Well go to into town tonight.
[random number][random letters], what did I just say in your system?
A liguistic anarchist. How cute.
[random number][random letters], what did I just say in your system?
A liguistic anarchist. How cute.
|
Use apostrophes correctly - or else.
Well go to into town tonight.
[random number][random letters], what did I just say in your system? A liguistic anarchist. How cute.
Read a good book today.
What did I just say in your system?* By the way, I'm hardly an anarchist. I couldn't care less about the apostrophe if I tried. But, faced with a punctuation device that causes all kinds of heartache with very little gain, there are three options: 1. Try to educate all who write in English on its use. 2. Accept that its rules of usage will always be confusing to people. 3. Just drop the thing. The first option is a hopeless cause. People have been screwing up the use of the apostrophe for centuries. It can only get worse as more people write directly to the Internet with no proofreading intermediaries. The second option is honest: folks are going to bugger it up all the time so just don't worry about it. The third option is the simplest. Get rid of it thereby removing any uncertainty. Over to you! * An imperative or the past tense?
1. Try to educate all who write in English on its use.
Indeed, do. Just like you educate them on maths and they still screw up. Just like you educate them on absolutely anything really, and they still screw up. Maybe just drop the whole "education" thing..? 2. Accept that its rules of usage will always be confusing to people. Of course, just like the rules to absolutely everything else. 3. Just drop the thing. If you drop everything people can't grasp, you might as well want to go back in the caves - because there is not one thing *everyone* will understand. "Over to you! * An imperative or the past tense?" There is no verb in that quote, so neither. :-P
>> 1. Try to educate all who write in English on its use.
2. Accept that its rules of usage will always be confusing to people. 3. Just drop the thing. The first option is a hopeless cause. People have been screwing up the use of the apostrophe for centuries. It can only get worse as more people write directly to the Internet with no proofreading intermediaries. The second option is honest: folks are going to bugger it up all the time so just don't worry about it. The third option is the simplest. Get rid of it thereby removing any uncertainty. << ------------------------- 1. Yes, educate them. Why not ? The apostrophe is absolutly not difficult to learn the rules 2. The rules of usage are not confusing at all. It's mostly logic. If the english peolple will learn a bit their own language grammar it will be resolved. In french people don't have this problem with apostrophe because it get well learned in school. 3. It would be incorrect. I think if you don't want having the apostrphe, then you can make another construction for avoid it. for exemple for possessive : the book of 11RH instead of 11RH's book. Then for contractiosn don't make them : it isn't tuesday --> it is not tuesday. It will look more formally but it will avoid ambiguity. I find that the apostrphe isn't decoration for making a pretty word but it's connected with the grammar and sense. If you will remove it, you will remove the sense also. It's my opinion.
"There is no verb in that quote, so neither. :-P"
Forget that, I missed the asterisque. "Read a good book today" is indeed something you'd need context on - however, I haven't seen the subject omission being standard in written texts. Apart from that, the fact that the English language has ambiguities as it is, doesn't mean we should make it all ambiguous to achieve uniformity... or maybe that's just me.
"The apostrophe is absolutly not difficult to learn the rules"
If that is so, why is it such a big deal then? "I think if you don't want having the apostrphe, then you can make another construction for avoid it. for exemple for possessive : the book of 11RH instead of 11RH's book. Then for contractiosn don't make them : it isn't tuesday --> it is not tuesday. It will look more formally but it will avoid ambiguity." Complete nonsense. Why on earth would you make "another construction"? Example: "11RH's book" just becomes "11RHs book." "it isn't Tuesday" becomes "it isnt Tuesday" What's ambiguous about "isnt"? "I find that the apostrphe isn't decoration for making a pretty word but it's connected with the grammar and sense. If you will remove it, you will remove the sense also. It's my opinion." The apostrophe, unlike many other punctuation marks, represents nothing in speech. It is not connected to either grammar or sense. It is a pure writing convention. If you remove it, all that will be gone will be the apostrophe. Future English writers wouldn't miss what isn't there. That's my opinion. "'Read a good book today' is indeed something you'd need context on - however, I haven't seen the subject omission being standard in written texts." Are you suggesting English speakers don't say elliptical phrases like this? Or write them in their diaries? Or are you so hidebound and pedantic that only "standard" texts count? Thank heavens you had no hand in editing "Huckleberry Finn"! Anyway, you pretty well need context on everything because speakers don't generally utter phrases in isolation. Your example of "Well go to into town tonight" is no different; context would quickly tell any reader what "Well" meant here. And presumably, it would mean "We'll" because you've omitted the comma after "Well" that would have indicated another meaning. The comma actually being a useful punctuation mark of course.
"Are you suggesting English speakers don't say elliptical phrases like this? Or write them in their diaries? Or are you so hidebound and pedantic that only "standard" texts count? Thank heavens you had no hand in editing "Huckleberry Finn"!"
Sure they do. They also write "thier" instead of "their", "percieve" instead of "perceive", "apostrophy" instead of apostrophe, "u r" instead of "you are", don't use capital letters, etc etc etc. Your point is..? "Your example of "Well go to into town tonight" is no different; context would quickly tell any reader what "Well" meant here. And presumably, it would mean "We'll" because you've omitted the comma after "Well" that would have indicated another meaning. The comma actually being a useful punctuation mark of course." Nah, not really... you don't always use it when you speak, do you? And what, are you suggesting English speakers don't omit commas in their diaries? Or are so pendantic that only "standard" texts count..?
Written language is always different from spoken language, the written form is only a system to represent what is said in actual speech. And It's still useful to mark omissions and write certain names, and if you don't care 'bout possesives and contractions... then I guess a fair amount of people would mind their name being written Dangelo instead of D'Angelo of Oreilly instead of O'Reilly.
