"They are merely 'a kind of decoration,' he added. Dr. McWhorter said apostrophes were the 'fish forks' of punctuation. 'They sit there, you’re not quite sure how to use them; you’re almost sure to use them wrong.' Apostrophes crept into written English for arbitrary reasons, Dr. McWhorter said. 'It’s one more way to look down on people who never quite mastered "its" and "it’s" when really we should be thinking about how effectively they get their message across.' Debates about grammar usage elicit strong feelings because language is an important part of identity, said Ellie Rye, an English lecturer at the University of York in England. Still, in the history of the English language, apostrophes are 'quite modern,' she said. They were not used to mark possession until the 16th century...."
From
"An English Town Drops Apostrophes From Street Signs. Some Aren’t Happy. The move has prompted some resistance, with someone writing an apostrophe on a sign for St. Mary’s Walk. 'What’s next?' one North Yorkshire resident asked. 'Commas?'"
"Debates about grammar usage elicit strong feelings...." Okay, then, let me express a strong feeling about that phrase "grammar usage." First, apostrophes are punctuation, and punctuation is not grammar. Second, usage is something else too. It is to be distinguished from grammar. Grammar, punctuation, and usage are separate topics. To say "grammar usage" when you're talking about punctuation is an annoying error — an annoying usage error.
Posts
59 comments:
'It’s one more way to look down on people who never quite mastered "its" and "it’s" …’
I used to think it was okay to look down on ‘people who never quite mastered “its” and "it’s",’ especially as the rule is quite simple to state, and thus to remember. But Autocorrect pushed some apostrophe misuse into my own texts, so I’m forced to be charitable.
How about they start to determine some standard visible location for the sign without the apostrophe? From a car approaching a street corner?
Ever tried to catch street signs while driving through, oh say Liverpool? Good luck. Oh, over there, on that building. See?
Ummm, no. I don't see. I guess it helps keep out the riffraff, like winters in North Dakota.
There was a time when none of those rules (capitalization, usage, grammar, spelling, punctuation) existed but, in general, the act of writing was difficult enough to make anything recorded short enough to be intelligible without them. You aren't going to put War and Peace on stone tablets. Over time people developed standards to aid in the comprehension of longer and longer documents so I'm going to go a bit Chesterton's Fence on this. It's one thing to point out you can't split an infinitive in English but that doesn't mean you can arbitrarily say any commonly accepted standard is just superflous status marking. On a street sign "St Matthews" isn't significantly different than "Saint Matthew's" but "its" and "it's" have different meaning in writing. You can figure it out in context but that doesn't happen without first realizing what you read didn't make sense, then figuring out why, and then hoping that the author really did just goof. Adding effort just to make some claim of egalitarianism doesn't aid in comprehension.
Apostrophes are essential for non-native learners and speakers of English. As a current student of modern Hebrew I struggle with reading when the vowel-guidance marks aren't there, which is commonly the case. If I KNOW the word, it's easy for my mind to fill in the stuff that isn't there, but not if I don't know the word, or am just learning it.
Now, imagine attempting to to deal with contractions in English without the apostrophe, as in won't vs wont, or can't vs cant. When i'm speaking in professional situations where many people have English as an acquired language, and there is translation for those who don't, I NEVER use contractions or idiomatic expressions, I speak very slowly, as well as || use frequent cæsuras in my speaking text so everyone can keep pace.
An agronomist friend from Kentucky was invited to present some fairly complex technical material to a professional association of farmers in Québec. I warned him that it takes 25% more in French than English to say the same thing, so slow it WAY down. And also to ensure that two weeks ahead the simultrans team had a list of every technical or specialty term he would use, and roughly in order. The terps were blown away, because, sadly, most anglos are horribly insensitive to other languages.
Back in Britain, many of their immigrants, because of the Commonwealth connection, speak Urdu or Hindi, two closely related languages which use the arabic or devangli alphabet respectively. They're exposed to the latin alphabet in school, but it remains foreign territory to most.
