Ban the apostrophe?
It'll never happen... not anytime soon, at least. But I wouldn't be opposed to removing the apostrophe on possessives, since that rule causes the most problems: all too often one sees a plural word with an apostrophe, or a possessive without one. Sometimes, though, an apostrophe on a non-possessive word does clarify: "2s" could be read as either "twos" or "two S", but "2's" is unambiguously "twos". I also like to write decades like 80's and 90's, even though there is almost never any ambiguity (and some grammarians hate it). So I'm not really sure.
I don't like removing the apostrophe on contractions, because that rule causes little confusion (although I do have a shirt that says "What more do you wan't?"...). I especially don't like "well" and "we'll" becoming homographs. It may be true that it won't cause much ambiguity, but I still wouldn't like it.
On the other hand, this isn't really about me. If I were to look at this from the perspective of English as a whole, and how future generations will learn it, speak it, and write it, then the apostrophe isn't a big deal at all and it doesn't matter terribly much whether it stays or goes. English might well be better off without it, but I don't think it would be significantly so.
- Kef
I don't like removing the apostrophe on contractions, because that rule causes little confusion (although I do have a shirt that says "What more do you wan't?"...). I especially don't like "well" and "we'll" becoming homographs. It may be true that it won't cause much ambiguity, but I still wouldn't like it.
On the other hand, this isn't really about me. If I were to look at this from the perspective of English as a whole, and how future generations will learn it, speak it, and write it, then the apostrophe isn't a big deal at all and it doesn't matter terribly much whether it stays or goes. English might well be better off without it, but I don't think it would be significantly so.
- Kef
Not so unambiguous: "Two's divisors are one and two." I'd ban their use to form plurals but in general I'm against language reform like this, not losing any sleep over it though 'cause it ain't gonna happen.
One interesting thing is that William Faulkner omitted the apostrophes in the monosyllabic negative contractions "don't, won't, can't, ain't" ("dont, wont, cant, aint"), but he retained them in other contractions, like "hasn't, wouldn't, doesn't, let's, we'll", and in possessives. I think he may have also omitted the apostrophe in "o'clock", but I'm not sure.
I've read (on one website at least) that this apostrophe omission is an old Southern thing. (Faulkner also made consistent use of British spelling, with -ise.) I thought it looked cool in a minimalist sort of way, but I don't think I'd go so far as to use it myself.
This omission scheme would make homographs of "can't, cant", already homophones (except in Philly and NY?), and of "won't, wont", which are homophones for some speakers like me.
I've read (on one website at least) that this apostrophe omission is an old Southern thing. (Faulkner also made consistent use of British spelling, with -ise.) I thought it looked cool in a minimalist sort of way, but I don't think I'd go so far as to use it myself.
This omission scheme would make homographs of "can't, cant", already homophones (except in Philly and NY?), and of "won't, wont", which are homophones for some speakers like me.
"Cant" and "wont" are rare words, though, and fairly obscure to the average person. On the other hand, "well" and "we'll" are both extremely common.
- Kef
- Kef
Yeah, I think removing the apostrophe in "we'll" would cause an annoying amount of confusion.
On a related note, I was reading an introduction to "Julius Caesar" the other day, and I saw some interesting information about that greatest of apostrophic battlegrounds, "its". Apparently, "its" was an innovative form that was only starting to become popular in Shakespeare's time. It said that in most of his plays, he used "his" as the possessive form of "it". Later on, it said that he used "it" as a possessive form ("It lifted up it head"), and later on, a few instances of "its". You can read about this issue here: http://books.google.com/books?id=qFUkLT44s4EC&pg=PA53&lpg=
PA53&dq=his+%22it+lifted+up+it+head%22&source=web&ots=
nq-z4kcgdx&sig=RHBIMB0ehNC1it6n0mmqlbkKKB8#PPA53,M1 - just put all three of those together. ;-) That book points out that "its" is irregular for a neuter genitive - the "t" is a neuter marker and wouldn't normally have inflection added to it. (Anglo-Saxon had "hit, his" for the neuter nominative-accusative and genitive.) And as you can see at biblegateway.com, the King James Bible - with one odd exception - doesn't contain any instances of "its". A search for "his" will reveal many neuter uses:
"Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth..."
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind."
This is new to me: I didn't know that "its" was such a recent innovation. When I had seen Shakespeare quotes with neuter "his", I thought he was just being poetic, when in fact he was following conservative norms.
On a related note, I was reading an introduction to "Julius Caesar" the other day, and I saw some interesting information about that greatest of apostrophic battlegrounds, "its". Apparently, "its" was an innovative form that was only starting to become popular in Shakespeare's time. It said that in most of his plays, he used "his" as the possessive form of "it". Later on, it said that he used "it" as a possessive form ("It lifted up it head"), and later on, a few instances of "its". You can read about this issue here: http://books.google.com/books?id=qFUkLT44s4EC&pg=PA53&lpg=
PA53&dq=his+%22it+lifted+up+it+head%22&source=web&ots=
nq-z4kcgdx&sig=RHBIMB0ehNC1it6n0mmqlbkKKB8#PPA53,M1 - just put all three of those together. ;-) That book points out that "its" is irregular for a neuter genitive - the "t" is a neuter marker and wouldn't normally have inflection added to it. (Anglo-Saxon had "hit, his" for the neuter nominative-accusative and genitive.) And as you can see at biblegateway.com, the King James Bible - with one odd exception - doesn't contain any instances of "its". A search for "his" will reveal many neuter uses:
"Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth..."
"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind."
This is new to me: I didn't know that "its" was such a recent innovation. When I had seen Shakespeare quotes with neuter "his", I thought he was just being poetic, when in fact he was following conservative norms.