I have a long list of pet peeves. Whenever something consistently tends to annoy me, I mentally add it my list (ie: self-check out counters at stores, people who don’t say “please” or “thank you”, etc.), and if I had the time, I’d rattle off some more of them.

However, one of my biggest annoyances is the misuse of the word “your” with the contraction “you’re”.

During my time as EIC of my high school newspaper, I’d catch the mix-up in a lot of my reporters’ articles. Nowadays, I see it used when I talk to my friends via iChat or texts. Needless to say, it bothers me.

I’ve wondered to myself exactly how those two words can get so mixed up. For example, if someone wrote a sentence that said: “Your so busy with school”, I would assume that they would say the sentence in their head and realize it sounds funny. And, that they would just know the difference between “your” and “you are.” But, maybe that’s just my assumption.

I think there are many factors to blame for the misuse of those two words.

I believe that our lazy way of communicating has led many of us to use “ur” to stand for both “your” and “you are” (I admit that I am to blame for using “ur” a lot), and when it comes time to use the two words formally, it becomes hard to tell the difference.

Being exposed to the different ways “your” and “you’re” is used in the English language also plays a part. I was – and still am – a bookworm, so I’ve seen the different uses and it has just been engrained in me.

I try not to correct my friends too often, however, because I’m sure one of their pet peeves is “Jemma always corrects my grammar.”

I’m not sure if anyone else is as bothered by this as I am, but I just thought I would share it!

Anyway, check out this wikiHow “How to use You’re and Your” page; it has some nice tips and amusing pictures for anyone interested.

** This has nothing to do with what I just talked about, but I found a website that explains the “life cycle” of a blog. You learn something new everyday. =)

To hyphen or not to hyphen ..

According to the AP Stylebook's Punctuation Guide, a hyphen is required when describing someone of dual heritage. For example, a person who considers himself Asian and American would be described as "Asian-American". The same goes for anyone who is Italian-American, Mexican-American, African-American and so on.

Once, I made the mistake of not including the hyphen in one of my JOUR 400 articles and after getting my paper back – red-ink-mark-ups and all – I never made that mistake again. It was a small lesson learned; if the AP Stylebook said there was a hyphen in between a proper noun and its adjective, then there would be a hyphen. No questions asked; it wasn't a big deal.

However, after taking several Asian American Studies classes, I learned that that particular hyphen placement is a very big deal to many in the Asian [hyphen] American community. In fact, that hyphen has been the cause of much controversy. Many believe that the hyphen between "Asian" and "American" indicates that Asian-Americans are different than other Americans; as if the hyphen is necessary to make people of Asian descent more "American".

It's amazing to me that the decision about where to place a small punctuation mark could have such big implications. I wonder if the Associated Press realized the debate that has stirred up due to this simple grammar rule.

For anyone interested, here are some links to read more about this issue:
Hyphen Magazine & Hyphenated American

"Newspaper Death Watch"

"Newspaper Death Watch" is such an optimistic title for a blog, isn't it?

As I typed in the website URL, I figured the website name was pretty self-explanatory and I would find a website dedicated to reporting on the decline of newspapers. I was right.

The website is a blog run by Paul Gillin, a technology journalist, who describes himself as a "newspaper junkie" and claims that he loves newspapers. But, if a person didn't read Gillin's "About Me" section before reading his posts, I believe he/she would think differently.

Gillin posts about anything related to the present-day "newspaper struggle"; he reports on media companies' dismal profits and newspapers throughout the country that are meeting their downfall, for example.

At first, I got the impression that Gillin had a very pessimistic viewpoint on the newspaper industry. After all, it's not very heartening reading his "newspaper obituaries" that list various newspapers that are publishing their last issue, laying off employees, etc. But, after reading a few of his recent posts, I realized that Gillin isn't being entirely pessimistic – he's just being very realistic about the future of this specific medium of journalism.

This website was an eye-opener for me, to say the least. Although I knew that print journalism was struggling, I never realized it was this bad – or at least, as bad as Gillin reports.

It is nice to know that the newspaper industry is "fighting back", however. In one of Gillin's posts, he writes about the "Newspaper Project", a campaign meant to emphasize how big of a role newspapers play in people's everyday lives. While it's a good sign to know that that newspapers are taking the "offense", as Gillin puts it, I find it sad that they even have to do this in the first place.

grmr: CWOT?

The first chapter of When Words Collide, "grmr: CWOT?" made me LOL – I mean, it made me laugh out loud. I understood the points that the authors, Lauren Kessler and Duncan McDonald, were trying to get across about proper punctuation and grammar – that it's fallen by the wayside in an attempt to communicate more quickly and efficiently – because I am very guilty of this problem.

The following paragraph in that first chapter stuck out the most:

"The problem is not realizing that there are different rules for different kinds of communication. The problem is that when you practice – every day, many times a day – a certain way of writing, you can get so comfortable with it that you forget how specialized it is. You forget it was created for a narrow purpose, insta-talk, and not for the wider, more important, long-term purpose of communicating thoughts, ideas, issues, information and opinions…"

My text messages are a prime example of this "informal" writing style that Kessler and McDonald refer to.

I recently sent a text to one of my friends that read: "Around 3 I will be. Did u need help w. something?"

Obviously, a few key words and proper punctuation are missing from that message. I'm sure if someone else read that text, he/she would have wondered exactly what I would be around three. Busy? Tired? Sitting in my J420 news-editing class? I meant to say that I would be "free", but purposely left that word out because hey, my friend knew what I was talking about.

The little grammar-Nazi in me knows that I should have written: "I'll be free around three. Did you need help with something?" instead of typing what I did and shortening "you" to "u" and "with" to "w.". But, I didn't because it was faster for me to get my message across in that way. However, reading that first chapter of WWC made me wonder if that reasoning was enough justification to write in such shorthand. If I can communicate quickly with others but fail to get my message across, then what's the point?

What if my friend didn't understand what I meant by "Around 3 I will be"? If he had to re-read my text message just to figure out what I was talking about, then it defeats the purpose of that quick form of communication.

I suppose it's better for all if "formal" writing is used in all situations, from text messaging to research papers. It will be a sure thing that our message is conveyed, at the very least.