[Leica] Apostrophes

[Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>]

>>>can you please please tell me once and for all where to put the
apostrophes and any other grammar mistakes you think I make? If you have
the guts post it to the Lug too<<<


Sure. First, apostrophes.

Everybody knows that the apostrophe replaces missing letters in phrases
such as "John's coming home," which is an abbreviation of "John is
coming home." In that phrase, the apostrophe replaces the letter "i."
Where most people get stuck is in applying the apostrophe for
possession.

What they don't realize is that the apostrophe replaces missing letters
in these cases, too. Originally, possession was indicated by the word
"his." Thus, to say that an axe belonged to John, in Middle English one
would write "John, his axe." With the "hi-" contracted, this becomes
English possessive: John's axe. (Yes, this is sexist: because what in
Middle English would have been "Mary, her book" is not abbreviated to
"Mary'r book," as it would be if the rule were consistently applied, but
to "Mary's book," which is a vestige of "Mary his book." Oh well! The
consolation is that this apostrophe-s gets extended to inanimate
objects, too: "the Summicron's main advantage," and so forth.)

The apostrophe before an "s" ALWAYS replaces missing letters, either an
"i-" as in "is," "ha-" as in "has"--or else an "hi-" in this obsolete
possessive sense. This suggests the best test of whether an apostrophe
is needed or properly placed: simply insert the letters you suppose it
replaces and see if the phrase still parses.

At the Photo show in NYC, I was presented with the inaugural issue of a
_printed_ magazine that announced on its t.o.c. page that it contained
"Essay's, page 6." Augh! Then, on the very next page, we were offered
"Editors comments." My mauled sensibilities are still vibrating.

Possessive "its"--a thing belonging to it--never gets an apostrophe,
even if the noun itself does, because it is...well, an it (i.e., not a
noun). Thus,

"The new TTL's shutter-speed dial is larger; and on the black cameras,
its color is black."

This makes sense if you think back to the apostrophe replacing the "hi-"
in "his." Even if you have a low opinion of the Middle English, running
around in metal suits and hacking away at each other with broadswords,
you wouldn't presume them so stupid as to use phrases like "It, his axe"
or "It, her book," would you? So if you run across the phrase,

"It's color is black"

And wanted to apply my test, just insert letters in place of the
apostrophe: "It is color is black"; "it has color is black"; "it his
color is black." You can see that those don't work. So leave the
apostrophe out. What appeared on page six are not "Essay Is" but Essays
(which were predictably woeful, in case there were to be any doubt).

Plural "s" (two threadmount cameras, a set of Summicrons), does not need
an apostrophe except when its absence offends the eye, as for example
when you're pluralizing something such as "Nikon N90s."  Several of
those would properly be "several Nikon N90ss," which is ugly. So we
dispense with propriety, insert the apostrophe, and sigh. "I saw several
Nikon N90s's adorning interlopers at the Leica convention" is an
adequate use of the apostrophe, although inelegant and not strictly
proper.

On the other hand, anyone who ever pluralizes "camera" as "camera's"
should be stripped of his or her college degree, assuming the one they
possess isn't a forgery to begin with.

Ahem. Just a little editorializing, there.

In case you're wondering about the odd use of the apostrophe AFTER the
"s," this is simply used when BOTH plural and possessive apply, but
aren't pronounced. The editor's comments" refers to one editor. If you
were talking about the comments of several editors, to be consistent you
would write "the editors's comments." But we don't pronounce both s's,
(Editorzzz-zzz comments), so we drop the second "s," and this is how the
apostrophe appears to end up past the final "s"--it hasn't, really; it's
just that the real final "s" has gone into hiding. So we write "the
Editors' comments" when it's more than one editor we're referring to.

Incidentally, this protocol of writing what you say also holds true when
signifying the possessive of a word that ends in "s." Ansel's last name
was Adams, not Adam; so if something belonged to him, it was Ansel
Adams's. To write "Ansel Adams' book _The Negative_" is one of those
instances of middlebrow faux-propriety, as when some people insecurely
write "I" when they mean "me" because they think "I" is more likely to
be grammatical. As: "it looks good to Alastair and I." Wrong-O. Anyway,
if you say "Adams's," then write "Adams's."

The only other thing that really grates on my ear on the LUG (and
everywhere else) is "who" and "that."

Think of what the word "points" to. Humans are "who" and things are
"that." "Thanks to those that wrote me privately," "The Luggers that
were at the Leica convention," "I've got a girlfriend that likes
Leicas," etc., are borderline illiterate. Thank all those WHO wrote you
privately; refer to the Luggers WHO were at the show; you have a
girlfriend WHO likes Leicas, etc. To see how it grates on the trained
ear, turn it around: "I bought a silver Leica M6 who I really like," "I
prefer D-76, who I dilute 1+1." Again, people who never finished high
school may be excused for not following this rule, since they had other
things to think about. Others, well....

Blatant misusage is rampant; but don't give in.

Please realize that these suggestions are not offered under any delusion
of my own superiority. It's just what I do for a living. Believe me, I
realize full well that you could run rings around ME when it comes to
what YOU do for a living. So don't think I'm being uppity with my snappy
comments. Just trying to add a bit of humor to what is naturally a dry
subject.

- --Mike the Ed.