Lexical Vexations

Lee requested this classic lexical vexation, one that trips up the best of us from time to time. Thanks, Lee!

their adj. the possessive form of the pronoun they.

there 1. adv. a word used to designate a location that is at a distance, near or far, from the one using the word. 2. pronoun used to introduce the existence of something (ex. There is truth in what she says).

they’re a contraction of the words they and are .

Words in the Wild: They’re going to their cabin in the woods this weekend, and they’re hoping their nosy neighbours won’t be there.

This trio of homophones is just as vexing as the tricky its vs. it’s. You’ve probably noticed that we don’t need to constantly stop people in conversation to ask which of the above spellings they just spoke. That’s because the rest of their words give us all the clues we need to know which meaning was intended. So when we switch to the written word, it’s easy for a writer to choose the wrong one of these spellings. Even a seasoned grammarian who knows these spellings inside and out will mix these words up from time to time. And that’s okay…catching these sorts of oversights is exactly what proofreading is for, after all.

In writing as in speaking, we don’t really need the correct spelling of these words to make sense of what people have written. It’s only tradition and habit that require these different spellings at all. But now that we’ve grown used to the visual distinction between these words, it can confuse us when it’s gone. When a writer chooses the wrong spelling, it can, at least briefly, send readers down the garden path before they find their way to the intended meaning. Try to quickly read these incorrect uses of their, there, and they’re to see if you notice the extra work they require:

✗ It was their that I found the lost kitten.

✗ There’s is the brown sedan.

✗ There at odds with they’re upstairs neighbours these days.

It makes reading a lot easier on readers when we spell these words correctly (and we lose fewer points on grammar tests, too), so I hope this blog post helps your choose your theres, theirs, and they’res wisely.

Still vexed? You can find a complete list of the Word Blog’s lexical vexations here.

Vest-Pocket Vocabulary

Via’tic, a. relating to travelling.

Freedom to Read Week is a yearly event that encourages Canadians to think about and reaffirm their commitment to intellectual freedom. As Canadians our right to intellectual freedom is guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but even in Canada these rights sometimes come under fire.

You can get involved by attending an event in your community and learning more about the freedom of expression we often take for granted here. I’ll be attending a free talk this Saturday at Ryerson University in Toronto.

PEN Canada, Amnesty International, and Ryerson University are hosting a discussion with Zarganar, a Burmese comedian and satirist, who is also a former prisoner of conscience and One Humanity Award winner. The event is free to all. You can find out more about the where and when of it here.

Freedom to Read Week is organized by the Freedom of Expression Committee of the Book and Periodical Council.

Vest-Pocket Vocabulary

Ubica’tion, n. relation as to place; whereness

Lexical Vexations

I don’t know how I’ve missed the grandaddy of  lexical vexations for so long, so thank you, Susan, for requesting this post.

its the possessive form of the pronoun it.

it’s a contraction of the words it and is or it and has.

Words in the Wild: It’s my intention to see to it that every one of those toys ends up back in its place.

This vexation is a classic case of mistaken identity, and if you’re prone to mixing these two words up, you’re in fine company. I’d wager that everyone who’s ever written in English has made this mistake at some point, if not often.

There are 3 facts that conspire to confuse us:

1. these words sound identical,
2. we seldom if ever need the apostophe to tell us which meaning is intended, and
3. current grammar rules suggest that both of these words ought to have the apostrophe.

Yes, both words cry out for an apostrophe, but only one gets to have it. English language rules say that you should add an apostrophe to make up for missing letters in a contraction. So by that logic it + is should equal it’s, right?

And the rule for creating possessives says that adding ’s to a word makes it possessive, and by that logic the object belonging to it should be it’s object, right?

But somewhere along the way it was decided that their weren’t enough apostrophes lying around for the both of them. One would have to do without. And the loser was…the possessive its. (Seems kind of odd that the possessive lost possession, doesn’t it?)

If  you’re checking your work or someone else’s, and you want to be sure you’ve got these right, try saying “it is” or “it has” every time you see either one of these words. If “it is” works, toss in that apostrophe; if it doesn’t work, leave it out.

Those of you in academia are in luck—since contractions are frowned upon in scholarly writing, you shouldn’t see any it’ses at all. Except—yes there’s always got to be an exception, right?—when you’re directly quoting someone who has written it’s.

Now that you’ve mastered these pesky words, I’m sure you want to know some more about the apostrophe’s spotted history. For an illuminating article on the apostrophe’s origins and its dubious helpfulness, head on over to Sesquiotica.

Still vexed? You can find a complete list of the Word Blog’s lexical vexations here.

Here are some dancing books courtesy of Type Books. Enjoy!

Vest-Pocket Vocabulary

Threnet’ic, a. complaining; expressing sorrow.

Today I went to one of the many readings at this year’s International Festival of Authors to see Ken Babstock, Peter Behrens, Frances Itani, and Nicole Lundrigan read from their new works. All of the writers selected compelling, tantalizing portions of their work to share with us. With the exception of Frances Itani’s Requiem, which I’d already read, I couldn’t help but want to read more of each work to find out what came before the bit I heard and what happens next.I wasn’t alone either—as one author was drawing to the close of one of her passages, an audience member called out, “Don’t stop. Keep going.”

Good readings do that. They whet your appetite for more. I particularly like events featuring more than one author. It’s usually one author who draws me in, but then I learn about other new (to me) voices that I’ve got to read next.

And since I’ve been thinking about readings today, I thought I’d put together an author-readings roundup for you.

• Rebecca Rosenblum puts us at our ease in her blog post Readings: a user’s guide.
• Deborah M. Prum tells writers How to Give a Good Reading Despite Your Myriad Neuroses.
• Karin A. Bilich asks Are Author Readings/Signings Worth It Any More?
• In the Globe and Mail, Douglas Bell laments: The season of readings is upon us. Let the misery begin.
• And in the National Post, Iain Reid tells us Why there’s still a place in the world for literary readings.

What are your thoughts on readings? Have you been to one? Liked it? Slept? Called out for encores? Share your thoughts on author readings in the comments.