Dear AZ:

You wrote:
> He went away not to come back for three years.
> He put the gun away not to touch it again.
> He put it away never to touch it again.
>
> Are the above sentences correct?
> Do they mean:
> 1. his intention was not to come back for three years/not to touch it
> again (regardless of what really happened)
> or do they mean
> 2. that was just what happened (regardless of whether he intended it or
> not).
>
Normally they would mean “that was just what happened,” though the second one could be construed the other way in some contexts.

If you want to say the second sense, you would put the adverb before the verb: “He went away to not come back for three years.” [By the way, that first sentence is a bit awkward]. “He put the gun away to not touch it again.” “He put the gun away to never touch it again” [this is fairly common].

With the infinitive directly following the action then you have the infinitive phrase meaning “in order to.” To make it clearer, you might want to use the phrase “in order to,” especially in the first two sentences, if that is what you mean. “He put the gun away in order to never touch it again” or “He put the gun away so that he would never touch it again.”

Keep in mind that English does not use verbal phrases as much as many other languages. English speakers are more likely to use subordinate clauses.

Dear Mr. S:

You wrote:

>Hi there. I love your website and use it a lot to help my children (and myself).
>However, I cannot find information on this topic.
>What is the proper way to pluralize common terms like VCR, DVD, etc.

>I am of the mind it should be “I have two VCRs in my living room”. This follows the common rule of pluralizing, by adding an “s”.
>Although I have seen it thus: “I have two VCR’s in my living room”. and signs that say “we repair TV’s, VCR’s, Monitors and Computers”.
>It just looks wrong to me.

>Is there a rule?

Good question.

There are two conflicting rules, and neither has won yet. Part of the problem is that acronyms are much more common nowadays than in the past. Some authorities apply the plural of italicized items rule to acronyms, arguing that some acronyms are made up of letters that name themselves (TV, VCR) and need an apostrophe plus “s.” Other authorities argue that acronyms are simply words and should be treated as any other word, adding “s” or “es” as appropriate–no apostrophe needed unless there is a possessive.

While we note both rules in Grammar Slammer, our practice is to use the second rule. One reason is that some word which are acronyms become adopted in such a way that writers and speakers begin to treat them simply as words, often unaware that they are actually acronyms. “Scuba” is a good example. Today you rarely see anyone write “SCUBA diver,” even though “scuba” originated as an acronym.

This rule also makes a distinction between the plural and possessive, which can be important to the reader. We would say, for example, “three TVs” but “your TV’s reception.” The first is plural, and it follows the standard rule of just adding an “s.” The second shows it is a singular possessive with the apostrophe.

Whichever way you choose, be consistent.

We frequently see handmade store signs with apostrophes in their plural words. This shows someone’s lack of understanding of the difference between plurals and possessives. This usually has nothing to do with acronyms: “Banana’s” can be just as common as “TV’s.”

P.S. If you were wondering, SCUBA stands for “self-contained breathing apparatus.”

Dear PSH:

You wrote:
> Secretary’s Week, Secretaries Week, or Secretaries’ Week?
>
Secretaries’ Week. Plural [more than one secretary] possessive [their week].

You then asked:

Would you, then, also use “Mothers’ Day”? I had a junior high teacher who insisted this was the only way to write it.

That is one you could see both ways. I checked our Mother’s Day authority–Hallmark cards. They all say “Mother’s Day.” You could argue like the junior high teacher that there are millions of mothers in America, but Mother’s Day is normally written with an apostrophe plus “s” because we have just one mother each. The same is true with Father’s Day.

In contrast, Hallmark spells Grandparents’ Day with s plus the apostrophe. This makes “grandparent” plural possessive because we have more than one grandparent.

There is another factor–history. Mother’s Day was first promoted in the 1870s and was enacted in the United States around 1905. Mother was the term most Americans at this time called their mother. Mommy, Ma, and others were used, of course, but whenever respect was intended, one said “Mother.” In that sense, “Mother’s” day is “a day for Mother.” I seem to recall reading that the lady who effectively lobbied for a national holiday was actually looking to memorialize her own mother who had recently passed away. With all respect to the junior high teacher (and I do understand the teacher’s point), in historical context, Mother’s Day is more analogous to Washington’s Birthday. Instead of paying respect to Washington, we pay respect to Mother.

I hope this helps. I will stick with Hallmark in this case. That poor junior high teacher is fighting a losing battle with this one.

Dear Mrs. B:

You wrote:
> When using a trademarked word, should it be used as an adjective? For
> example, A presentation was given on Tough Cotton(tm)technology. Or
> should it be used as a noun? For example, A presentation was given on
> Tough Cotton(tm).
>

In modern English, just about any noun can sometimes be used as an adjective. That is certainly true for brand names as well; think of slogans like “The Ford family of fine cars.” Either example above could be grammatically correct. The question then becomes this: Which is more precise?

If Tough Cotton is a kind of technology (e.g., the Wankel engine), and the presentation is on the technical aspects of the product, then you would want to use the first sentence. If Tough Cotton is another type of product and/or the presentation is not technical in nature, then you would have to choose the second one. The question is not one of mere grammar, but of precision.