It is only anglo arrogance, creating a needless problem and barrier for the "others" to show them their place. IOW, absolutely typical elitist bullshit. Perhaps they'll understand "Sod off, Swampy, 'n' go bugger yerselves, ye useless Numpties."
The inability to write ‘proper’ is becoming more prevalent over the past few decades. This is further evidence. This is a symptom of the downfall of society to idiocracy.
Some people note that language changes over time - this is true, and the English language is one of the hardest to learn - but there are changes going on, today, which don’t indicate a natural refinement but a complete bastardization with degeneracy.
This is one area where AI (actually LLMs) could assist [autocorrect] but they are to be getting worse.
Is it the White House Correspondents Dinner or the White House Correspondents' Dinner? If the latter, wouldn't you prefer to brush that screen litter away?
"This is one area where AI (actually LLMs) could assist [autocorrect] but they are to be getting worse."
I note that you didn't write A.I. and I don't even know where the periods belong in LLM. I thought that was a law degree (one of the phonier law degrees, I admit).
Large language... something. Model??
Or White House Correspondent’s Dinner?
Are they individuals or a group? Dinner is singular or plural?
'It’s one more way to look down on people who never quite mastered "its" and "it’s" when really we should be thinking about how effectively they get their message across.
'What’s next?' one North Yorkshire resident asked. 'Commas?'"
vowels.. 'It’s n mr wy t lk dwn n pple wh nvr qut mstrd "ts" nd "t’s" whn rlly w shld b thnkng bt hw ffctvly thy gt thr mssg crss.'Wht’s nxt?' n Nrth Yrkshr rsdnt skd. 'Vwls?'"
Meh. The apologetics come because nowadays we can see how dumb and disordered people are by their own unedited writing.
Can't have that, can we?
Dropping it from Street signs is just an attack on tradition. And you can guess why that's being done, and who's pushing it without much effort.
If someone in 2024 decided to name a street with an apostophre that would be absurd. As for dropping them from words, stop fucking around with accepted gammar and language. Its fine just the way it is, and if does change it should be a bottoms up, organic change, and not a bunch of SJW/Leftist/Leftists at the top, forcing change on the rest of us.
Apostrophes were fine from the 16th century until the early 21st century, when US public school products started clashing with computer use and things like grammar and punctuation ceased to be taught because computers made it unnecessary to be taught. No one knows how to spell any longer, how to compose a sentence or (gasp) a paragraph. And as far as punctuation, you'd have to care enough about English standards to care about an apostrophe. Hell...our pronouns no longer have any meaning.
When you're struggling to get people to use the correct pronoun while parading in favor of Hamas, it's hard to take an apostrophe seriously.
So the possessive and the plural (and sometimes a contraction with the verb “is”) sometimes use the same basic structure, and it can be confusing. Better that than genders and complex case endings.
Is it the White House Correspondents Dinner or the White House Correspondents' Dinner?
That's essentially a street sign, so yes, if you want to make a standard that you don't use apostrophes to distinguish possession from plurals in names or titles, I'm on board.
As Bart Hall pointed out, though, you can make a strong case that the apostrophe is necessary in English written contractions at least, which makes McWhorter's example of "its" versus "it's" a bit out of place. Bart also notes that in formal or technical writing it is common to avoid them altogether.
“Is it the White House Correspondents Dinner or the White House Correspondents' Dinner?”
If I went to the former, I’d sue for false advertising if I couldn’t eat the correspondents.
wouldn't it be more fun for us' all, if we were all grocers' ?
'Should'nt we just place apostrophe's whenever he make's a 's ?
McWhorter lacks the right intuition to see what's going on.
16 She is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not her's: her labour is in vain without fear; (KJV)
It's a convention and might change, but it's not arbitrary or unnecessary, that is, it serves a function. Here the feeling is, "That's the way they did it back then." But they adhered to the rules of construction just as we do. Not: "Well, it's arbitrary."
If somebody can't keep it's and its straight, it's a marker and useful information, from which, usually, in hour cohort, you can infer a typo or proofreading mistake, but in a job application it's another matter. McWhorter says it's not important, so he's missing a feature of language.
