GC's Grammar Class 101

[tld221]

can someone give me the lowdown on using parentheses inside of parentheses? i feel like it shouldnt be done... but sometimes you have a lot to say that needs to be stated and its not necessarily worth a footnote.

[delph998]

Originally Posted by tld221

can someone give me the lowdown on using parentheses inside of parentheses? i feel like it shouldnt be done... but sometimes you have a lot to say that needs to be stated and its not necessarily worth a footnote.

That's a good one.

Ladygreek, ensure/insure/assure can be used interchangeably? Amazing. I just took a class not too long ago and that's what I learned. Rules change so much. Thanks for the info.

[ladygreek]

Originally Posted by delph998

That's a good one.

Ladygreek, ensure/insure/assure can be used interchangeably? Amazing. I just took a class not too long ago and that's what I learned. Rules change so much. Thanks for the info.

Not to say that what you learned isn't correct, but per the U of MN style book the distinction really doesn't matter anymore, because they all end up implying the same thing--making sure something happens.

[Little32]

Originally Posted by tld221

can someone give me the lowdown on using parentheses inside of parentheses? i feel like it shouldnt be done... but sometimes you have a lot to say that needs to be stated and its not necessarily worth a footnote.

You might use a dash instead, to set off information inside of the parentheses. You're right, too many sets of parentheses looks cluttered. Also, sometimes with that parenthetical information, which is often meant to clarify or further specify about non-parenthetical information, you might not need to say as much as you think (you might feel like you do, but it may be that what you are writing goes without saying), or it really might work better as a footnote. If it is really important, then you wouldn't want to put it in parentheses anyway.

[ladygreek]

Originally Posted by Little32

You might use a dash instead, to set off information inside of the parentheses. You're right, too many sets of parentheses looks cluttered. Also, sometimes with that parenthetical information, which is often meant to clarify or further specify about non-parenthetical information, you might not need to say as much as you think (you might feel like you do, but it may be that what you are writing goes without saying), or it really might work better as a footnote. If it is really important, then you wouldn't want to put it in parentheses anyway.

Excellent response.

[CrimsonTide4]

The apostrophe as it relates to NPHC Founders

All NPHC organizations have more than one founder. Correct?

Founder is singular.
Founder's is singular possessive

Ex: That founder's elephant collection is on display at National Headquarters.

Founders is plural. (more than one)
Founders' is plural possessive. (belonging to more than one)

Ex: The founders' degrees are on display at National Headquarters.

Founders Day, in the case of Delta Sigma Theta, does not need an apostrophe. At all. I cannot speak for the other 8 organizations on the apostrophe's presence, but I do know that it shouldn't ever be Founder's because there is more than one founder.

So next January I want to see more Happy Founders Day and zero Happy Founder's Day.

Por favor.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by CrimsonTide4

Founders Day, in the case of Delta Sigma Theta, does not need an apostrophe

It takes everything in me not to correct every time the apostrophe is used.

[Ms. Intellect]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

It takes everything in me not to correct every time the apostrophe is used.

I've been guilty of this - the apostrophe in Founders Day.