Whose blog is this, anyway?

If you enjoy words and word usage, it is your blog! Lori, Guido, and I may be the ones posting, but we share a love of language and have a mutual interest in a continued effort to improve and learn, and have some fun along the way.

My topic today is reflected in the title of this entry: who's vs. whose.

The apostrophe has been the topic here twice before: here and here. It's always worth repeating, because a misplaced apostrophe can change a well-intentioned phrase to nonsense.

Who's is a contraction of who is or who has. An appropriate use would be "Who's got the football?" or "Who's going with me to the football game?"

Whose is the possessive of who, and is used to show...well, possession. "Whose football is this?" or "Whose house are we watching the football game at?" (You could also say "At whose house are we watching the football game?" but that sounds a little stilted.)

As with other contractions, a good way to remember which is correct is to expand the contraction. In the first case, "Who has got the football?" makes sense. In the second case, "Who is football is this?" makes no sense whatsoever.

As for the score...who's counting?

I hate to say "I told you so"

Please note #5.

I'm not exaggerating!

At least not when it comes to the word literally.

I think we all see this word misused often; in the worst misuse, I've heard people say "Literately." [cringe]

The word means actually or without exaggeration. If you use it as merely an intensifier, you are probably misusing it. An example is "I was so angry, I literally saw red." Unless you actually had a crimson pall come across your vision, you didn't "literally" see red. However, if you say, "I was so angry that I burst a blood vessel in my eye; I literally saw red," that would be appropriate.

Make sure that if you use literally, you are presenting an accurate approximation of what really happened or what you really felt, without exaggeration. "Literally" is not meant to be used as a metaphor, but as a true representation of events or feelings.

And so on...and so on...

I tend to use etc. fairly often in my blog entries, but I am going to do my best to get away from it. Etc. is the abbreviation for the Latin et cetera, and is correctly written as two words, rather than one as shown in the picture; the Latin meaning is 'and others' and the English is 'and so on.' It is very easy to tack on an etc. to the end of listed items in a sentence, but my reading tells me that it is not considered "polished," and is sometimes thought to be used by writers who can't think of anything else to add. Ouch! As I thought about my use of it, I think it is probably fairly redundant. If I have a list of three or more items, is it necessary to add an etc.? If I can only think of one example to give, I need to think a little harder, don't I?

I can't say that I'll stop the use of etc. entirely (and I can't write et cetera without hearing Yul Brynner intone it in my head), but I am going to make a conscious effort to be more aware of my usage of the abbreviation, and try to ensure that I do not overuse it.

Caritas

More than a decade ago, I sang a piece by Maurice Duruflé called Ubi Caritas. How do you translate caritas? There's a challenge for you. Charity? Love? Friendship?

First of all, I have to refer to a letter in the Bible, the first from Paul to the Corinthians, chapter 13. Where it says "love", I have reason to believe that this was translated from the word caritas. What is love? Is it the love between man and wife, male and female? That is what we usually understand the word love to mean. Love, however, doesn't just cover the emotion that underpins a marital relationship. There is the love that a parent has towards a child. The love a child has towards its parent. More than that, love also exists outside family relations. There is friendship, a special branch of the tree of love, if you like.

Back to caritas. In some translations of the Bible (and don't start me off on that subject), it is translated as charity. Charity is usually understood to be the free gift of goods or money for the benefit of the less fortunate members of mankind. Particularly here in Stornoway, charity thrives. More than half a dozen charity shops, each working for a different organisation, e.g. the Red Cross, Blythswood, Breast Cancer support. the Lifeboat etc. But where does love come into that equation? The love of fellow man, I suppose. But a degree of doubt if not cynicism is creeping into my mind. Isn't it often the case that people give to charity to assuage their guilty conscience? Yes, I'm a cynic. Although it is a good thing to part with some of your worldly goods for the benefit of others, it is a distant member of the family of love. And often it is a case of seen to be doing good.

Ubi Caritas.
Love is everywhere.

I think it is eminently apt that we can't properly translate the word caritas. For it spans the whole spectrum of human emotion. I'll leave you with a performance I dug out of YouTube.

And That's Why!

This is a mirror post (with one addition) from my main blog Dusty Pages. I figured since it had to do with language, it would make a good post for this blog; but since it's also about kids, I wanted it on my main blog as well. So if you already read it over there, you may want to just skip to the additional info in red.

