The Rauch Motel

You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave

Archive for

Archive for March 2007

Mar 30, 2007

Ask the Grammar Geek 2

Today’s question comes from Kis, who says:

when using the possessive of names that end in S, is it Alexis’ dog, or Alexis’s?. Because I’ve seen both.

Well, the fact of the matter is, it depends. :) I went to three style guides for this question, because while personally, I prefer the clean lines of just the apostrophe without the extra ‘s’, there is much controversy over this issue.

The Canadian Press stylebook, which is based on the American Press stylebook says:

plural nouns ending in s take an apostrophe alone … singular nouns and names ending in s (or an s sound) normally take an ‘s … but names ending with an -iz sound and classical names often take only an apostrophe … [whereas] names ending in a silent s or x take and apostrophe and s

Heh, confused yet? Let’s look at Essentials of English:

The possessive case of nouns is formed by adding an apostrophe and an s to words which do not end with an s or a z sound: the boy’s room, the children’s school; and by adding only the apostrophe to words which do end with an s or a z sound: the boys’ room, Dickens’ novel. If however, the word ending in s or z is a proper name with only one syllable, an apostrophe and an s are added to the word: Keats’s sonnets, Santa Claus’s reindeer.

And that in some ways contradicts the first one, doesn’t it? Ok, let’s go to Chicago Manual of Style, which is one of the more popular style guides. What’s really interesting, is CMOS uses the Dickens example, only the exact opposite… as it basically says with the exception of a few classical examples (Jesus’, Moses’, Euripides’), always add an apostrophe and an s.

That being said, section 6.30 says this:

How to form the possessive of polysyllabic personal names ending with the sound of s or z probably occassions more dissension among writers and editors than any other orthographic mattter open to disagreement.

So bottom line, two of the guides say it would be Alexis’s and one says Alexis’. So which should you use? As I said, it depends. Most importantly, I think, is to stay consistent. Pick one and stick with it throughout your work. You’ll also find that most publishers – book, magazine, website, etc. have one preferred style guide and will conform completely to that style, so where you may have picked Alexis’, your editor may choose to go with a different style guide, and change them all to Alexis’s.

Hope that helps! :)

6 Comments  •  Posted in Ask the Grammar Geek, Grammar

Mar 29, 2007

So here's the thing…

Some of you may know I have an alter ego. A romance writing alter ego. Some of you may even know who that is. Most of you don’t. I’ve been sort of secretive about it… for a couple of reasons. Mostly, I think, I want her writing success to be on her own merits… good and bad. And part of it is that even though I’m 34 years old, I’m still not able to tell my family that hey, I write about sex. ;)

But really, I don’t want any of my actions as Laurie the editor to affect people’s opinions of not-Laurie the writer. And, I guess vice versa.

The thing is, as Laurie the editor and not-Laurie the writer, I tend to hang out in many of the same places… Let’s face it, the romance community is pretty small, and the cool resources are limited. And I have gotten many a giggle at people who’ve wondered at who not-Laurie is, and then have links both here and to my writer site on their blogs, not realizing that it’s me. :D

But, the more time passes, the more guilty I feel that I’m somehow deceiving people by being both Laurie and not-Laurie. And while that isn’t really my intention, I don’t want to think that sentiments not-Laurie expresses are any less genuine than if I said them under my own name…

So, what do you think? Am I being my overly sensitive self? Or do the rest of you really couldn’t care less if I’m both Laurie and not-Laurie?

7 Comments  •  Posted in Editing, Writing

Mar 23, 2007

Ask the Grammar Geek

Ugh, I’m a little behind after things in my world got turned on their heads yesterday, so I’m still reeling from some news that has much good and much bad all at once… I’ve given myself ’til Monday to wallow and then I have to put new plans and goals in place.

But, ta-dah, as promised, my first edition of Ask the Grammar Geek:

This question came a few weeks ago in the comments and I never got the chance to answer it, so here goes:

Hey, Grammar Geek – I need help! Forgive me for butting into an entry that really has nothing to do with grammar, but your grammar entries are pretty old.

Ok, my question – I need to be absolutely sure about this, so I need total justification.

Should it be:

May your life be as a song, resounding with the dawn, to sing away the light…

or

May your life be like a song… etc etc.

Purely from a grammar standpoint, wouldn’t “like” be correct, since it’s used as a preposition as opposed to a conjunction?

From a purely auditory sense, like just sounds more right. Both as and like are used in similes, and can both be used as prepositions, according to Meriam Websters dictionary, so technically, both are grammatically correct. But, when it comes down to it, I think the flow and sound of your sentence should win out. If it were me, I’d go with like.

Hope that helps! :)

2 Comments  •  Posted in Ask the Grammar Geek, Grammar

Mar 15, 2007

Hey, is that, are you…

We’ve been recognized!!

Samhain Publishing just got added to the list of RWA-recognized publishers.

