The Plural Possessive Refresher We All Need, Even Though No One Wants It

...And Just in Time for Christmas Cards!


I bring you the following Public Service Announcement, from your friendly grammar-girl editing professional. This is just in time for Christmas cards, in case you want to have them grammatically correct.

(If you know what's correct, and you choose to knowingly do it wrong because "you don't care if it's wrong because you think it looks better that way"—you know who you are!—then this post is not for you. Carry on.)

However, if you really do want to have it right, but grammar was never your big thing, here you go. (I really am a Grammar Geek. I have always loved it. Weird, I know, but true!)

See below for all the helpful grammar rules. With examples. And maybe even your last name—or one similar to it—so you can get it right if you want to. 

And this is all you're going to get. Because, after all, this:

Plurals and Possessives of Names
If you have a straightforward name that doesn't end in any problematic letters, things are pretty straightforward:

* Lucy Clark

* Lucy Clark's book

* Lucy's book

* the Clark family

* eat with the Clarks

* eat at the Clarks' home (because it belongs to all of them)

* Love, the Clarks (not Love, the Clark's)

The main "rule" to remember is that you never, never, never form a plural with an apostrophe. Just don't. (Yes, those of you "in-the-know" grammar types realize that this statement is not technically 100% true, because you do make the plural of a single letter using an apostrophe, but that is rare, so for now, just remember that all ordinary plurals—including your family names—do not use an apostrophe. Ever.)

If you happen to have one of those names that ends in a letter or letter combination that requires creating an interesting plural before adding possession, you have some special things to learn regarding your name.

PLEASE NOTE: Microsoft Word does not get this right. It can't read your mind, and it doesn't know how many people you mean. If you have auto-correct on, it will often change your word to something wrong even if you typed it right. It does not necessarily know more than you do.  It is not always right! Just be careful and check your "think-it-knows-better-than-you" auto-correct function—don't just accept it as right because Microsoft Word said so!

These are the correct forms for your "exceptional" name:

* Chris Sanchez

* Chris Sanchez's book

* Chris's book (NOT Chris' book)

* the Sanchez family

* eat with the Sanchezes

* eat at the Sanchezes' home (NOT the Sanchez's home)

* eat at the Sanchez home (my personal preference with these kinds of names and spellings, since it is seemingly less strange)

* Love, the Sanchezes (NOT Love, the Sanchez's) or Love, the Sanchez family (less awkward)

This is true for other names, as well:

Esther Cavendish

Esther Cavendish's book

Esther's book

the Cavendish family

eat with the Cavendishes

eat at the Cavendishes' home (NOT the Cavendish's home)

eat at the Cavendish home

Love, the Cavendishes (NOT Love, the Cavendish's)

Patsy Fahs

Patsy Fahs's book (NOT Patsy Fahs' book)

Patsy's book

the Fahs family

eat with the Fahses

eat at the Fahses' home (NOT the Fahs's home)

eat at the Fahs home 

Love, the Fahses (NOT Love, the Fahs' or Love, the Fahs's)

Rita Cox

Rita Cox's book

Rita's book

the Cox family

eat with the Coxes

eat at the Coxes' home (NOT the Cox's home)

eat at the Cox home

Love, the Coxes (NOT Love, the Cox's)

Mike Church

Mike Church's book

Mike's book

the Church family

eat with the Churches

eat at the Churches' home (NOT the Church's home)

eat at the Church home

Love, the Churches (NOT Love, the Church's)

David Monteaux

David Monteaux's book

David's book

the Monteaux family

eat with the Monteauxs 

eat at the Monteauxs' home (NOT the Monteaux's home)

eat at the Monteaux home

(Note that this is "wrong" in French, because the name is Monteau, and Monteaux is the correct plural. But often, during Americanization, French family names keep the -eaux form, thereby "messing up" the plurals and plural possessives forever!)