The fact that some symbol in writing has no correspondance in actual speech, is not a reason to drop the thing, although it may happen, for example in Spanish, we don't pronounce 'H' but we're schooled on the rules of how to use it, some people still mess up, and are copmplaining all of the time, that there shouldn't be the 'H' in Spanish... oh that reminds me of something... anyway... just give it time... maybe with some time... droping the apostrophe will become an habit. And habit show what will become of a language... Pete from Peru
"They also write 'thier' instead of 'their', 'percieve' instead of 'perceive', 'apostrophy' instead of apostrophe, 'u r' instead of 'you are', don't use capital letters, etc etc etc."
You're attempting to conflate one discussion with another here. Nice try but no cigar. Most of your examples are just spelling mistakes. As for things like "u r," I'd suggest that, given the prevalence of the Internet and text messaging, you'd better get used to it. "[Y]ou don't always use it [the comma] when you speak, do you?" Of course I do - and so do you. Unless you're suggesting that you never pause when speaking but pronounce all your statements in flat, protracted monotones. That's the point: the comma actually has some relationship to the spoken language. Unlike the apostrophe.
Pete:
I'm not suggesting anything more than this: if people are so incensed at the "improper" use of the apostrophe, and given that it is merely a written convention with no correlation to speech, then the most reasonable solution would be to discard the thing. That way - problem solved. Again, personally I could care less. I'm capable of accepting that we have the apostrophe because, well, we just do (in other words, because it's another daffy spelling convention like "gh" in "through" or, for that matter, your "h" in written Spanish). Just don't bombard me with balderdash reasons about its "importance" to English.
Oh, I do pause occasionally. Native speakers also pause occasionally. Not always though. So it would make perfect sense not to put it in writing, since not pausing is a legitimate way of speaking. The difference is that by omitting a comma, the message is very rarely misunderstood. The comma is a stylistic element, not one that actually promotes comprehension of the meaning.
Now, its-it's, you're-your, they're-their... hmm. Say such a system becomes prevalent and the apostrophe completely extinct. Say I am a curious kid asking lots of questions. Do you care to explain why "your" and "you are" are even related? Why do we use possessives to say "you are, it is, they are" but not to say "she is"? Ah, I guess you'd have to explain the whole apostrophe thing in order to avoid ending up with a "her" for "she is". You find *that* less tedious than learning that, when you cut some vowels off, you replace them with an apostrophe? We have a different definition for the words "tedious" and "annoying" then. "You're attempting to conflate one discussion with another here. Nice try but no cigar. Most of your examples are just spelling mistakes." I don't get your way of thinking. Omitting the apostrophe is also a mistake under the current system. You suggested getting rid of it, because many speakers are confused about it and misuse it anyway. So why not get rid of everything many speakers get confused about and misuse? Where do you draw the line? "As for things like "u r," I'd suggest that, given the prevalence of the Internet and text messaging, you'd better get used to it." Sure, it is common, just like omitting the apostrophe is common, just like the above spelling mistakes are common. I don't go around criticising people for their spelling. But you specifically suggested getting rid of the "standard" use of the apostrophe, if I am not mistaken; are you also advocating getting rid of "you are" and replacing it with "u r" exclusively?
>> Just don't bombard me with balderdash reasons about its "importance" to English <<
____________________________ what does mean balderdash - something like stupid or not good ? If the apostrphe will be omitted because it's not necessary and not important, then I think omit it. But this isn't the reason and isn't the case. You've written that the reason would be because the english-speakers are making very many annoying mistakes where they put the apostrophe, so the soltuion evidently must be to educate them. Give them 3 lessons and it will be solved. Probably they didn't never learned it. My teachers would be angry if we wouldn't correctly use apostrphes in french, but we've learned them in primary school. English-speakers don't learn them as well ? I don't understand why particlularly apostrophes are difficult in a language with *very* weird spelling. >> I don't go around criticising people for their spelling << _______________________________ You can't never know if the person has dyslexia or other neurologic problems or other illness etc.. why their spelling isn't correct, so criticising must be only after you knwo the person don't have this.
"You can't never know if the person has dyslexia or other neurologic problems or other illness etc.. why their spelling isn't correct, so criticising must be only after you knwo the person don't have this."
Okay, I guess the way I phrased that was weird. I meant the opposite of what you understood - I actually avoid criticising people for their spelling. Hmm it's (or its :-P) a sleepless night...
calliope,
I thought it as well, that you avoid criticising : I wrote it because I agree with you !! sorry, probably I better must have written :I agree because .....
<<I'm not suggesting anything more than this: if people are so incensed at the "improper" use of the apostrophe, and given that it is merely a written convention with no correlation to speech, then the most reasonable solution would be to discard the thing.
That way - problem solved.>> I don't know why you're always suggesting that people should discard certain things or disregard certain facts, only because it's difficult, confusing, or you have to think too much... I don't really know if eliminating the apostrophe forever would be a reasonable solution, but... it is the simplest... and yes, problem solved... however you may face the little problem that Calliope mentioned, how would you like to explain all this 'shes - her' stuff to a child, and how in the world would a poor English teacher explain this to EL's? Calliope: I agree with you. Pauline: I think French teachers are a bit obsessed with this grammar stuff. And you care too much about teachers being mad at their students for misusing the apostrophe. But In the end, I think your point is more or less the same as mine... dear God, if we spawned this language, why do we complain about it? Our language is the way it is, if other people bother in learning it, then, shit, let's learn... a non-native speaker can't speak better than us... |