I love some of the words and phrases that young kids come up with. We hang on to them in this house for just as long as we can because we think they're precious. That's why when Andrew said "ball bearian" instead of "ball bearing" we didn't correct him. And that's why Eler Beth pronounced it that way, too. When Andrew would ask me if I would do him a "favorite" instead of a "favor", I didn't correct that either. For every cute word or phrase they came up with, they would usually correct themselves in time, just from hearing us use the correct word or phrase. I think the "ball bearian" one was the only one that survived to kindergarten for both kids. (And in case you're wondering why a small child would even know what a ball bearing is, Thomas has always had various sizes of steel ball bearings in his possession for one reason or another, and on rainy or cold days, he and the kids used to build these elaborate tracks all through the house or apartment for the bearings to travel upon.)

I recently was going through some boxes and found evidence of one of our favorite Eler-Beth-isms. It's one that Thomas and I still use to this day, although Eler Beth can't remember saying it. From the time she learned to talk until she was about three she would say it. The phrase is "that why."

What I found down in a box on a top shelf of a closet was another smallish cardboard box, holding a few sea shells and some fossils. But apparently at one time it had held "school stuff". I know that it had held "school stuff" because it said so on the box. And since the instruction written on the box was in my own handwriting, and since Eler Beth's signature was in her pre-school handwriting, I know that it dated from before she could write much more than her name, so the "school stuff" would have been things that she considered "school stuff", things that we were working on at home. And from the "that why" that was part of the instruction I know that she couldn't have been much more than three years old when she dictated the instruction.

When Eler Beth said "that why", she meant "because." For example, instead of saying, "I'm ready for lunch because I'm hungry," using the Eler-Beth-ism one would say, "I'm ready for lunch, that why I'm hungry." Or instead of saying "I need to go to the store because I'm out of bread", one would say "I need to go to the store, that why I'm out of bread." And when you think about it, it does make since. At two and three years old, she didn't understand or know (or accept) the word "because" for some reason, but she certainly understood the concept of "because", didn't she? For what else does "because" mean if not "that's why"? Why do my joints creak when I get out of bed in the morning? Because I'm getting old, that's why. Why do I hate buying gas for my car these days? Because the price of gasoline is so high, that's why. We don't use "that why", Thomas and I, all the time, but we do occasionally toss it into our conversations to add a little bit of spice and nostalgia.

And what was the precious message on the box that my little one had dictated to me all those years ago? It was this:

"Nobody don't touch this box, that why it my school stuff!" And it was signed with a very wobbly "ELER".

I wanted to share this story with you, "that why" I knew you'd enjoy it!


Eler Beth at about the age when she would have said "that why". She was posing so prettily here, and then just when I got ready to snap the picture, she scooped up her skirt! What a meanie-mite!

I had to include the picture, that why she's so cute!

(I cropped the picture so that those of you who are concerned that the other one might embarrass my girl can rest easy now. lol)












The etymology of the word "because" is this: From the fourteenth century it has had the meaning of "for the reason that" or "on account of". Quoting The Oxford English Dictionary of English Etymology, in Middle English it was written, "bi cause, i.e. bi BY CAUSE, after OF {Old French}par cause de by reason of."

More on "Alright"

As I commented below this used to really bug me, but then I found myself using it in informal corresponce -- never in professional correspondence! -- quite often. This is a link to an interesting history of the words "all right" and "alright", and there is more out there. When I have time I'll consult my Fowler's and see what it says. Check out this site in the meantime: The Maven's Word of the Day. And in the meantime use the rule "If in doubt, don't", and don't use it if you think the person you're writing to or for is going to hate it! lol See the distinction below:
Quoted from the above site:

While in general, alright can be found in all the senses of all right, in
practice there can be a real semantic distinction between the two, because the
two word form all right can mean 'all correct' or something like that, while
alright can only mean 'good; safe; healthy', etc. when used as an adjective.
(Similar distinctions are found with already and all ready, though these forms
have diverged to the point where they are not interchangable at all.) Thus the
sentence "The Kids Aren't All Right" can mean 'not all the kids are right', or
'some of the kids are wrong', while "The Kids Aren't Alright" can only mean 'the
kids are not OK'. from http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19990604