Signs of a Bigger Problem

This is not one of those blogs with lots of pictures of poorly punctuated signs. But this pair of signs I noticed in a parking lot the other day was just too good to pass up. They appeared right next to each other, like this:

Yet upon closer inspection they revealed some interesting differences:

" ... at vehicle owner's expense .."

" ... at vehicles owners' expense ..."

I like this because, to me, it doesn't reveal the stupidity of the signmaker. It reveals the stupidity of the system. What IS the best way to handle issues of agreement in these signs?

In the first one, at vehicle owner's expense is a fine choice. But it ignores a flaw. It attributes to multiple vehicles a single owner.

The sign with the sticker appears to be a noble attempt to fix this. To correspond with multiple vehicles, it references multiple owners. You've got to applaud that effort.

But vehicles owners doesn't work. The plural of vehicle owner doesn't include an S after vehicle. You could use vehicles, but it only makes sense as a possessive: vehicles' owners'. And that's just weird.

The only way to get around this agreement problem without creating weird possessive issues is to write:

All unauthorized vehicles will be towed at the expense of their respective owners.

But that defies another priority for signmakers: economy of words.

So with that, I'll just express my sympathies for the people who have to make these signs and, out of respect, will refrain from mentioning the issue of capitalization.

My Resistance to 'They' with a Non-Gender-Specific Singular Antecedent: Going, Going ...

The other day in my column, I ran an interview with Grammar Girl, the queen of the grammar podcast and my new e-friend. Her real name is Mignon Fogarty and she has a new book out, Grammar Girl’s Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing.

The column was a Q&A with her, which I trimmed down to column length. Soon after, I got an e-mail from Fred in Southern California:

Your interview with Mignon Fogarty interested but puzzled me. I’m sure that
she must understand the principle of agreement of a pronoun with its antecedent;
yet, in response to your question “Do you get grief from grammar snobs?” she
responds, “…the more rude someone is, the more likely they are to be wrong”
[italics added]. Would it be rude of me to request a word of comment about her
inconsistency?

I wrote Fred back. But it didn’t occur to me until just now how two-faced I can be in situations like this. My column readers seem a very different set from the people who see my blog. The column appears in little community news sections that cover city hall votes and school plays. People who read it tend to be older and more traditional. People with names like Fred and Rose. You know -- people who scare me. So I tend to sugar-coat my responses: “Yes, traditionally you’re right. But authorities are loosening their standards on this stuff. Blah, blah …”

The truth is, I believe that this rule is almost dead. The word “they” and its corresponding forms might not appear in the dictionary with the definition “he or she” yet. But I think they will soon. It has clearly become the most popular alternative to saying “he or she” in every sentence.

It’s a “skunked” usage right now: It’s in transition from being considered wrong to being considered right. Which means that lots of people who were taught it’s wrong will stand by that teaching. Understandably so.

Still, if anyone wants that rule to live forever, they are probably going to end up disappointed.

(Now I'm off to check whether I edited out of the Q&A any discussion of this what would have explained it before Fred fired up is computer! I'll probably run the full Q&A here soon, once the papers who carry my column have all had a chance to run it.)