The question he misses is why it's important, given that it's important. Descriptive linguistics.
McWhorter and Loury both suffer a little from believing their own press, instead of taking into account condescending to even very smart blacks, another effect to be described rather than abhorred.
Althouse:
First, apostrophes are punctuation, and punctuation is not grammar.
Response to "is punctuation part of grammar?"
Punctuation is not grammar, but it is in the category of the mechanics of writing, which falls under the umbrella of grammar. Punctuation is the use of symbols to differentiate grammatical units and enhance comprehension in creative text. However, punctuation is an aspect of grammar that relates to the symbols used to add meaning to sentences. Many grammatical rules cannot be followed without punctuation; therefore, it does form part of “grammar”.
LLM is "Large Language Model".
The phrase might be considered Tech-ese and not ordinary English, but it's much more accurately descriptive of the actual process involved than the boastful and grandiose term "Artificial Intelligence".
Ann Althouse:
Large language... something. Model??
Large Language Model. I posted an extensive description here of what it was and how it worked several months ago. Links and everything.
“On my naming day when I come 12 I gone front spear and kilt a wyld boar he parbly ben the las wyld pig on the Bundel Downs any how there hadnt ben none for a long time befor him nor I aint looking to see none agen.” The first line of Russell Hoban’s influential post-apocalyptic novel RIDDLEY WALKER.
Althouse:
... I don't even know where the periods belong in LLM.
It's an acronym. You don't use periods to separate the letters and it's usually pronounced as if it were a word (NASA). In this case and others, not.
Chaucer died in 1400 and the Canterbury Tales are barely in English, a hundred and some years later the apostrophe to indicate possession comes in. Sorry, but I don't think that counts as 'relatively recent'.
RCOCEAN II:
If someone in 2024 decided to name a street with an apostophre that would be absurd.
Meyer's Circle.
... and not a bunch of SJW/Leftist/Leftists at the top, forcing change on the rest of us.
That's only one of the groups doing it.
Recently listened to 36 half hour lectures by McWhorter, The Story of Language. It expanded my respect for our humanness. It's inexpensive on Audible.
As if the (what, five?) apostrophe rules were difficult or something...
There's no excuse for McWhorter, a linguist, to be this careless, unless he has contempt for his audience or himself. Given his recent output, I suspect both to be the case. I guess he wants to fit into academia's protest loop, or go out playing radical. Apostrophes are a pretty strange hill to die on.
Britain's Apostrophe Protection Society is fighting back. They have a direct action website (you can actually turn in offenders) and a fabulous online shop with the best punctuation books for learners, plus nerdy mugs, nerdy t-shirts, and punctuation hoodies. Who wouldn't want a punctuation hoodie?
Computers don't like apostrophes in names, Irish and otherwise.
This looks like a good post to ask: is it drivers license, driver's license, or drivers' license?
The apostrophe destroys clarity.
Use of contractions in writing is literally (yes, literally) insulting. Are bytes, bandwidth, ink, and toner so dear that you must short the reader two or three clarifying characters? What is the reader or listener to think?
...he'd...: he had? he did? he would? he could? heed?
...we'd...: we did? we had? we would? we could? weed?
...we're...: we are? we were? whir? weir?
...they're...: they are? they were? their? there? Thayer
Jumping Jebus! If you can not make two extra keystrokes for clarity, you do not deserve my attention.
The double possessive is doubly insulting. Grammatical possessive is adequately and unambiguously established without need of apostrophe by either:
..prepositional phrase with "of" (e.g. "a friend of John") or
..simply lead with the possessor (e.g. "the car door").
The double possessive "a friend of John's" carries ambiguity not clarity.
..She is a friend of John's....
..She is a friend of John's brother but she and John do not know each other at all.
Thank you. //Rant
Have you read Dreyer's English? Very readable, even enjoyable, book on English style, use, grammar, punctuation. I read it a couple weeks ago. There's even a game!
Copy editor chief at Random House. Sense of humor throughout.
It's on Kindle. The book, not the game.
