-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
/
Copy pathapostrophe.html
259 lines (223 loc) · 9.84 KB
/
apostrophe.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
<!doctype html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<title>Kevin Boone: Why the grammer snobs have it all wrong about the apostrophe</title>
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="https://kevinboone.me/img/favicon.ico">
<meta name="msvalidate.01" content="894212EEB3A89CC8B4E92780079B68E9"/>
<meta name="google-site-verification" content="DXS4cMAJ8VKUgK84_-dl0J1hJK9HQdYU4HtimSr_zLE" />
<meta name="description" content="%%DESC%%">
<meta name="author" content="Kevin Boone">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width; initial-scale=1; maximum-scale=1">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="css/main.css">
</head>
<body>
<div id="myname">
Kevin Boone
</div>
<div id="menu">
<a class="menu_entry" href="index.html">Home</a>
<a class="menu_entry" href="contact.html">Contact</a>
<a class="menu_entry" href="cv.html">CV</a>
<a class="menu_entry" href="software.html">Software</a>
<a class="menu_entry" href="articles.html">Articles</a>
<form id="search_form" method="get" action="https://duckduckgo.com/" target="_blank"><input type="text" name="q" placeholder="Search" size="5" id="search_input" /><button type="submit" id="search_submit">🔍</button><input type="hidden" name="sites" value="kevinboone.me" /><input type="hidden" name="kn" value="1" /></form>
</div>
<div id="content">
<h1>Why the grammer snobs have it all wrong about the apostrophe</h1>
<p>
<img class="article-top-image" src="img/report.png"
alt="pen"/>
I was moved to write this post by a recent kerfuffle concerning the change in
signage of a street in Hampshire (England). When the original sign
for "St Mary's Terrace" was replaced, the new sign read "St Marys Terrace".
The apostrophe had vanished.
</p>
<p>
A surprising number -- well, it surprised me, at least -- of residents
objected to this change, claiming it amounted to 'incorrect grammar'.
There seemed to be a feeling that, in a fight between 'grammar' and
convenience, grammar should win.
</p>
<p>
Perhaps it should; but is the grammar really clear-cut? I will
argue that it is not, and that what is at work here is simple
snobbery.
</p>
<p>
When I was a schoolboy, nearly fifty years ago, I was taught that there were
clear rules on how to use apostrophes in English. Everybody agreed on
them, and to misuse them was simply a mark of sloppy writing. I still use
apostrophes -- when I remember to -- as directed by <i>Fowler's Modern
English Usage</i>. At least this will make my writing consistent, which
can't be a bad thing.
But, in fact, the idea that there was consensus among grammarians
about the usage of apostrophes was
untrue even in my schooldays, and it remains untrue today.
</p>
<p>
There was, and still is, some loose agreement
that apostrophes should be
used to indicate where letters have been dropped. We write
"can't" and "won't" because -- I was taught -- these are contractions
of "can not" and "will not". Even here, however, there are contested
usages. The part of the ship traditionally spelled "gunwale" rhymes
with "tunnel"; I've seen it spelled "gunnel", but rarely "gun'ale".
If somebody did write "gun'ale" I would see it as an
affectation.
</p>
<p>
Still, most uses of the apostrophe to indicate contraction are
uncontroversial. It's the <i>possessive</i> use of the apostrophe that
seems to let loose all the vitriol.
</p>
<p>
I was taught at school that I should write "John's Book", because this
was a contraction of "John, his book". This explanation is almost
certainly incorrect, for reasons I could give a lecture on, but won't.
Still the convention is kind-of clear: apostrophe-s on the end of a
noun indicates possession.
</p>
<p>
Except when the noun is plural. We usually write "the girls' books"
if there are more than one girl, an "the girl's book"
when she is singular.
</p>
<p>
Oh, and we don't use the possessive apostrophe for pronouns.
The car lost its wheel, not "it's wheel". Although the rules can be
fiddly when you get into the fine details, the situation is still kind-of clear.
"apostrophe-s" for a singular possessive; "s-apostrophe" for a plural
possessive.
</p>
<p>
Except... it really isn't. It's only clear in the most straightforward
cases. Even a complication as trivial as the noun ending in "s" is
enough to generate dissent. Is the book belonging to James "James's book"
or "James' book"? Or even,
as I have seen, "James's' book"? All these forms are in widespread use,
and have been for decades. Does the accountant submit the "business's
accounts", or the "business' accounts"? Or even the "businesses accounts"?
</p>
<p>
Most grammar snobs don't realize that the apostrophe is a relatively
recent innovation. Most languages that have similarities to English
don't use it. In German, "John's book" is "Johanns Buch" -- no
apostrophe in sight. Chaucer did not use apostrophes.