Love, the Monteauxs (NOT Love, the Monteaux's)

Mike Teixeira

Mike Teixeira's book

Mike's book

the Teixeira family

eat with the Teixeiras (NOT the Teixeira's)

eat at the Teixeiras' home

eat at the Teixeira home

Love, the Teixeiras (NOT Love, the Teixeira's)

Rose Williams

Rose Williams's book (NOT Rose Williams' book)

Rose's book

the Williams family

eat with the Williamses (NOT the Williams's)

eat at the Williamses' home (NOT the William's home or the Williams's home)

eat at the Williams home

Love, the Williamses (NOT Love, the Williams's)

Heather Jones

Heather Jones's book (NOT Heather Jones' book)

Heather's book

the Jones family

eat with the Joneses (NOT the Jones's)

eat at the Joneses' home (NOT the Jones's)

eat at the Jones home

Love, the Joneses (NOT Love, the Jones's)

EXCEPTION: Ancient Classical names have a special exception to these rules. So, though it is correctly written Davis's message, it would be Moses' message, Jesus' sermon, or Socrates' teachings. Maybe someday Davis will be ancient and famous enough for us to refer to Davis' message, but for now, it's just wrong.

So, there you have it. Do with it what you will...

And also, to balance things out, here's a great article: "How to Quit Being a Grammar Snob." I'm not quite there yet, but I'm 100% better because of the author, my friend Brian Wasko, and his influence over the past several years. Thank you, Brian. (And yes, I'm still working on it. Especially this time of year!)

That Crazy English Language!

We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes,

But the plural of ox becomes oxen, not oxes.

One fowl is a goose, but two are called geese,

Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.

You may find a lone mouse or a nest full of mice,

Yet the plural of house is houses, not hice.

If the plural of man is always called men,

Why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?

If I speak of my foot and show you my feet,

And I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?

If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,

Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?

Then one may be that, and three would be those,

Yet hat in the plural would never be hose,

And the plural of cat is cats, not cose.

We speak of a brother and also of brethren,

But though we say mother, we never say methren.

Then the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,

But imagine the feminine: she, shis, and shim!

Let's face it--English is a crazy language.

There is no egg in eggplant nor ham in hamburger;

Neither apple nor pine in pineapple.

English muffins weren't invented in England .

We take English for granted, but if we explore its paradoxes,

We find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square,

And a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.

And why is it that writers write, but fingers don't fing,

Grocers don't groce, and hammers don't ham?

Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend?

If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them,

What do you call it?

If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?

If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?

In what other language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?

We ship by truck but send cargo by ship...

We have noses that run and feet that smell.

We park on a driveway and drive on a parkway.

And how can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same,

While a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?

You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language

In which your house can burn up as it burns down,

In which you fill in a form by filling it out,

And in which an alarm goes off by going on.

As I consider all these irregularities and many more, I'm very thankful that English was the first language I learned, naturally, so that all the "rule-breakers" didn't trip me up!

100 Most Often Misspelled Words in English

100 Most Often Mispelled Misspelled Words in English

Here are the 100 words most commonly misspelled ('misspell' is one of them). Dr. Language has provided a one-stop cure for all your spelling ills. Each word has a mnemonic pill with it and, if you swallow it, it will help you to remember how to spell the word. Master the orthography of the words on this page and reduce the time you spend searching dictionaries by 50%. (Use the time you save celebrating in our gameroom.)

A

• acceptable - Several words made the list because of the suffix pronounced -êbl but sometimes spelled -ible, sometimes -able. Just remember to accept any table offered to you and you will spell this word OK.
• accidentally - It is no accident that the test for adverbs on -ly is whether they come from an adjective on -al ("accidental" in this case). If so, the -al has to be in the spelling. No publical, then publicly.
• accommodate - Remember, this word is large enough to accommodate both a double "c" AND a double "m."
• acquire - Try to acquire the knowledge that this word and the next began with the prefix ad- but the [d] converts to [c] before [q].
• acquit - See the previous discussion.
• a lot - Two words! Hopefully, you won't have to allot a lot of time to this problem.
• amateur - Amateurs need not be mature: this word ends on the French suffix -eur (the equivalent of English -er).
• apparent - A parent need not be apparent but "apparent" must pay the rent, so remember this word always has the rent.
• argument - Let's not argue about the loss of this verb's silent [e] before the suffix -ment.
• atheist - Lord help you remember that this word comprises the prefix a- "not" + the "god" (also in the-ology) + -ist "one who believes."

