Don't use an apostrophe for pluralizing a word! Please, I'm begging you!
This is a grammar problem that needs to be addressed immediately.
This is the most prominent grammar problem I've seen lately. "Guy's" does not mean more than one guy, it means that either something that belongs to guy will be the next word or that Guy is something. It shouldn't be "you guy's are great," it should be "you guys are great." It can be "Guy's comb" or "Guy's a great guy." If it's plural and possessive, the apostrophe goes after the "s," as in "Guys' Room" for the men's bathroom.
In case you couldn't tell from reading this, apostrophes can also be used to form contractions, meaning that two words are joined into one. For example, at the beginning of this paragraph, "could" and "not" are joined by replacing the "o" in "not" with an apostrophe, resulting in "couldn't."
"Its" and "it's" are exceptions to the rules. "Its" is the proper possessive form, for example, "its eyes were yellow." "It's," on the other hand, means either "it is" or "it has" (in certain contexts). "It's" usually means "it is," as in, "it's hot today." "It's" can mean "it has" in phrases such as "it's been cold lately."
Finally, there are only two times you can use an apostrophe to pluralize.
The first is if you're referring to a number of the same letter. You're also supposed to use italics when you pluralize a letter unless it's a grade. Examples are "He has six e's in his name" (not a grade, so it's in italics) and "I got three A's on my report card" (referring to a grade, so it's not in italics).
The second is if you're referring to words as words while quoting (this one is weird, and hard to explain here).
For more grammar tips, please see http://www.english4today.com/englishgrammar/grammar/index.cfm
or
http://www.diannahacker.com/
Or, you can take English 101 at Hancock this summer.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
All For the Lord
I was catching up with an old friend the other day, and I noticed something in the way she talked that was . . . let's say "odd," for the moment. She has moved to a new area and is involved in a new church (that was the long and short of the catching up, really). I think that her new church is (gulp) . . . changing her.
I knew she was a Christian for a long time, but if I didn't know before I was talking to her, I would certainly have figured it out quickly. That's the "odd" thing about the way she talked, she always brought "the Lord" into the conversation. She talked about how her new pastor's sermons are convicting, but that it's actually good because it challenged her to grow. Don't get it wrong; I'm not saying that she wasn't a good Christian before. What I am saying, however, is that her speech patterns are full of things that I miss hearing on a daily basis: her conversation is "seasoned with salt," she's actually getting to where she's able to "give the reason for the hope [she has]." She says her pastor's sermons are convicting; I say her conversation is!
As I wrap this up, I'm left to wonder which is worse: the fact that neither I nor those around me are talking about Jesus enough for someone to know we're Christians, or the fact that people won't recognize that I referenced two verses of scripture in my description of how she talked (Colossians 4:6 and 1 Peter 3:15, in case you didn't know). Let's talk more about the Lord; it will make us more (gulp) accountable to our own words and we will always be witnesses to those with whom we talk.
I knew she was a Christian for a long time, but if I didn't know before I was talking to her, I would certainly have figured it out quickly. That's the "odd" thing about the way she talked, she always brought "the Lord" into the conversation. She talked about how her new pastor's sermons are convicting, but that it's actually good because it challenged her to grow. Don't get it wrong; I'm not saying that she wasn't a good Christian before. What I am saying, however, is that her speech patterns are full of things that I miss hearing on a daily basis: her conversation is "seasoned with salt," she's actually getting to where she's able to "give the reason for the hope [she has]." She says her pastor's sermons are convicting; I say her conversation is!
As I wrap this up, I'm left to wonder which is worse: the fact that neither I nor those around me are talking about Jesus enough for someone to know we're Christians, or the fact that people won't recognize that I referenced two verses of scripture in my description of how she talked (Colossians 4:6 and 1 Peter 3:15, in case you didn't know). Let's talk more about the Lord; it will make us more (gulp) accountable to our own words and we will always be witnesses to those with whom we talk.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
My House Shall Be Called A House of Prayer
Today at church, we watched a video of a sermon from a praise conference. I don't remember who the preacher was and I don't know when it was taped, but I know it had a powerful effect.
Without getting into details about why it was such a moving sermon, just know that a Southern Baptist congregation of mostly senior citizens were standing on their feet in resopnse to the preacher's testimony about the power of prayer.
The bottom line of the sermon was simple and convicting: above all else, God's house is to be a house of prayer. It doesn't matter what your denomination (or lack thereof) dictates about how a service should go. The music was never meant to be the focal point, and neither was the preaching. The temple in Jerusalem had both, but the ultimate purpose for all of it is to encourage prayer.
The preacher said that it is through prayer that we meet God, that prayer is the channel of all God wants to give us or remove from our lives. Prayer is how we approach the Throne of Grace.
We can think of the Throne of Grace as God's opperating table. That's where he transplants the old man for the new man. It's where he removes the cancer of sin from our lives. It's where He gives us the transfusion of Jesus' blood. Our whole relationship with God starts and survives on prayer.
Without downplaying any of the parts of a typical service (music, preaching, tithes and offerings, bpatisms, the Lord's Supper, etc.), the whole purpose of our public gatherings is to ensure that each individual has that intimate, individual, private moment with God where He holds us, corrects us, comforts us, saves us, fixes us, does all that He would do with us. That place is only accessable through prayer.
"My House Shall Be Called A House of Prayer"
Without getting into details about why it was such a moving sermon, just know that a Southern Baptist congregation of mostly senior citizens were standing on their feet in resopnse to the preacher's testimony about the power of prayer.
The bottom line of the sermon was simple and convicting: above all else, God's house is to be a house of prayer. It doesn't matter what your denomination (or lack thereof) dictates about how a service should go. The music was never meant to be the focal point, and neither was the preaching. The temple in Jerusalem had both, but the ultimate purpose for all of it is to encourage prayer.
The preacher said that it is through prayer that we meet God, that prayer is the channel of all God wants to give us or remove from our lives. Prayer is how we approach the Throne of Grace.
We can think of the Throne of Grace as God's opperating table. That's where he transplants the old man for the new man. It's where he removes the cancer of sin from our lives. It's where He gives us the transfusion of Jesus' blood. Our whole relationship with God starts and survives on prayer.
Without downplaying any of the parts of a typical service (music, preaching, tithes and offerings, bpatisms, the Lord's Supper, etc.), the whole purpose of our public gatherings is to ensure that each individual has that intimate, individual, private moment with God where He holds us, corrects us, comforts us, saves us, fixes us, does all that He would do with us. That place is only accessable through prayer.
"My House Shall Be Called A House of Prayer"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)