Shakespeare rarely used them, and then in ways mostly unfamiliar to modern
readers. Shakespeare's contemporaries did not use "its", or even
"it's" to indicate "it is": they wrote "'tis" -- sometimes with
the apostrophe and sometimes without. Notoriously, Jane Austen
would have written "the carriage lost it's wheel", even though this
usage of the apostrophe was already going out of fashion in her
lifetime.
</p>
<p>
Even in my schooldays I eventually learned that
the usage of the apostrophe -- even among diligent
writers -- was contested. When I was at school I was taught to
use an apostrophe to separate a plural "s" from an abbreviation:
we sighted UFO's, but many people sighted UFOs. Or so they said.
We studied the 1900's, but
others studied the 1900s.
We didn't sell "tomato's", but we <i>did</i> try to make an
argument with "no if's or but's". This was an idiomatic use of
the pluralizing apostrophe that was ubiquitous in my region. Of course, so
was "tomato's" in certain quarters; I know of market traders
who today steadfastly maintain this tradition, in spite of the mockery
of the snobs.
</p>
<p>
The idea that there was some golden age of the apostrophe, when everybody
knew and used the same rules, is simply a nonsense. It's not just
that the English language changes over time: it does, but there
has been no consensus about the apostrophe at any time.
</p>
<p>
This brings us back to St Mary's Terrace, or St Marys Terrace, if
you prefer. Punctuation of names in England was never a matter of
grammar: it's a matter of convention.
</p>
<p>
Many place names -- but not all -- that might
have had an apostrophe, had they been named when there was such
a thing -- continue not to have an apostrophe. Many of the towns
in my region have
names that sounds like they need apostrophes, but their names go back
to antiquity and so lack one. "St Albans", for example, is
named after a man called Alban,
but it's never had an apostrophe. "St Alban's Head" in Dorset,
usually has the apostrophe, but may be named later after a different fellow
altogether.
Incidentally, our
local church is called "All Saints"
on its sign board, but "All Saints'" on its website. In London
we have "Earl's Court", with apostrophe, and "Barons Court", without.
This latter seems
to defeat the historical argument: the name Barons Court only
dates back to the
nineteenth century. There is a "Baronscourt" in
Northern Ireland that dates to the eighteenth century, for which the
London district might be named, but that's speculative. "Canons Park"
(also London) should, perhaps, be "Canons' Park", because it's a park
that belonged to some (plural) canons (the ecclesiastic
officers, not the armaments). But the name is never written
with an apostrophe. "Canon's Marsh", in the Bristol area, always is.
</p>
<p>
The list of inconsistencies just goes on an on. There simply isn't a
grammatical way to known how to punctuate a name, even if we can determine
whether the name implies possession or not. A "letters page" is not
a page belonging to letters, but a page containing letters.
"Letter's page" would look odd. Is a
"Bishop's Stortford" (usually written with the apostrophe) a stortford
belonging to a bishop, or a stortford containing bishops?
What, exactly, is a 'stortford' anyway? It's a ford over the river
Stort, obviously. Did bishops own it? Or just congregate there?
</p>
<p>
To make things worse, many town names have apostrophes in some sources,
and not others, even when we just consider official documentation
and signage.
King's Cross, in London, was generally signposted
"Kings Cross" until the 1950s. Now both forms of the name
are in widespread use
by the regional authorities,
although the apostrophe-bearing form seems more in favour at
present.
</p>
<p>
Using apostrophes in place names is potentially
misleading, particularly in a time
when most of our postal services are coordinated by computer.
People are generally better at recognizing that 'St Marys' is
the same place as 'St Mary's' than computers are.
The Ordnance Survey
(the mapping organization) has argued against using apostrophes in
names, because the apostrophes end up on maps, where they get confused
with topographical features.
At the very least, apostrophes takes up space on signs.
</p>
<p>
Still, if residents of
apostrophised places want to keep their apostrophes, in spite of
the advantages of discarding them, I guess they ought to be allowed
to. But to claim that removing the apostrophe is an affront to
grammar is an argument that lacks authority. It might make some
folks feel
clever, knowing (or believing) that they can use an apostrophe correctly,
and that others can not.
But people who are willing to delve into the historical mire of the
English language realize that there really is as much disagreement as
there is agreement here.
</p>
<p><span class="footer-clearance-para"/></p>
</div>
<div id="footer">
<a href="rss.html"><img src="img/rss.png" width="24px" height="24px"/></a>
Categories: <a href="education-groupindex.html">education</a>
<span class="last-updated">Last update Nov 29 2023
</span>
</div>
</body>
</html>