B

• believe - You must believe that [i] usually comes before [e] except after [c] or when it is pronounced like "a" as "neighbor" and "weigh" or "e" as in "their" and "heir." Also take a look at "foreign" below. (The "i-before-e" rule has more exceptions than words it applies to.)
• bellwether - Often misspelled "bellweather." A wether is a gelded ram, chosen to lead the herd (thus his bell) due to the greater likelihood that he will remain at all times ahead of the ewes.

C

• calendar - This word has an [e] between two [a]s. The last vowel is [a].
• category - This word is not in a category with "catastrophe" even if it sounds like it: the middle letter is [e].
• cemetery - Don't let this one bury you: it ends on -ery nary an -ary in it. You already know it starts on [c], of course.
• changeable - The verb "change" keeps its [e] here to indicate that the [g] is soft, not hard. (That is also why "judgement" is the correct spelling of this word, no matter what anyone says.)
• collectible - Another -ible word. You just have to remember.
• column - Silent final [e] is commonplace in English but a silent final [n] is not uncommon, especially after [m].
• committed - If you are committed to correct spelling, you will remember that this word doubles its final [t] from "commit" to "committed."
• conscience - Don't let misspelling this word weigh on your conscience: [ch] spelled "sc" is unusual but legitimate.
• conscientious - Work on your spelling conscientiously and remember this word with [ch] spelled two different ways: "sc" and "ti." English spelling!
• conscious - Try to be conscious of the "sc" [ch] sound and all the vowels in this word's ending and i-o-u a note of congratulations.
• consensus - The census does not require a consensus, since they are not related.

D

• daiquiri - Don't make yourself another daiquiri until you learn how to spell this funny word-the name of a Cuban village.
• definite (ly) - This word definitely sounds as though it ends only on -it, but it carries a silent "e" everywhere it goes.
• discipline - A little discipline, spelled with the [s] and the [c] will get you to the correct spelling of this one.
• drunkenness - You would be surprised how many sober people omit one of the [n]s in this one.
• dumbbell - Even smart people forget one of the [b]s in this one. (So be careful who you call one when you write.)

E

• embarrass (ment) - This one won't embarrass you if you remember it is large enough for a double [r] AND a double [s].
• equipment - This word is misspelled "equiptment" 22,932 times on the web right now.
• exhilarate - Remembering that [h] when you spell this word will lift your spirits and if you remember both [a]s, it will be exhilarating!
• exceed - Remember that this one is -ceed, not -cede. (To exceed all expectations, master the spellings of this word, "precede" and "supersede" below.)
• existence - No word like this one spelled with an [a] is in existence. This word is a menage a quatre of one [i] with three [e]s.
• experience - Don't experience the same problem many have with "existence" above in this word: -ence!

F

• fiery - The silent "e" on "fire" is also cowardly: it retreats inside the word rather than face the suffix -y.
• foreign - Here is one of several words that violate the i-before-e rule. (See "believe" above.)

G

• gauge - You must learn to gauge the positioning of the [a] and [u] in this word. Remember, they are in alphabetical order (though not the [e]).
• grateful - You should be grateful to know that keeping "great" out of "grateful" is great.
• guarantee - This word is not spelled like "warranty" even though they are synonyms.

