Language tips
Q:
Attorney Thomas R. Wiseman asked whether political signs should read States' attorneys or State's attorneys.A:
The answer depends on the number of states. If only one state is involved, the apostrophe should be placed before the s: “John Doe for State's Attorney.” If more than one state, the apostrophe follows the s: “States' attorneys from around the country attended the meeting.”Another reader submitted a related question about the so-called
double possessive, composed of a phrase preceded by of followed by a possessive noun or pronoun. For example, in, “I am a friend of his,” both of and his in the sentence indicate possession. Why don't we omit the second possessive (his) and say, “I am a friend of him.”? We do omit one of the two possessives when we say, “I am his friend,” but “I am a friend of his” is so securely embedded in popular usage that the double possessive is acceptable as an idiom.Some grammarians consider that, “He is a friend of my brother's” carries the implication that “my brother” has other friends, so the statement is synonymous with, “He is among my brother's friends.” The same grammarians suggest that, “He is a friend of my brother,” carries no such implication. However, my own observation detects no such distinction, so there seems no reason to use
the longer expression.But other possessive constructions do indicate contrast. For example, there is a difference between “Here is my brother's painting,” and “Here is a painting of my brother.” The first statement implies that the painting is in my brother's possession; the second, that my brother is pictured in the painting. Suppose, however, that my brother is the painter? Then the statement, “This painting is my brother's” is ambiguous. He could be either the painter or the possessor, but not the subject of the painting. The same distinction occurs in any producer/owner statement. “This is my book,” means either that I wrote or own the book, but not that I am its subject.
FROM THE MAILBAG I:
Several readers criticized the response to the question in the February “Language Tips” about the meaning of the phrase “Beg the Question.” They all agreed that the definition of the term was correct, “To beg the question is to assume the truth of what one claims to be proving.” The hackneyed question, “When did you stop beating your wife”? is the classic illustration.
But the correspondents pointed that those who misuse the logical fallacy assume that “Beg the Question” means, “raise the question” instead of “evade the question,” which I had written.
One illustration of the
incorrect use of the phrase appeared in the following advertisement for laptop computers:• The flurry of attention accompanying the under-$1,000 desktop PC begs the question:
What about notebooks? Is there a chance they'll flirt with the thousand-dollar barrier any time soon?
In that advertisement, “begs the question” intended the phrase to mean “raises the question,” an incorrect meaning. I have seen it used incorrectly to mean “evades the question,” but Attorneys David Ryan, John Bramfeld, and others apparently are right that the majority incorrect use is “raises the question.” At any rate, we agree that the incorrect usage should be avoided.
FROM THE MAILBAG II:
Also, in response to the February column on pejoration (worsening of meaning) and amelioration (improvement of meaning), Chicago attorney Michael W. Rathsack wrote that intentional change in connotation is a form of social engineering by persons hoping to appear “hip.” He listed as illustrations sportscasters' term “inside the red zone” instead of “inside the 20" and computer gurus' “boot up” rather than “turn on” as illustrations.
And he noted that the adjective
special, which formerly described high-achieving students now describes under-achieving students, having become a euphemism for “handicapped.”When you adopt positive words to describe unpleasant things, those positive words take on the negative meanings you were trying to avoid. Unfortunately, euphemism creates pejoration.
Corporate spokespersons, politicians, and others thought that the noun
problem carried negative implications, so problems have been replaced by issues. The noun attitude used to be a neutral term for “state of mind.” But when it became a euphemism for “hostile attitude,” it pejorated so that attitude now often means “hostile attitude.” Language manipulation doesn't work.FROM THE MAILBAG III:
Attorney Theodore Utchen wrote that he dislikes the use of “historical” in the title of the “Wheaton Historical Museum.” (The distinction between
historic and historical was discussed in the March issue.) He pointed out that although the contents of the museum are “historical,” the building itself is not, so the name should be, “Wheaton History Museum,” just as in our high schools there are chemistry courses, not chemical courses.Ambiguity sometimes occurs because many English nouns are also adjectives. That became obvious to me when I was teaching “English as a Second Language.” I had assigned my students the task of recounting their most surprising or strange experience as new immigrants, and one student confided that when she saw cans marked “Dog Food” on the supermarket shelves, she was shocked to learn that Americans ate dogs.
And recently a reader sent me this item: “I bought some bird seed. Now I have a bird, but I don't know what to feed it.”
Gertrude Block is Lecturer Emerita at the University of Florida College of Law. Her book ,”Legal Writing Advice: Questions and Answers” (William S. Hein & Co., Inc.) was published in December 2004. Ms. Block is also author of “Effective Legal Writing”, 5th Edition (Foundation Press), with an accompanying instructor's manual. She is co-author of the “Judicial Opinion Writing Manual” (published by the American Bar Association, 1991). Send questions to the ISBA Bar News – Language Tips, Illinois State Bar Association, Illinois Bar Center, Springfield, IL 62701, or e-mail her at block@law.ufl.edu.