Frequently, when I am wading through the complexities of English grammar with my students, I'm struck by the question, "Whose idea was this?" Don't misunderstand. I love this language dearly, so much so that I chose it as my major area of study in college, and I choose to teach it even today. Still, some of its grammatical components seem pretty ridiculous.
For example, yesterday, I was trying to explain to my students the correct usage of apostrophes to show possession. They generally do fine with apostrophes in contractions (and we try to avoid contractions for the most part anyway); possession is the tricky part. And why is it so tricky? Because of a handful of irregular plural nouns. Typically, how do we know where to place the apostrophe in a noun to indicate possession? It depends on whether the noun is singular or plural, right? Yes,
almost always. In singular possessive nouns, the apostrophe goes inside the 's,' and in plural possessive nouns, the apostrophe goes outside:
"The girl's bike" means ONE girl.
"The girls' bikes" means more than one girl.
Simple.
EXCEPT.
There are a handful of nouns that are irregular (and I mean ridiculously irregular) in the way they form their plurals, and they happen to be some of the commonest nouns in the English language: man, woman, child, person.
One man, but two.....
men. One child, but two....
children. One person, but two.....
people.And this is the stupidest one of all: One woman, but two....
women? Whose bright idea was this? We change the pronunciation of the first syllable, but not the spelling. And then we change the spelling of the second syllable, but not the pronunciation. How utterly insane. Can you imagine being a foreign student and trying to figure this one out?
It would be so much easier just to say "two mans, two
womans, two
childs, and two persons." And if I were grammar queen, that's exactly how it would be.
As for possession, because these words (men, women, children, and people) are already plural without an 's', the apostrophe goes
inside the 's' when they become possessive. Sorry! I know it's confusing. My students think so too.
Then there's the issue of pronoun agreement. English, lovely language though it is, does not have a singular pronoun to replace nouns of non-specific gender. Take a sentence such as this:
If a person works hard, ________________ will do well.
How do we fill in the blank? Once upon a time, we were taught to use the pronoun "he" and to understand that it was a universal pronoun that could refer to both males and females. Not anymore. We now recognize that using "he" to refer to all people is inherently sexist because, well, "he" means a male.
So what do we do? It's a tough question, actually. Sadly, and I do mean sadly, folks over the years have begun to use the word "they" to fill in the above blank. I can't really blame them. They need to put something in there, and our language does not give us a word that works. However, "they" is positively and unequivocally incorrect. Why is it incorrect? Pronouns need to agree in number with their antecedents, meaning the nouns they replace. "Person" is singular, and "they" is plural.
One idea is to use both male and female singular pronouns "he or she" or even "he/she" (although that one always sounds a bit violent). And those work okay grammatically but can be obnoxiously annoying when used over and over: "If a person works hard, he or she will do well, and he or she will be happy with his or her life and proud of himself or herself for all his or her hard work." Okay, you get it.
My suggestion? Whenever possible, go plural. Make the antecedent plural: "If people work hard, they will do well." That way, you have a grammatically correct sentence that is also pleasant to read.
How did I get carried away with this rant?
Hmmm. Not sure. I was just discussing these issues with my students, so they were on my mind. English is a lovely language, yes, but it's also challenging. So next time you're feeling unsure about a grammar issue, remember it's okay to ask...
Whose bright idea was this?