H

• harass - This word is too small for two double letters but don't let it harass you, just keep the [r]s down to one.
• height - English reaches the height (not heighth!) of absurdity when it spells "height" and "width" so differently.
• hierarchy - The i-before-e rule works here, so what is the problem?
• humorous - Humor us and spell this word "humorous": the [r] is so weak, it needs an [o] on both sides to hold it up.

I

• ignorance - Don't show your ignorance by spelling this word -ence!
• immediate - The immediate thing to remember is that this word has a prefix, in- "not" which becomes [m] before [m] (or [b] or [p]). "Not mediate" means direct which is why "immediately" means "directly."
• independent - Please be independent but not in your spelling of this word. It ends on -ent.
• indispensable - Knowing that this word ends on -able is indispensable to good writing.
• inoculate - This one sounds like a shot in the eye. One [n] the eye is enough.
• intelligence - Using two [l]s in this word and ending it on -ence rather than -ance are marks of . . . you guessed it.
• its/it's - The apostrophe marks a contraction of "it is." Something that belongs to it is "its."

J

• jewelry - Sure, sure, it is made by a jeweler but the last [e] in this case flees the scene like a jewel thief. However, if you prefer British spelling, remember to double the [l]: "jeweller," "jewellery." 
• judgment - Traditionally, the word has been spelled judgment in all forms of the English language. However, the spelling judgement (with e added) largely replaced judgment in the United Kingdom in a non-legal context. In the context of the law, however, judgment is preferred. This spelling change contrasts with other similar spelling changes made in American English, which were rejected in the UK. In the US at least, judgment is still preferred and judgement is considered incorrect by many American style guides.

K

• kernel (colonel) - There is more than a kernel of truth in the claim that all the vowels in this word are [e]s. So why is the military rank (colonel) pronounced identically?

L

• leisure - Yet another violator of the i-before-e rule. You can be sure of the spelling of the last syllable but not of the pronunciation.
• liaison - Another French word throwing us an orthographical curve: a spare [i], just in case. That's an [s], too, that sounds like a [z].
• library - It may be as enjoyable as a berry patch but that isn't the way it is spelled. That first [r] should be pronounced, too.
• license - Where does English get the license to use both its letters for the sound [s] in one word?

M

• maintenance - The main tenants of this word are "main" and "tenance" even though it comes from the verb "maintain."
• maneuver - Man, the price you pay for borrowing from French is high. This one goes back to French main + oeuvre "hand-work," a spelling better retained in the British spelling, "manoeuvre."
• medieval - The medieval orthography of English even lays traps for you: everything about the MIDdle Ages is MEDieval or, as the British would write, mediaeval.
• memento - Why would something to remind of you of a moment be spelled "memento?" Well, it is.
• millennium - Here is another big word, large enough to hold two double consonants, double [l] and double [n].
• miniature - Since that [a] is seldom pronounced, it is seldom included in the spelling. This one is a "mini ature;" remember that.
• minuscule - Since something minuscule is smaller than a miniature, shouldn't they be spelled similarly? Less than cool, or "minus cule."
• mischievous - This mischievous word holds two traps: [i] before [e] and [o] before [u]. Four of the five vowels in English reside here.
• misspell - What is more embarrassing than to misspell the name of the problem? Just remember that it is mis + spell and that will spell you the worry about spelling "misspell."

N

• neighbor - The word "neighbor" invokes the silent "gh" as well as "ei" sounded as "a" rule. This is fraught with error potential. If you use British spelling, it will cost you another [u]: "neighbour."
• noticeable - The [e] is noticeably retained in this word to indicate the [c] is "soft," pronounced like [s]. Without the [e], it would be pronounced "hard," like [k], as in "applicable."

O

• occasionally - Writers occasionally tire of doubling so many consonants and omit one, usually one of the [l]s. Don't you ever do it.
• occurrence - Remember not only the occurrence of double double consonants in this word, but that the suffix is -ence, not -ance. No reason, just the English language keeping us on our toes.

