Thursday, February 18, 2010

Good apostroph-eats

[Yes, in the last post I demonstrated a new insouciance about the use of apostrophes--and if you haven't read that one yet, please do go read it first. Seriously. I'll wait. And now, while you're primed for the topic, here we go again.]

Not too long ago my wife and I were watching a Good Eats episode. Finding Alton Brown generally entertaining we don't really need a specific interest in the topic, but for the record the show was a recently produced one (in what he's calling his "American Classics" series) about pound cake.

As any fan of the show knows, Alton's spin on cooking shows is to provide both historical and scientific information about the food in a playful manner. It's kind of Julia Child meets Mr. Wizard meets Monty Python. Between segments or when going to commercial there's little "bumpers" that have text on screen with bits of trivia about the food or dish being featured, to further the educational component.

There's a certain standard for attention to detail that has been established over the show's decade of production. For that reason, the content of one particular bumper was a bit confusing at first.

Using the possessive for the pronoun it is a common stumbling block for those composing in English, but that error tends to be mistakenly using the contraction it's instead of its. That much is understandable, of course, as the apostrophe-s combination does make the possessive for nouns.

However, on this bumper the text featured a sort of everything-plus-the-kitchen-sink format for the possessive: its'.
 
Yep, another dazzling photo of a TV screen.

At first it seemed a risible typographic error, a superfluous apostrophe after the s, where the person typing the text just couldn't stop. However, for such an egregious mistake to slip by on a professionally produced TV show where there's a reputation for being detail-oriented would be particularly unforgivable, so I had to ponder what other explanation there could be.

Eventually it came to me. In culinary vernacular there must be a special usage whereby it was first being made plural—presumably because there are different chemical compositions for different sugars to which it could be referring—and then that be made possessive. That, I'm sure, would be the only context where that much could ever be appropriate.

The show purports to know food history and science as they contribute to recipes and cooking; there was never an overt suggestion it focused on the particulars of written language, but apparently there's something for the English majors, too—as long as we're paying attention when the show is going to commercial.

Oh, and I suppose we could learn to make a pound cake if we followed the main part of the program.

1 comment:

  1. I followed the link from Facebook to here. You said that it only takes FB about an hour to crosspost? Me, I've waited longer than an hour but not 14.

    Maybe if the crossposting problem with FB keeps up, you could just link back here with the post's URL in your status update.

    Now, as for the topic of this post... uh, what was it? All this Facebook talk distracted me. Sometimes I think I have a brain the size of an apostrophe (8 point Courier New font to be eXact).

    ReplyDelete

So, what do you think?