Correct grammar is in the pen of the beholder

JUNE CASAGRANDE

If you read William Safire’s column in the New York Times Magazine,

you may notice something strange.

In sentences such as, “Disraeli said as much in the 1930’s,”

you’ll see an apostrophe after the zero.

But if you go to the library and open up one of the books that are

compilations of Safire’s columns -- books like “Coming to Terms” or

“The Right Word in the Right Place at the Right Time” -- you’ll

notice things like, “Disraeli said as much in the 1930s.” No

apostrophe in sight.

In fact, at my local library there are about a half dozen Safire

books of old “On Language” columns in which every original “1930’s,”

“in the 80’s” and “since the 1400’s” has been changed to “1930s,” in

the ‘80s” and “since the 1400s,” respectively.

And we wonder why so many people seem to have given up on good

grammar and usage.

The single biggest problem in the grammar/usage world today is

that everybody’s making up rules as they go along and proclaiming

them law.

Here’s how it works: If you’re writing a grammar book or a

newspaper style guide, you’re likely to encounter issues that have no

clear answer -- issues such as whether “alright” has finally evolved

into an official word or whether “literally” can be used to mean

“figuratively.” And since it’s your job to make a call, you do.

For example, you might decide, as the Associated Press did, that:

“‘Figuratively’ means in an analogous sense, but not in the exact

sense. ‘He bled them white.’ ‘Literally’ means in an exact sense; do

not use it figuratively. Wrong: ‘He literally bled them white.’

(Unless the blood was drained from their bodies.)”

Perhaps you even relied on another authority, such as the Chicago

Manual of Style, which commands: “literally. This word means

‘actually; without exaggeration.’ It should not be used

oxymoronically in figurative senses, as in, ‘they were literally

glued to their seats’ (unless glue had in fact been applied).”

So you go through life with the naive impression that “literally”

should mean “literally” until one day you find yourself in a

conversation with someone who disagrees. This person whips out a copy

of Webster’s New World College Dictionary, opens it to the entry for

“literally” and points out Webster’s opinion that literally is “now

often used as an intensive to modify a word or phrase that itself is

being used figuratively. ‘She literally flew into the room.’”

Webster’s gives the disclaimer, “This latter usage is objected to by

some.” But because they’ve reduced the matter to one merely of common

usage, they’ve opened the door for people to argue either side.

Another example: If you were reading a book about Charles Dickens,

you’d see numerous references to “Dickens’s work.” But if you were

reading a newspaper article on the same subject, chances are you’d

see “Dickens’ work” without the extra “s” after the apostrophe.

That’s because the Chicago Manual of Style, which most book editors

defer to, says to add the extra “s” while the Associated Press

Stylebook, which many newspapers rely on, says to omit it.

If everyone in the world of publishing were conspiring to confuse

the rest of us, they couldn’t do a better job than they’re doing

right now, completely by accident.

Sometimes, however, the “rules” prescribed by the self-appointed

rulers are so wacky that they merely embarrass the rule makers. For

example, the New York Times has its own style guide packed with rules

that rebel against mainstream wisdom. The Times’ choice to use an

apostrophe in “1930’s” is laughable to pretty much everyone else in

the style world.

The New York Times also says to skip the apostrophe in front of

the numerals when writing “back in the 80’s” even though the rest of

the rational world agrees that an apostrophe should stand in for the

omitted “19.” “Back in the ‘80s,” most authorities agree, is a much

better way to write it.

* JUNE CASAGRANDE is a freelance writer. She can be reached at

[email protected].