Kirk Mahoney . com

I saw this in an email message.

Problem:
The apostrophe is in the wrong position.

Explanation:
The complete sentence was (quote) “I hope to see ya’ll next year.” (unquote).

A Texan wrote the email message, and I recognized what the writer intended to say.

But “ya’ll” — spelled Y-A-APOSTROPHE-L-L — is not the correct way to write the contraction for the way that Texans say “you all”, the informal plural of the pronoun “you” in some parts of the United States.

An apostrophe in a contraction indicates where letters have been removed.

No letters have been removed between the “a” and the first “l” in the word “all”.

So the apostrophe does not belong after the “a”.

Instead, the apostrophe belongs where the letters “o” and “u” have been removed from the word “you” in the forming of the contraction.

Solution:
“y’all”

I saw this last Sunday on a sign.

Problem:
A possessive apostrophe is missing.

Explanation:
I saw a magnetic sign attached to a pickup truck last Sunday.

The sign’s title was (quote) “Mobile Mikes Tile Service” (unquote), with no apostrophe anywhere, and there was contact and other information beneath the title.

Nothing on the sign implied that there was more than one person named Mike, so I assume that there is just one “Mike” who runs the business.

Oddly, although many sign makers make the mistake of inserting an apostrophe where it does not belong, this sign’s maker omitted an apostrophe where it did belong.

Solution:
“Mobile Mike’s Tile Service”

I saw this a week ago on a pickup truck.

Problem:
A possessive apostrophe appeared where it should not.

Explanation:
(Quote) “Drywall Finisher’s” (unquote), with an apostrophe before the letter “s”, was the title on a magnetic sign attached to the side of a pickup truck that I saw last week.

The contractor’s telephone number and some other information appeared beneath the title.

Because the APOSTROPHE-S made the word “Finisher” a possessive, I had to wonder what was being possessed.

But I was left hanging.

The apostrophe in “Finisher’s” should not have been there.

The sign maker was trying to pluralize the noun “Finisher”.

He or she instead made the sign maker’s common blunder of inserting a possessive apostrophe when pluralizing a noun.

Maybe sign makers just love to create apostrophes?

Solution:
“Drywall Finishers”

I heard this yesterday morning on National Public Radio.

Problem:
The possessive form was wrong.

Explanation:
An NPR reporter had recorded someone saying to a group of people (quote) “I went through your guys’s notes.” (unquote).

Without any more context to help you, you can see that there are two possible interpretations for this statement:

1. The speaker was saying that he had read the notes of the guys who belonged to or were associated with his listeners.
2. The speaker was saying that he had read the notes that belonged to his listeners.

If the full context were such that interpretation #1 were correct, then the solution would be to remove the final “s” from “guys’s” in the statement.

However, the full context of the recording was someone speaking directly to a group and not referring to anyone else.

So interpretation #2 is the correct one.

One can then almost see the train of thought of the speaker when he started to say (quote) “I went through your guys’s notes.” (unquote).

Step 1: The speaker usually says “you guys” instead of “you” for the plural, second-person pronoun.

Step 2: Starting to make a possessive out of “you guys”, the speaker changed “you” to “yours”.

Step 3: Realizing that “your guys” sounded as if he were referring to people other than his listeners, the speaker added the possessive apostrophe-”s” to “guys” to create “your guys’s”.

Now here is the sad part about this NPR report: The man who was recorded saying (quote) “I went through your guys’s notes.” (unquote) was directly involved in a job-interviewing activity.

Ouch!

Solution:
“I went through your notes.”

A few years ago I noticed something odd about the television ads, billboards, and signs for the Church’s Chicken restaurant chain.

The logo read “Churchs Chicken” without the required possessive apostrophe between the name “Church” and the letter “s”.

Here is an example of the apostrophe-less logo used by Church’s Chicken up until just a few years ago:

The absence of the apostrophe bugged me but also made me wonder whether the company was omitting the apostrophe for some sort of branding or legal reason.

For example, many trademark experts recommend against using possessives in brand names — and definitely against using a brand name (such as “Kodak”) as a possessive noun (such as “Kodak’s”).

Well the folks at Church’s Chicken apparently realized that the apostrophe-less logo was actually a mistake.

For example, here is an older logo that I found for Church’s Chicken:

As you can see, the older logo did have the apostrophe.

And here is how the Church’s Chicken logo appears at this writing — again with the possessive apostrophe:

So the restaurant chain had the possessive apostrophe, dropped it (for who knows why), and re-added it.

Thank you, Church’s Chicken, for saving the apostrophe!

I heard this the other day, and it struck me as odd — mostly because there is a bad habit among many American children to say “mines” instead of “mine”.

Problem:
A pronoun may not be converted into a possessive simply by adding apostrophe-”s”.

Explanation:
The archaic use of the word “mine” as a pronoun is as a substitute for “my” — as in (quote) “Mine eyes have seen the glory …” (unquote).

But the word “mine” as a pronoun has two modern meanings:

1. a predicate-adjective form of the possessive case of the pronoun “I”, as in (quote) “The green car is mine.” (unquote);
2. something belonging to me, as in (quote) “Mine is the purple towel.” (unquote).