OK. Now that we are really and truly at it, can someone explain difference between:
.."usage of grammar" and "use of grammar?"
.."bodily fluid" and "body fluid?"
"It's an acronym. You don't use periods to separate the letters and it's usually pronounced as if it were a word (NASA). In this case and others, not."
How is it an acronym? It's unpronounceable. You have to say the letters separately. That the definition of not an acronym.
I think apostrophes are illegal in Canada. As in against national law.
Reason is that there are no apostrophes in French.
So, to pacify the latino population (22%) nobody can use apostrophes.
Thank God and the ffs for the first amendment. I can call my donut shop jo'hn H3nrys if I like in the us. (the 3 is silent)
Thus "Tim Hortons" instead of Tim Horton's.
Fun fact about 22% of canadians do not speak either French or English as their first language.
John Henry
I take it back.
I can see that the older meaning of "acronym" does entail pronouncing the letters in a row. OED: "A group of initial letters used as an abbreviation for a name or expression, each letter or part being pronounced separately; an initialism (such as ATM, TLS). In the O.E.D. the term initialism is used for this phenomenon. (See sense 2 for O.E.D. use of the word.)"
I like the OED's preference for "initialism" when you don't say the letters as a word, as with OED. And I note that I write OED without periods and the OED itself breaks up its name with periods, perhaps out of fear people will say "Oh, Ed."
It is always so delicious when people abhor current changes in language in exactly the same terms and sentiments of spiritual and cultural degradation that the pettifogging pedants of previous generations used to bring us...the language traditions they now defend. McWwhorter is skillful at skewering such folks because he has actually thought about it in the context of language in general. Quelle surprise, eh?
I love traditions, in language, in church, in New England/American/Western Culture, and I use them attentively. I don't pretend this has the moral significance that other traditionalists seem to feel they must lord over lesser beings.
Stuff it, Jasper. Ya just ain't right.
AA: "Is it the White House Correspondents Dinner or the White House Correspondents' Dinner? If the latter, wouldn't you prefer to brush that screen litter away?
Hmmm. It is "cat litter" on the store shelf, but maybe "cat's litter" after you buy it. But is "cat's litter box" litter in the cat's box or the cat's litter in a box?
Sometimes it's ignorance, sometimes sloppiness. Sometimes it's a bad machine transcription.
The otherwise impeccably clear and correct rhhardin states, "...usually, in hour cohort..."
As noted above, when grammar rules arise organically, they are usually useful. When imposed from the anointed, as in the all-too common singular "they," it's confounding.
My favorite related joke:
A priest, a minister, and a rabbit go to the Blood Bank.
Nurse asks, "What's your blood type?"
Rabbit says, "TypO."
Zavier O:
Like everything else in the world, apostrophes can be useful of harmful.
When use of an apostrophe would be confusing, don't use the apostrophe.
When it make it easier to say or read, use the apostrophe.
The double genitive is used to mark indefiniteness.
His pupils
pupils of his.
Dreyer has a whole section on when to use periods in acronyms or abbreviations or suchlikes
As long as it's just street signs I'm willing to regard it as a harmless quirk, like New York's use of cardinal rather than ordinal numbers ('42 St.')
Before the 1600s how much was written in English versus Latin? Apostrophes' disappearance on street signs in the UK will be followed within fifty years by the replacement by Arabic.
One of my favorite books, “Last Exit to Brooklyn”, contains no apostrophes:
“Selby did not use quotation marks to distinguish dialogue but instead merely blended it into the text. He used a slash instead of an apostrophe mark for contractions and did not use an apostrophe at all for possessives.”
Takes a while to get used to, but it works.
"This looks like a good post to ask: is it drivers license, driver's license, or drivers' license?"
None of these is correct. It is driving licence.
A string of words from somewhere this morning: "But while Biden's laughable..."
I gave you one word after the "'s." Are you reading a contraction or a possessive?
..But while Biden's laughable, what he's doing isn't funny.
..But while Biden's laughable performance is amusing, it is also dangerous.
Annoying sloppy writing, disrespectful to the reader, more so to the listener when it is read aloud.