P

• pastime - Since a pastime is something you do to pass the time, you would expect a double [s] here. Well, there is only one. The second [s] was slipped through the cracks in English orthography long ago.
• perseverance - All it takes is perseverance and you, too, can be a (near-) perfect speller. The suffix is -ance for no reason at all.
• personnel - Funny Story: The assistant Vice-President of Personnel notices that his superior, the VP himself, upon arriving at his desk in the morning opens a small, locked box, smiles, and locks it back again. Some years later when he advanced to that position (inheriting the key), he came to work early one morning to be assured of privacy. Expectantly, he opened the box. In it was a single piece of paper which said: "Two Ns, one L."
• playwright - Those who play right are right-players, not playwrights. Well, since they write plays, they should be "play-writes," wright right? Rong Wrong. Remember that a play writer in Old English was called a "play worker" and "wright" is from an old form of "work" (wrought iron, etc.)
• possession - Possession possesses more [s]s than a snake.
• precede - What follows, succeeds, so what goes before should, what? No, no, no, you are using logic. Nothing confuses English spelling more than common sense. "Succeed" but "precede." Precede combines the Latin words "pre" and "cedere" which means to go before.
• principal/principle - The spelling principle to remember here is that the school principal is a prince and a pal (despite appearances)--and the same applies to anything of foremost importance, such as a principal principle. A "principle" is a rule. (Thank you, Meghan Cope, for help on this one.)
• privilege - According to the pronunciation (not "pronounciation"!) of this word, that middle vowel could be anything. Remember: two [i]s + two [e]s in that order.
• pronunciation - Nouns often differ from the verbs they are derived from. This is one of those. In this case, the pronunciation is different, too, an important clue.
• publicly - Let me publicly declare the rule (again): if the adverb comes from an adjective ending on -al, you include that ending in the adverb; if not, as here, you don't.

Q

• questionnaire - The French doing it to us again. Double up on the [n]s in this word and don't forget the silent [e]. Maybe someday we will spell it the English way.

R

• receive/receipt - I hope you have received the message by now: [i] before [e] except after . . . .
• recommend - I would recommend you think of this word as the equivalent of commending all over again: re+commend. That would be recommendable.
• referred - Final consonants are often doubled before suffixes (remit: remitted, remitting). However, this rule applies only to accented syllables ending on [l] and [r], e.g. "rebelled," "referred" but "traveled," "buffered" and not containing a diphthong, e.g. "prevailed," "coiled."
• reference - Refer to the last mentioned word and also remember to add -ence to the end for the noun.
• relevant - The relevant factor here is that the word is not "revelant," "revelent," or even "relevent." [l] before [v] and the suffix -ant.
• restaurant - 'Ey, you! Remember, these two words when you spell "restaurant." They are in the middle of it.
• rhyme - Actually, "rime" was the correct spelling until 1650. After that, egg-heads began spelling it like "rhythm." Why? No rhyme nor reason other than to make it look like "rhythm."
• rhythm - This one was borrowed from Greek (and conveniently never returned) so it is spelled the way we spell words borrowed from Greek and conveniently never returned.

S

• schedule - If perfecting your spelling is on your schedule, remember the [sk] is spelled as in "school." (If you use British or Canadian pronunciation, why do you pronounce this word [shedyul] but "school," [skul]? That has always puzzled me.)
• separate - How do you separate the [e]s from the [a]s in this word? Simple: the [e]s surround the [a]s.
• sergeant - The [a] needed in both syllables of this word has been pushed to the back of the line. Remember that, and the fact that [e] is used in both syllables, and you can write your sergeant without fear of misspelling his rank.
• supersede - This word supersedes all others in perversity. This is the only English word based on this stem spelled -sede. Supersede combines the Latin words "super" and "sedere" which means to sit above.