Woohoo!! :)

1 Comment  •  Posted in Editing, News

Mar 15, 2007

You know you want to

So, despite my encouraging people to break the rules this week, as the blog says, I really am an anal, control-freak perfectionist. Especially when it comes to good grammar.

I think T’s still bitter at me when we tried to watch The Sum of All Fears, and I kept stopping the DVD to point out how badly worded the opening captions were. And they were awful. The grammar there was so bad, the meaning completely changed. But since T was in for a good spy flick, not a grammar lesson, well… :) (And between my obsessive language rants and T’s pedantic history lessons, our kids are gonna haaaate us one day. hee.)

But anyway, one of the things I notice the most about my stats is that a lot of people find me here with searches “ask grammar” or “grammar rules”. So, who’m I to argue with my stats? Starting tomorrow next week (le sigh), and hopefully weekly, Fridays will be Ask the Grammar Geek day. Got a burning grammar question? Need help? I’m here for you.

You can leave your questions in the comments or email them to me at editorlaurie [at] gmail [dot] com.

3 Comments  •  Posted in Editing, Grammar

Mar 14, 2007

Ok, this is getting a little worrisome…


Your Life Path Number is 11


Your purpose in life is to inspire others

Your amazing energy draws people to you, and you give them great insight in return.
You hold a great amount of power over others, without even trying.
You have the makings of an inventor, artist, religious leader, or prophet.

In love, you are sensitive and passionate. You connect with your partner on a very deep level.

You have great abilities, but you are often way too critical of yourself.
You don’t fit in – and instead of celebrating your differences, you dwell on them.
You have high expectations of yourself. But sometimes you set them too high and don’t achieve anything.

This is the second one of these blog-thingies that I’ve done that has mentioned I need to start some kind of religious cult… Um, I’m not religious. At. All. Never have been, never will be. Unless this cult is the Church of Good Grammar. That I can get behind.

(And I’m gonna pretend that last sentence about my high expectations isn’t there. Curse you blog-thingie for knowing me so darn well.)

Leave a Comment  •  Posted in Stuff

Mar 12, 2007

Come visit me!

I’m blogging over at the Samhain blog today…

Leave a Comment  •  Posted in Editing

Mar 06, 2007

Oh, wait. Maybe that wasn't a good idea…

With all the editing I’ve been doing lately, I find my writing self poking me in the back more and more frequently, letting me know that I am ignoring that part of me and it is *not* happy.

I’ve also found that I’ve really been missing having real life people to talk to about romance novels, rather than just online IM people, so I’ve also been toying with joining back up with my local RWA chapter, in hopes that it would not only give me human contact, but also help inspire my writerly side…

So, today, I signed writer me back up. Even scarier, the first meeting, this Saturday, is a critique session, meaning I have to actually bring something written to be critiqued. Erm. Saturday is only three days away and the scene I had in mind is only partially written. Yikes!

Now I just need to decide what I’m going to do about revealing my secret identity. It’s bound to come out sooner or later, I just haven’t decided if I want that to be sooner rather than later (or never…) Oh yeah, and finish that damn scene…

4 Comments  •  Posted in Writing

Mar 03, 2007

Writing too evocatively?

The coolest part of working in a giant variety of areas is that I’m always reading something new. On any given day, I get to learn how to install a VoIP phone, see what’s happening in the world, and get lost in a fantasy.

The problem with that, however, is my brain doesn’t always separate one thing from another. I’ve always said writing is writing is writing, and, as an extension of that, editing is editing is editing. So, when I work, whether I’m writing or I’m editing, I’m looking at creating evocative language, making sure words flow together and that they’re grammatically correct and not so much worrying about the content.

But every once in a while, the content from one tends to creep into the other, with not so great results, And while I’m sure my authors will forgive me when the superstrict rules of the telecommunications world creep into the romance editing – Yes, you’re allowed to use allow, enable, may, might, could, should, and would :) – sometimes the romance stuff tends to affect my other work a little too much.

The evocative writing, however, tends not to work so well. Well, I guess it’s how you look at it. Headlines with blood and guts and sex tend to drive a lot of clicks from users, but it makes the bosses not so happy. *wink* But it’s really funny how editing the kinds of fiction I do has affected what I think is risque and what isn’t.

For example, last week, I wrote a package that featured a Rick Mercer clip making fun of Torontonians and their reaction to snow. (And quite frankly, after Thursday and a Six.Hour.Drive.Home (!!!!), they darn well deserve it) Now, while I thought it was the funniest thing ever, I was a little hesitant that some people may be a little insulted. Let’s face it, Toronto as a whole has a bit of a God complex. The thing is, the same day? I was perfectly okay putting up a video about protests over seal clubbing, complete with naked women draped with fake blood (er, at least I hope it was fake blood). I know. Wierd, right? I blame Rene‘s vampires and Roxy‘s BDSM menages. *grin*

I know in the long run when I do find the time to start writing fiction again, it’ll make my writing that much better, but for now, well, the news has to stay the news. But seriously, how much better would a user manual for an IP server be if I added a little romance to it?

Leave a Comment  •  Posted in Writing