Gilbar said 'It’s n mr wy t lk dwn n pple wh nvr qut mstrd "ts" nd "t’s" whn rlly w shld b thnkng bt hw ffctvly thy gt thr mssg crss.'Wht’s nxt?' n Nrth Yrkshr rsdnt skd. 'Vwls?'"
Welcome to Hebrew and, for that matter, to Arabic as well, though I can barely be polite in that language, to say nothing of dealing with its four cursive alphabets on steroids.
Screen litter? These star-fucking buffoons are supposed to write, accurately, for a living.
Or perhaps you are correct. They have made their profession a litter box. Why not blazon their shameful illiteracy for all to see.
While others seem to have responded a bit to the assertion that punctuation is not part of grammar, I don't think anyone specifically noted the distinction that English is both a spoken and written language. While it might be reasonable to consider that punctuation is not part of the grammar of the spoken language -- i.e., not apostrophes nor commas nor periods nor even the spaces between words. But punctuation is certainly part of the written language's grammar. An author can follow, defy or ignore these rules as they wish, just as a speaker can choose whether or not to follow the rules of the spoken language. For most of us following the generally accepted rules is the best way to communicate clearly, but many poets and the occasional prose writer transcend (or try to transcend) the rules in either the spoken or written word.
"First, apostrophes are punctuation, and punctuation is not grammar. Second, usage is something else too. It is to be distinguished from grammar. Grammar, punctuation, and usage are separate topics. To say "grammar usage" when you're talking about punctuation is an annoying error — an annoying usage error."
Well said.
As I grow older, one of my regrets is that didn't pay more attention to stuff like this in high school. (And the fact that I wish that I remembered more of what I learned back then.)
Also, if you get rid of apostrophes how can you differentiate between possessives and plurals?
I've always been of the belief that one of the important things about writing is to be as clearly understood as possible, even if that means annoying people with too much punctuation.
Years ago, Cormac McCarthy wrote a book called, The Road. It didn't have any punctuation in it at all and was incredibly difficult to read. Granted, his writing style was extremely light on punctuation, but in this book he didn't even have quotation marks. (So it was hard to figure out who was talking.) Logically, there was no reason to do that. (Unless he was trying to make the case that the universe that this book took place in was hard to make sense of.) Personally, I suspect that he bet someone that he could write a book with no punctuation at all and it would still be critically acclaimed. The book won the Pulitzer prize for fiction.
But that's fiction, where you're allowed to break the rules. Street signs...not so much.
Ann Althouse said...
"I note that you didn't write A.I."
I have noticed that artificial intelligence is usually written as AI instead of A.I. online. To me, that makes it look like it's an entirely new word instead of abbreviated words.
Apostrophes were dropped from US place names in 1890 so it’s hard to understand the fuss.
A priest, a minister, and a rabbit go to the Blood Bank.
Nurse asks, "What's your blood type?"
Rabbit says, "TypO."
Excellent, but it took me a minute.
Tom McGlynn brings up an important point to which AVI alluded. McWhorter is approaching this issue as a linguist. We speak in contractions because it is less vocal effort. The apostrophe likely came late to punctuation because it was not needed until people wanted to reflect vernacular language in writing so it became necessary to distinguish contracted "can not" from "cant", for example. As Zavier notes it is possible to write without using them and we preserve the distinction with the standard that formal writing should not contain them.
"This looks like a good post to ask: is it drivers license, driver's license, or drivers' license?"
None of these is correct. It is driving licence."
Then I'm opposed to it. Licentiousness should not be encouraged.
"None of these is correct. It is driving licence."
Then I'm opposed to it. Licentiousness should not be encouraged.
I am always getting UK and US spelling mixed up... But driving licence does make more sense than driver's licence to me.
My only comment, pace John McWhorter, is that there are indeed contexts in which the lack of an apostrophe impedes the reader's ability to understand what would otherwise be the author's straightforward meaning.
If you want me to do you the courtesy of reading your nonsense for any length of time, then use apostrophes correctly.
Post a Comment