T

• their/they're/there - They're all pronounced the same but spelled differently. Possessive is "their" and the contraction of "they are" is "they're." Everywhere else, it is "there."
• threshold - This one can push you over the threshold. It looks like a compound "thresh + hold" but it isn't. Two [h]s are enough.
• twelfth - Even if you omit the [f] in your pronunciation of this word (which you shouldn't do), it is retained in the spelling.
• tyranny - If you are still resisting the tyranny of English orthography at this point, you must face the problem of [y] inside this word, where it shouldn't be. The guy is a "tyrant" and his problem is "tyranny." (Don't forget to double up on the [n]s, too.)

U

• until - I will never stop harping on this until this word is spelled with an extra [l] for the last time!

V

• vacuum - If your head is not a vacuum, remember that the silent [e] on this one married the [u] and joined him inside the word where they are living happily ever since. Well, the evidence is suggestive but not conclusive. Anyway, spell this word with two [u]s and not like "volume."

WXYZ

• weather - Whether you like the weather or not, you have to write the [a] after the [e] when you spell it.
• weird - This word is an exception to the rule about [i] before [e] except after...? So, rules can be broken!

Handy Reference to Editorial Punctuation Rules

Oh, heavens; if that's not the most boring title in the world, I don't know what is!

However, I found this compilation of editorial rules--taken from the Chicago Manual of Style--very useful.  I'm posting it here for future reference.

Ubneielvalbe!

I promised this post--about the amazing power of the human brain to decipher and read things--to my students.  Many of them haven't seen it before, and it really is an astonishing thing!

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg.  Cnosdier the phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid!  

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in what oerdr the ltteres in a word are; the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae.  The rset cna be a taotl mses and you can siltl raed it whotuit a pboerlm.  

Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. 

Azanmig huh?  Yaeh, and yuo awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

7H15 M3554G3
53RV35 7O PR0V3
H0W 0UR M1ND5 C4N
D0 4M4Z1NG 7H1NG5--
1MPR3551V3 7H1NG5!
1N 7H3 B3G1NN1NG
17 WA5 H4RD, BU7
N0W, 0N 7H15 LIN3,
Y0UR M1ND 1S
R34D1NG 17
4U70M471C4LLY
W17H0U7 3V3N
7H1NK1NG 4B0U7 17.
B3 PROUD! 0NLY
C3R741N P30PL3 C4N
R3AD 7H15.

Grammar Geek Grace

Recently, I re-posted a friendly Facebook post from a friend regarding the correct use of apostrophes when making names plural.  (Hint: the answer is, NEVER!)

I thought her super sweet personality came through in the kind, respectful tone she used--and all of the dozens of comments she had received were positive ones--so I decided to copy her words exactly, just to be safe.

This is what I posted:
From my dear fellow grammar-geek friend, Pamela:
Public service announcement from your resident grammar geek: Friends, you can never correctly pluralize a family's last name by adding an apostrophe or an apostrophe plus *s.* The correct way to pluralize a last name is simply to add the letter *s*, unless the last name ends in x, s, z, sh, or ch, in which case you just add *es*. For example, we are the "Fahses." Apostrophes are only for possessive cases. "The Fahses are excited to watch a Duke game in Cameron Indoor Stadium this Christmastime. They'll be staying at the Floreses' house while in North Carolina." Phew. It feels good to get that off my nerdy English teacher chest.

Almost immediately, I received the following reply from a friend:
Ha! Knowing this rule, I still opt for clarity - if "Conchira's" looks better to me, then it works better as far as I am concerned, and I use it. This is a simple choice, because at this point - not having any English teacher to impress - "geek-ness" is only in the eye of the beholder. Plus, ultimately I know that my God is a God of GRACE.. (:

We had some friendly, light-hearted banter back and forth, but ultimately it was possibly going to take on a negative tone, so I just tried to graciously drop it and move on.

The thing is, I haven't been able to.  (On Facebook, yes.  In real life, no.)  I can't believe how much it is bothering me--this idea that there is not an objective right and wrong...that "just whatever I think" is a fine standard for something like grammar.  

