Member |
Lynne Truss has a new article in the Telegraph:
In saying it's not a "fight for English", I guess she's trying to dismiss David Crystal by implying his arguments aren't relevant. But "overnight erosion of respect for the 500-year ascendancy of print"? Talk about the Recency Illusion. Has she forgotten how the uses for the apostrophe have always been changing, and how we've been confused about it for quite a while? सुनिश्चितम् आश्चर्यवत् |
||
|
Member |
Has she forgotten how the uses for the apostrophe have always been changing, and how we've been confused about it for quite a while?
No, because she never knew. The history of Grammatohooligans only goes back as far as grammar school when Miss Blooknooz scarred them for life by dangling a participle in front of their eyes. But yours was a rhetorical question, right? —Ceci n'est pas un seing. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Partly rhetorical. She does discuss the history of English punctuation in her book, but perhaps it was mere rhetoric. I seem to remember that she talked about the different uses of the apostrophe, but it has been a while since I read it - and I'm not reading it again to check.
सुनिश्चितम् आश्चर्यवत् |
|||
|
Member |
I don't understand that quote that "What I lament and resist is the overnight erosion of respect for the 500-year ascendancy of print". Her article is otherwise solely about the use of the apostrophe. Ignoring the fact that apostrophes have been used regularly in English for less than 500 years, they are used in handwriting as well as print. In any case, why does she lament this "overnight" erosion?
Come on you raver, you seer of visions, Come on you painter, you piper, you prisoner, and shine! |
|||
|
|
Member |
why does she lament this "overnight" erosion?
Because she is either (1) ignorant of the facts you've mentioned, or (2) ignoring them for the sake of her rant. —Ceci n'est pas un seing. |
|||
|
Member |
Whereas the use of the apostrophe, like the use of other grammatical devices, has changed over the years and is still changing, I contend that it is good practice to adhere to the standards that are presently in place.
Grammarians do not, in 2007, consider it correct to use apostrophes in plurals or to omit them from possessives and contractions. I am sure that, eventually, the apostrophe usage wheel will turn full circle and the apostrophised plural will once again be the norm. But until it does I'm with Lyn Truss. Use the poor thing properly. Richard English |
|||
|
|
Member |
I have no problem following conventions. As a writer I try to, but mistakes happen, and, as pointed out in this thread, that is why good editors and proofreaders are important. I do have a problem with self-righteous journalists who try to convince me that these conventions came from God's mouth to their ears. A convention is just that: an agreement between the users of a language on how to encode some extra bit of information that would otherwise not be there and might cause some ambiguity. As we have discussed in the past, the conventions of apostrophe usage have changed within most of our lifetimes. I know they have for me, e.g., how to apostrophize possessives of nouns that end in -s. If somebody wanted to rant about the absurdity or the logical inconsistencies of our spelling system, and they chose to write about it without historical inaccuracies or distortions, either through ignorance or for putative rhetorical value, I would buy that book, read it, and most probably enjoy it. Probably the main confusion over when and where to put an apostrophe is this very badly designed conventions. For example, the possessive of a singular takes a -'s, except if it's a personal pronoun, except if that pronoun is one.
—Ceci n'est pas un seing. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Grammarians do not, in 2007, consider it correct to use apostrophes in plurals or to omit them from possessives and contractions.
And as I've said before, some authorities describe the use of apostrophes in some kinds of plurals as standard. The standard is not monolithic; there is variation.
- The Oxford Companion to the English Language page 75 This message has been edited. Last edited by: goofy, सुनिश्चितम् आश्चर्यवत् |
|||
|
|
Member |
Here is an online source (1998) for Goofy's quote.
Robert Burchfield, editor of the four-volume Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary, said "The apostrophe was only a moderately successful device, and it is probably coming to the end of its usefulness, certainly for forming plurals and marking possession. It may only be retained for contractions." (last entry on page 109) Here 's a discussion we had about the apostrophe nearly five years ago. It starts out talking about extortion and blackmail, but quickly turns to the apostrophe. edited Oct.28, 2007 to changed it's to its This message has been edited. Last edited by: tinman, |
|||
|
|
Member |
Actually he wrote: "The apostrophe was only a moderately successful device, and it is probably coming to the end of its usefulness, certainly for forming plurals and marking possession. It may only be retained for contractions." Richard English |
|||
|
|
Member |
Oh, how embarrassing! You're right, Richard. I'll go back and change my mistake.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
I'll go back and change my mistake.
