”If you thought “the thought police” existed only in Orwellian fiction, then you haven’t been following a case in the U.K High Court.  Douglas Murray Miller, a former constable, had posted a few ribald tweets on the subject of transgender self-identification. (Sample: “I was assigned mammal at birth, but my orientation is fish. Don’t mis-species me”.)

“Not long after, he got a visit from a Humberside  police officer warning him that his tweets had been recorded as “a hate incident” and that his social media account would now be monitored. “I’m here to check your thinking,” was how the officer put it, Miller told the court. Miller rightly claims this breached his right to free expression, yet Humberside police still insist they did nothing wrong in assuming the power to decide what can and can’t be said in our society. The scary thing is it’s part of a trend: the police are increasingly invoking the notion of hate crime to stifle debate. Those challenging reigning orthodoxy have always had to brave the wrath of the rabidly orthodox. Now they also have to contend with the police at their door.” (Douglas Murray,  Daily Telegraph).

My comment:  I read Mr. Miller’s message as a tongue-in-cheek joke, albeit not at all funny to some.  One of the characteristics of the modern era is the self- importance and lack of sense of humour of so many people in positions of authority.  Yes, it’s fair enough for those who feel, for instance, that they are women trapped in a man’s body to be asked to be treated with respect.  But now we have a veritable minefield of gender identification in schools and universities (she, her, hers; he, him his to name two), and society has to get used to it .  It takes time.  We need lightness of touch.  The way to deal with those who can’t see the point is to gently educate them and persuade them, not to accuse them of spewing “hate”.  This is an over-reaction that arguably begs a conservative comment from a very conservative publication.

Moderation, please, the Epicurean way.

Europe has acquired a noxious American habit : the Sports Utility Vehicle. A third of new cars sold in Europe are now SUVs. The parents of school kids in my street in east London all seem to have a Nissan Qashqai or BMW X5 parked outside their house. Once, when small cars filled our roads, we Europeans enjoyed a sense of ethical superiority over Americans, with their heavy postwar gas guzzlers. Indeed, in the mid-1970s they decided to copy us and downsize.

But with the dawn of the SUV, US cars piled on the pounds again, and in two decades CO2 emissions from US vehicles rose by 11%. Now the same is occurring here: thanks to the SUV, average vehicle CO2 emissions in Europe rose by 2% last year. Indeed, the International Energy Agency says the world’s 200 million SUVs (China has gone big on them too) are among the largest contributors to a rise in global emissions. With their high seats and greater sense of security, it’s easy to see the lure of SUVs. Carmakers love them too: they sell at wider margins than small cars. But for the planet’s sake, they are a habit we must shake.  (John Gapper,  Financial Times. & The Week, 15 Nov 2019)

My comment:  I live in a spot where parking can be difficult.  Visitors arrive here,  stay sometimes all day in a 2 hour parking zone  and are seldom fined for over- staying their allotted time.  We therefore have one of the smaller  cars ( a Honda FIT) available.  I wish I could say that we were thinking of the environment when we bought it; alas, we were thinking of the parking and the tiny spaces left to us.  I feel a bit better about it because my wife and I walk everywhere possible, and that’s partly for fear of losing a parking spot.  Silly, one’s priorities, aren’t they?

 

We may think we’ll be here forever – but Robert Harris reckons our civilisation is probably doomed. “The Roman Republic, Cicero, those people were just as clever,” says the novelist, 62. “The things that their society produced – its oratory, its philosophy, its painting – were as sophisticated as anything we do. But still the system collapsed… Mayan civilisation collapsed in about nine years, and nobody knows why. The same could happen to us.”

Our problem today, he told Tim Shipman in The Sunday Times, is that we have been overtaken by technology. “My father could strip down a car engine and put it back together again. He wasn’t an engineer, he was a printer, but he could do that… There are huge areas of the modern world that none of us know how they work, and if the plug was to be pulled, we would be quite incapable.” And when we go, the sadness is that there won’t even be any great ruins to commemorate our civilisation – because our buildings aren’t designed to last. “We have reached a peak of civilisation, yet paradoxically we will leave nothing behind us except plastic dross: iPhone casings, plastic bags, nappies, cotton buds. That will be our memorial.” The Week,  14 September 2019).

If you have never read a Robert Harris novel you have missed a treat.  He is a wonderful and creative writer.  The above comment is the theme in his latest novel, “The Second Sleep”, where the action takes place many years after the collapse of our fragile “civilization” in an apocalyptic event.  (I gave the book to my wife for Christmas, haven’t read it yet, but know what his theme is).

John Richards, who is 96 and founded the Apostrophe Protection Society in 2001, is now terminating the Society.  He is quoted as saying, “Fewer organisations and  individuals are now caring about the correct use of the apostrophe in the English language”.  So I thought a brief run- down on the rules would be a good idea.  We should be on top of our language.

It’s vs. Its

“it’s”:  should be used as a contraction of “it is”, while its is only used to show possession.

      –    It’s (it is) your responsibility to be a grammar queen.

       –   If you can say “it is” in its place, then you DO need the apostrophe. If its is showing something has possession or ownership of something, then you do NOT need an apostrophe.

       –   The dog was chewing its bone. (possessive because the bone is in the possession of the dog.)

Who’s vs. Whose

    .  Who’s (who is) going to love me if I can’t get my apostrophes right?

• Whose apostrophe is this?

If you can use “who is” instead of who’s in the sentence the apostrophe stays. If there’s an E on the end of “whose” do NOT use an apostrophe.

Your vs. you’re

Just in case we didn’t drive the contraction thing home yet, let’s look at one more common error that makes every editor, professor, and book aficionado cringe.

• Your apostrophe usage is spectacular.
• You’re (you are) not demonstrating a spectacular handle on comma usage.

If you can say “you are” in its place, then keep the apostrophe hanging. If it is showing possession (your dog, your usage), you do NOT want to use an apostrophe.

There vs. Their vs. They’re

Remembering that apostrophes mainly like to hang out with contractions, there’s only one time an apostrophe enters into the ”there, their, they’re” family of homophones:

• There is an apostrophe in the contraction “they’re.”
• They’re (they are) not playing well with apostrophes.
• Their apostrophe usage is not their strongest point.

If you’re talking about something in a certain place (there) or something that belongs to people (their) you do NOT need to use an apostrophe.

1930s vs. 1930’s vs. ’30s

Is it a contraction? Is it indicating something missing? Is it showing possession? 

• You could say that 1930’s music and dance scene set the stage for many great composers. (Possession)
• The ’30s were great years for jazz and swing music. (Omission)
• The 1930s were a great time for music and dance. (Plural)

In this case, the only time you would NOT use an apostrophe is when the date is plural.

Plural

Store signs have been notorious over the years for grammar errors. What’s wrong with these signs?

Bob’s Cheesesteak’s and Cubano’s

Smith’s Greengrocer’s: The Best in Town

If it’s a contraction or a possession, only then are apostrophes on the guest list. So, the signs above should read:

Bob’s Cheesesteaks and Cubanos

Smith’s Greengrocers: The Best in Town

If, however, a plural noun needs to show possession, then it’s time for the apostrophe to Be included.  An apostrophe showing the possessive on a plural needs to go after the S that is making the word plural. So it would be acceptable to say:

Bob’s secret is in his cheesesteaks’ sauce.

Or, it could reference a singular cheesesteak and say:

Bob’s secret is in his cheesesteak’s sauce.

The point is: no possession, no apostrophe.

So, there are only two occasions when you have to use apostrophes: contractions and noun possessions.