GrammarBlog

Last week I asked a question: how should those silly folks in the Apprentice have punctuated their card? National Single's Day, National Singles' Day or National Singles Day?

We had quite a few responses in line with my first reaction, such as this one from Andrew.

Singles', because it's both possessive and plural. I don't see why this is hard!

So it's easy. Or is it? I remembered some confusion similar to this during the writers strike (note the lack of apostrophe). I did see one paper refer to it as the "writers' strike" but most took the view that the act was a strike and the word "writers" described who was striking. We all know that a word describing a noun is an adjective and adjectives are not possessive. No apostrophe.

Grammar Girl (whose website is now my primary reference for a sensible and informed opinion on all grammar matters) has this to say.

I believe it's pretty clear that the writers don't own the strike, and that the word writers is there to tell us more about what kind of strike it is. So I'd leave out the apostrophe.

On the other hand, I'd include the apostrophe in homeowners' association, at least when the homeowners actually own or control the association that manages their property.

So the question is, does the day belong to the singles or not?

My view is that National Singles Day is a day to celebrate singles, such as Pancake Day is a day to celebrate the pancake.  So no apostrophe is required.

There are many examples of possessed days; These are usually singular: Valentine's day, St. George's day, Mother's day (contentious I know, but you've only got one Mum). There are also examples, as pointed out by Binary Tales, of plurals owning a day. These include National Parks' Week World Teachers' Day and International Women's Day.

The point here is that the contestants in the apprentice were inventing a new occasion. So they can call it what they choose; National Singles' Day is acceptable. However I prefer National Singles Day, especially in the context of a greetings card, for both logical and aesthetic reasons.

Labels: apostrophe, debate, punctuation

I've just had an MSN conversation with fellow GrammarBlogger Tom and I feel like sharing.

Tom: in this context, would you put 'yes' and 'no' in quotation marks:
Tom: It's a simple question and usually can be answered with a yes or no.
Gez: maybe
Gez: yes
Tom: right - Paul and Mike both concur here
Gez: that's ok. if it offends you stylistically, I don't think there is a problem leaving them out
Tom: hmm
Tom: that's a good point
Tom: I suppose it's essentially treating 'yes' and 'no' as nouns
Gez: says: no, you are quoting
Gez: says: eg say, "yes, Paul"
Gez: says: There is a case for it as they are not part of the sentence in that context. But don't lose sleep over it if you don't want them in.
Tom says: I think it's a fairly unique usage : the idea of a yes and a no as nouns - I don't think it works for other words
Tom: I'm going to leave them out
Gez: I works when ever you talk about words.
Gez: Pronounce the T in waiting
Tom: I disagree - in this instance I think 'yes' is a synonym for a nod
Gez: Tom puts the 'wit' in 'fuckwit'. Andy provides the 'fuck'.
Tom: yeah - but I think you need the speech marks there
Tom: you're clearly talking about the words themselves
Gez: really? same argument different case
Tom: rather than the concept of a yes
Gez: anyway
Tom: anyway

Labels: debate, punctuation, quotation marks