Pretty much proves my point. It's a stupid convention. —Ceci n'est pas un seing. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I don't know as though it proves that the convention is stupid - only that it's a convention. There are plenty of conventions that one could cite that are far more pointless. Richard English |
|||
|
|
Member |
I don't know as though it proves that the convention is stupid - only that it's a convention. There are plenty of conventions that one could cite that are far more pointless.
What's the point of using an apostrophe for marking the possessive except in personal pronouns other than one? —Ceci n'est pas un seing. |
|||
|
|
Member |
As I understood it, the reason was that personal possessive pronouns are not formed directly from their pronouns (they are unique words) and do not therefore need an apostrophe to denote their status.
It's his, not "he's"; hers, not she's". The exception is "one's" because that is not a special word and it is therefore formed in the conventional fashion by using apostrophe s. Richard English |
|||
|
|
Member |
Except for the possessive its which is newer than the other pronouns, it having replaced his as the traditional possessive of it in the 16th century or so. As opposed to the others, its is clearly formed regularly as it + [/i]s[/i]. Why no apostrophe? It doesn't make sense.
—Ceci n'est pas un seing. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I agree it makes more sense for "it" to form its possessive regularly. I can only assume that the convention of omitting the apostrophe has come about to maintain conformity with other pronouns and to avoid confusion with the word "it's". I am not suggesting that this convention will never be changed; I am simply stating, as I have previously stated, that whilst conventions exist and are agreed by the majority it is better that they be adhered to.
There are, as I have also suggested, many other conventions that have far less raison d'etre. Richard English |
|||
|
|
Member |
Again, as I have stated: I have no problem with following conventions. I am not suggesting that the convention be changed. I have a problem when somebody tells me that an anomaly exists for a reason and then tries to construct a reason. Compare man's with man's. Which is the possessive singular form and which the contraction of man + is? You cannot tell by looking at the word in isolation. You can only tell by looking at the word in context. The other pronouns do not form their possessives, or plurals for that matter, regularly. Only its and one's do, except that in the formers case the apostrophe is not used, while in the latter case it is. It is a pointless and stupid convention!
—Ceci n'est pas un seing. |
|||
|
|
Member |
I don't think I've done that, have I?
As I said there are many others, just as pointless and just as stupid. But we follow them because they are established and agreed conventions. I believe that is the best course since humanity exists, generally peacefully, by agreeing and following conventions. Richard English |
|||
|
|
Junior Member |
May I suggest that conventions are not stupid, but because of the conventions they agree to abide by, people sometimes appear to be.
bump |
|||
|
|
Member |
May I suggest that conventions are not stupid, but because of the conventions they agree to abide by, people sometimes appear to be.
Yes, that is another reason why it is a stupid and pointless convention. —Ceci n'est pas un seing. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Yeah, I think you did. I got no problem with punctuation conventions either, if anyone was wondering. But I do think it's possible for the convention to encompass two different forms, for instance VIPs and VIP's, or Joneses and Jones's . Whichever of these Truss thinks is right, some other "grammarian" is going to think is wrong. I don't think that punctuation is a place for zero tolerance. सुनिश्चितम् आश्चर्यवत् |
|||
|
Member |
Yes, I agree with you, Goofy. It's that zero tolerance attitude that can be annoying, and of course it goes way beyond apostrophes. I was in a workshop today with one of Bob's limericks, and the workshopper wanted additional commas in these lines:
Well I'm the right man And I'll help if I can. He wanted them after "well" and after "man." The workshopper says, "If two complete thoughts are separated by "and," a comma should precede..." See, that's the thing. People think there are these black and white rules, and that's not the case. Bob sweetly responds that it would be an "unusual British writer who would use a comma there." However, it's a style decision. Many Americans wouldn't use a comma there, as well. To say "should" just irritates me. Sorry to get off the comma discussion, but it's related. Richard, I think you are less of a stickler for commas than you are for apostrophes. I guess we're all sticklers about something, whether it's about uses of words, style of writing or rules of grammar. [Changed "comments" to "commas;" Bob made me aware of the mistake with his sic below.] This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh, |
|||
|
|
Member |
The explanation I gave for the non-apostrophisation of pronouns, I thought I made clear, was not mine and it was a suggestion, no more. Richard English |
|||
|