My daughter helped this same apostrophe-friend's daughter tune her new violin the other night.  I became amused with the idea of indicating that we tuned it to F, D, B, and A (instead of the standard E, A, D, and G) "because it works better as far as we are concerned." 

I know that I tend to be a black-and-white thinker, and that I often get in trouble by applying black-and-white standards to things that should be opinions and choices.  (Think of things like breastfeeding... tattoos... homeschooling... whether or not someone should teach their kids to eat vegetables... You get the idea!)  But I'm a little flabbergasted at this argument for something like spelling and punctuation in grammar.  

It feels like arguing whether 4x5 really equals 20.  An intelligent, educated adult would never claim, "Well, it just works better for me to think of 4x5 as 45.  That just makes more sense to me."

And my friend is an intelligent, educated adult.  And he is a Christian believer.  And, I assume, he believes in standards of right and wrong.  I have the utmost of respect and admiration for him and his sweet family.  So, this whole experience really has me thinking about how the world views grammar.

I know that most people don't use correct grammar.  I am an editor and an English teacher by profession, so I walk around the world with a figurative red pen in my hand.  I don't say anything to you--and I learned a long time ago how to let it go and not have it affect my opinion of you or your intelligence--but I do see any grammatical errors you may make.  I'm trained to.  Most of the world isn't.  Grammatical rules are sometimes confusing, goofy, counter-intuitive, and difficult to remember and apply.  I get that.  No biggie.

I have just always assumed that the mistakes were because folks didn't know the rules, or didn't know how to apply them correctly.  I have always assumed that people would like to do it right if they could...and that the only time it matters whether it is actually right or not is when one is doing something important, in writing.  (Of course, texting and Facebook statuses don't apply, except to us grammar geek types who still have a hard time leaving out a necessary apostrophe or capital letter even there!) 

But in important, published items--like Christmas cards or address plaques for the front door--I have assumed most people would like it to be correct.  

In fact, just today, I saw this great picture posted on Facebook:

Above it was the line, "Can we get a like in support of our soldier's?"  Rather than the smart-alec English teacher line, "...in support of our soldier's what?!,"  I chose to write them the following (private) message:
Just wanted you to know that--in your post, "Can we get a like in support of our soldier's?"--the word soldiers should be spelled without an apostrophe. Since you're getting hundreds of thousands of "likes," I thought you might want to edit it to be correct.

And I was pretty thrilled with their response: "Good catch. Thank you." 

It is this, "I-like-the-way-it-looks-better-when-it-is-wrong-and-that's-totally-fine-and-legitimate" idea that is totally new to me.

And I think, ultimately, what is haunting me--really--is the deeper realization that this is how we often view standards, too, and not just grammar.  "This works for me.  I like it better this way.  Never mind what's right and wrong in your book.  And don't talk to me about your book.  The fact that you think you're right and I'm wrong makes you narrow-minded... bigoted... judgmental... old-fashioned... fanatical... dogmatic... dangerous."

And yes, I'm as guilty as the next person.  I smile to remember a Beth Moore quote in a Bible study of hers I was attending:  "And, dontcha know, the standard is squarely under mah feet?!!" (That's "my" with Beth's Southern accent!)  That is how we tend to function.  We want to recast right and wrong--good and bad--acceptable and unacceptable--into our own standards that make us feel comfortable... under our feet, if you will.

And so, this year--this new year of 2013--I have a goal.  I want to be sure that anything I take a strong stand for or against, in any way, has a biblical root in Truth.  No getting bent out of shape about anything that isn't explicitly or implicitly addressed in Scripture.  And the implicit better be pretty clear.

So, does the proper spelling of names--and whether or not they are supposed to have apostrophes in the plural--qualify?  No.  Yes, you can argue that there is a right and wrong at stake there, and that loose standards lead to loose morals and all that, but I'm going to try this year to err--in matters that are not moral absolutes--on the side of "make aware, then let it go."  And then I'm really going to try to let it go!

Feel free to hold me to it!