying to do a written test, or just throwing down some thoughts onto paper, you suddenly hear a voice that you imagine to be what MC Grammar would sound like; a deep, soothing voice, a bit like steel-capped boots dragging over gravel, that strokes the inside of your mind and gently whispers the correct grammatical form to you. 'Thank you, MC Grammar', you gently whisper. 'No thanks needed' you hear my voice whisper back.

But there has been a certain issue that we've been skirting around lately, and this is it: 'What are independent and dependant clauses, and why do they affect everything I do?'

Here's why.

A clause is a phrase. Sometimes it's a single sentence, but the rule is that it must contain two things: a subject and a predicate, or, the thing done or being done to the subject. Because this can be a bit confusing, here's very simple sentence to explain this.

The cat sat on the mat.

The thing being done (predicate) is 'sitting'. The thing (the subject) doing the sitting is the cat. Because the cat is the one 'doing' the verb, the cat is the subject. If it just so happened that it was the mat 'doing' the sitting on itself, then the mat would be the subject. But that would be pretty crazy.

Another example is:


Jo is writing a sentence.


What is being done? Writing. So it is the predicate. Who is 'doing' the predicate? Jo. So he/she is the subject.


'Whatever, MC Grammar!' you might scream out: 'In the same way I just know how to ride a bike, I just know how to write a sentence!' Sure, maybe, but when you don't know how a subject and a predicate go together, your whole meaning can get lost. Take for example this bomb site:

Clarise is the girl who is standing next to Lance, with the blond hair.

The problem here is that there are two subjects and one thing being done, AND there is an incomplete clause hanging onto them. The result is that you end up having no idea who has blond hair. A better way to say it would have been:

Clarise is the girl with blond hair, standing next to Lance.

Here, the subject and the predicate live together, cheerfully, in a relationship based on trust and mutual respect. Loitering by their side is the mousy but helpful, 'standing next to Lance', which can't stand on it's own, unlike 'Clarise is the girl with the blond hair', which doesn't need anybody when it's up in the club.

As you might have guessed by now, if Beyonce Knowles was a kind of grammar, she would be an independent clause. But which person best defines a dependant clause? There are many to pick from, but MC Grammar thinks Perez Hilton would be a good candidate. Relying on celebrities to be famous? Take a cue from Bouncy Knowles, Perez!

More Grammatically Correct Than Jesus

Actually, MC Grammar can't be sure if he's got more grammar than Jesus did, and it would be a hard thing to compare since Jesus spoke Aramic anyway, but it was a good way to introduce this blog post on the difference between than and then.


A lot of us know how to use than and then, but can't actually explain why. It's a bit like learning how to ride a bike. Once you've got the hang of it, you never forget, but you couldn't actually stand in front of a room of people and explain why suddenly, one day, you stopped falling on your side and started soaring along with the wind in your hair, while all the other kids in the neighbourhood cheered and clapped for you.


But then there are some people who are in the dark about when to use then and than at all. They are like the kids who don't even have bikes, and who stand outside bike stores all day and gaze into the window, then they grow up and can't go to bike riding parties and have to make embarrassing excuses up as to why. This blog is especially for them



Then indicates the passing of time, or a sequence of events.
For example:

I spent the morning at home, then I left the house in the afternoon.

We saw a movie first, then we went to a bar, then I spent the afternoon ordering wines off the menu in the voice of Yoda.

Than is for comparing things. It is not related to time at all. For example:

He acted very 'holier than thou'

My haircut is better than yours.

A lot of grammar-lovers think that the common mix-up of then and than is more sinister than it looks. Some of them think that it's because a lot of people out there don't realise that they are two separate words, with two completely different meanings. This might be true, but MC Grammar knows that sometimes, when two words look really similar, and no-one has ever pointed out the difference to you, things can get tough. However, I would also suggest that one of these words gets neglected more than the other – poor old than. This word never gets its fair share of air-time, even though it's just as important as any other word in English, and in the case of words like 'slubber', it's far more important.

Cliffhanger! Pulling the dangling participle back from the edge of misuse.

Things are complicated in the modern world, just as they are in the world of grammar. It's a medieval battlefield, except instead of fighting with mallets and poison arrows, the fighting is done with sales targets and active selling-point skills. And just like in business, 'developing' happens in the world of grammar. This is where the participle comes in.

A participle is a verb, developed. Participles take two forms: past participles and present participles. Present participles are all those words like 'running', 'working', 'talking', etc. Past participles are all those words like 'brought', 'cooked', and 'mashed', and other crazy irregular verbs like 'went', 'drove' and 'ate'.

Participles are those things that you just intrinsically know about, but may not have known the exact name for them. But hold on, because we need to take participles to the next level now. Because participles aren't just verbs wearing outfits appropriate for the occasion, they are more like grammar-grenades. If you put them in the wrong place, everything flies apart. Look at the example of the dangling participle. A dangling participle is a verb that has been tacked on to the beginning or end of a sentence, and doesn't 'belong' to anything.

Take for this sentence, for example.

Leaning out the car window, the air was warm and fragrant.

The problem here is that the only subject, or 'thing that the actions are being done to', is the air. We know that the thing that is leaning out of the car window is a person, but they haven't been written into the sentence. I'll write more about subjects and complete sentences next time, but for now, let's just say that in this case, the participle 'leaning', is not being 'done' by anyone, which means that technically, it's the air that is leaning out of the car window.

But before you start panicking and counting up all the times you hung participles on the edges of sentences like so many ragged christmas trees, don't panic, because there are some times when dangling participles are accepted as standard ways of expressing the way the speaker feels, even if that speaker is not mentioned in the sentence. For example:

Speaking of kumquat farming, Jenny is running her own plantation now.

Here, Jenny is the subject of the sentence, but the participle 'speaking' is not being done by her. We understand that the speaker is the person doing the 'speaking'.

But a dangling modifier is very precise, and you can't take them for granted. For example, in the sentence, 'Ranting, she stormed out of the room' it makes sense here that the ranting is being done by the woman. However, if you say 'She stormed out of the room ranting', it means the room was doing the ranting.

There can be no doubt, it's hard to fight your way through the grammar jungle. But not impossible. That's why MC Grammar is here to help. To finish up, here's a clip that reflects on how a dangling participle must feel: so very lonely.