I am unsure whether the “mine” in (quote) “a student of mine’s mother” (unquote) more closely follows definition #1 or definition #2.

Concentrating on the first part of the phrase, one could argue that the “mine” in (quote) “a student of mine” (unquote) follows definition #1 because one could say (quote) “The student is mine.” (unquote).

Or one could argue that the “mine” in (quote) “a student of mine” (unquote) follows definition #2 because one could say (quote) “Mine is the student.” (unquote).

No matter which argument makes more sense to you, it is clear that “mine” in (quote) “a student of mine’s mother” (unquote) is a pronoun.

And a pronoun may not be converted into a possessive simply by adding apostrophe-”s”, so the phrase must be rewritten.

Solution:
“the mother of one of my students”
OR
“one of my students’ mothers”

My wife spotted this on an envelope.

Problem:
The contraction is missing an apostrophe.

Explanation:
(Quote) “WERE MOVING OR HAVE MOVED!” (unquote) was stamped in red beneath a business’s old address in the return-address section of an envelope.

The business obviously had a lot of envelopes that had been printed with its old address in the return-address section, and beneath that section the business had stamped a new message in red to let envelope recipients know one of the following:

• The business was in the process of moving.
• The business had already moved.

The new address appeared — also in red — beneath (quote) “WERE MOVING OR HAVE MOVED!” (unquote), so that envelope recipients would have the new address of the business.

The problem with the red-stamp headline is that it is missing an apostrophe.

When one creates a contraction — in this case from the pronoun “WE” plus the verb “ARE” — an apostrophe must be included to indicate the letter or letters that one has removed to create the contraction.

I believe that the omission of the apostrophe is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” linguistic hypothesis. It is simpler to omit an apostrophe than to include one.

Solution:
“WE’RE MOVING OR HAVE MOVED!”

I saw this yesterday in an email message.

Problem:
An apostrophe is missing.

Explanations:
The email message was talking about social-work efforts, and (quote) “Childrens Protective Service” (unquote) — with “Childrens” spelled C-H-I-L-D-R-E-N — was the title of one of the sections in the message.

I believe that the absence of a required possessive apostrophe in “Childrens” can be attributable to:

• A typographical error;
• Ignorance about possessive apostrophes.

Given how often I see the apostrophe-free “Mens” and “Womens” in department stores, I doubt that “A typographical error” applies to this situation.

That leaves us with “Ignorance about possessive apostrophes”.

I believe that this ignorance is consistent with my “Devolution toward Simpler” hypothesis.

It is simpler to write possessive words without apostrophes than to write them with apostrophes.

Solution:
“Children’s Protective Service”

I saw this yesterday on Fox News Channel.

Problem:
The apostrophe does not belong.

Explanation:
The news-related discussion on Fox News Channel (FNC) was about Caroline Kennedy’s public-relations campaign to get selected by New York’s governor to be the replacement for Senator Hillary Clinton, who had been nominated by President-Elect Barack Obama to be his Secretary of State.

FNC displayed a banner at the bottom of the TV screen during the discussion.

The banner asked (quote) “DO KENNEDY’S HAVE TO WORK TWICE AS HARD?” (unquote) because the discussion focused on whether a member of the Kennedy family has to work harder to prove himself or herself to the public so as to avoid the appearance of a sense of entitlement from the legacy of President John F. Kennedy.

Pluralizing a proper noun that ends in “y” requires simply that an “s” be added to the end.

In other words, a name such as “Kennedy” should not be changed to “Kennedies” — with an I-E-S –and should not be changed to “Kennedy’s” — with an APOSTROPHE-S — when pluralizing it.

I suspect that a spelling checker encouraged the TV banner writer to make the mistake of pluralizing “Kennedy” by adding an apostrophe followed by an “s” because a spelling checker will recognize this form as correct. Unfortunately, this form is correct for the possessive, singular form of “Kennedy” and not for the plural form of “Kennedy”.

Solution:
“Do Kennedys have to work …”

I saw this on a van yesterday morning.

Problem:
The apostrophe was in the wrong place, if the “Til’” — spelled T-I-L-APOSTROPHE — was meant to be a contraction for “Until”.

Explanation:
“Excelsior Learning Academy” appeared at the top of the sign on the van.

“Open Til’ Midnight” — with the apostrophe appearing after T-I-L — appeared immediately beneath the academy’s name on the sign.

Cross-referencing the telephone number, the multiply-named company actually seems to be a child-care center.

Discovering that Excelsior Learning Academy was essentially a child-care center answered my first question when I saw the sign: “Why would a ‘learning academy’ stay open that late?”

Perhaps this also explained the misplacement of the apostrophe for the omitted portion of the preposition “Until” when this so-called “learning academy” ordered a sign with a contraction for “Until”.

One might argue that Excelsior was creating a contraction of the preposition “Till” — spelled T-I-L-L — by dropping the final “l” and replacing it with an apostrophe, but I would counter-argue (1) that Excelsior and its sign maker probably were not that smart and (2) that it is a waste of an apostrophe to use it as a substitute for the similarly slim letter “l”.

Solution:
“Open ‘Til Midnight” or “Open Until Midnight”