Well (I'll get to the debatable use of "well" in a future Mrs. Language), let's (contracted form "let us") review. We've covered "it's" (contraction for "it is") and "its" (possessive), as well as the plural "s" (I like cats) vs. possessive "'s" (the dog's tail hit me). In the next installment of "Mrs. Language," look for redundancies. Don't like where it's at? These ones too much? Heard about the Sahara Desert? If you have other common redundant phrases to add to the mix, please send me an email.

Today I write about another oft-confused contraction: you're, which is more commonly substituted by "your" than in decades past. Why is difficult to determine. Readers responding to Mrs. Language have griped about a decline in the school system. To be fair, most teachers still earn high marks. However, when my son in Honors English told me his teacher "doesn't grade for grammar" as I attempted to correct his essay drafts, I became alarmed.

If he didn't learn proper grammar in sophomore English, where would he? "At home" hardly covers everyone. Other readers point to grammar mistakes in newspapers. I now notice them regularly in bestselling novels published at large (and more, by small) publishing houses (although I resist my husband's habit of correcting in pen as I read). Pick up even the average novel from 1952 and you'll notice a much higher, and more correct, level of English grammar and vocabulary. The growing phenomenon is everywhere and it's clear: Americans can no longer speak and write English. What are we speaking, the ever-changing Americanish?

"Sholeh, you're exaggerating," some might say. "Your conclusions don't take into account that language evolves," others might add. True, and grammatically correct. "You're" is a contraction; "your" is possessive. So when I mean "you are" I write "you're" - the little apostrophe stands in for the missing "a" in "are." When instead I mean to make something belong to "you" - when I wish to express possession of something - I write, "your" without the added apostrophe or "e."

Yes; in the evolution of language change is inevitable. Some words become obsolete.

Others enter which never before existed. I can be affectionate, but no longer be amorevolous. When that word was used for "loving" in the 17th century, no one wore "jeans" or could "text" sweet nothings with their "cell phones."

Yet neither of these alleged truths necessitates misuse, nor accepted changes in spelling from mere laziness or ignorance. Why else did "doughnut" - a descriptive term of a stretched nut of dough - become "donut?" "Tonight" (descriptively the night of today) appears more often in advertising incorrectly as "tonite." Before you say, "It's the texting, stupid," consider that these examples began before mobile texts were invented. I wish I could simply defenestrate (toss out the window) such improvised spelling. Yes, defenestrate is still in the dictionary, but it's gathering dust.

The French government actually has an office which guards their language, to reinforce and encourage adherence to correct grammar in all forms of literature and public display. Perhaps we too needed a bulwark against erosion. Is it 2 l8?

Sholeh Patrick is a type-A columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Contact her at sholehjo@hotmail.com.

Sholeh

Patrick