Oftentimes grammatical errors can affect the meaning of a sentence. Recently, someone in our organization got into trouble because of a vague use of a pronoun, causing distress at a board of nursing. Executive officers got involved...time was spent calming the waters...all because of a grammatical error.

Yet, usually the misuse of an apostrophe doesn't affect the meaning of a sentence. You know, for example, when a Christmas cards says "The Smith's," whom it is from. Or, if a sign says "St. Thomas' Hospital" (BTW, those signs are all over the place in England ), that it is referring to St. Thomas's Hospital.

However, today, I read this headline a few times before I figured out what was meant (unfortunately, it is about a U.S. sports team! ):

"Bears schedule separates fans from realists" Since there was no apostrophe in "Bears," I tried to read "schedule" as a verb, to no avail obviously!

Kalleh, as far as I know,

Kalleh, as far as I know, ST. THOMAS' HOSPITAL is perfectly correct, although the usage in Britain and the USA differs. In other words, both ST. THOMAS'S and ST. THOMAS' can be used.

What I've noted in my frequent trips to both the UK and to the USA, is that both cultures have apostrophe problems. In the USA the necessary apostrophe is often left out, while in the UK it is added where it is not needed (as in a sign stating "tomatoe's 59p."

St Thomas' is associated with two saints called Thomas, the Apostle and à Becket. It was, I think, traditionally called St Thomas's, but when they merged with Guy's in recent years they had to face the naming situation again, and decided formally on Guy's and St Thomas'.

As has been mentioned here previously, when it comes to proper and place names, spelling and apostrophisation is often wrong - but there are good arguments for saying that such terms need not adhere to the rules since they are titles, not phrases or sentences.

I would prefer accuracy but realise that it is difficult to be dogmatic.

Incidentally, one thing I have found when I visit Jersey (in the Channel Island, not the USA) the standard of accuracy in signs is exceptionally high, far better than is the usual case in England.

The big problem with apostrophes, at least in possessives, is that they mark a purely grammatical and graphemic distinction and not a phonological one. Plus, their use is inconsistant (froma purely logical POV): on the one hand they are used to indicate ellision (as in contractions) while on the other they indicate possession. Ah, well, in a couple of thousand years it won't matter, except as a footnote in somebody's dissertation.

Ah, well, in a couple of thousand years it won't matter, except as a footnote in somebody's dissertation.

When that scholar reads our board for elucidation, he/she will be stymied over your avatar, I am sure!

Now, Richard, I am disappointed. I thought you supported me that St. Thomas's should be "s's," similar to "Charles's," because you say "Thomases." I thought that was your the rule. Have all these previous posts been in jest?

Grammatically the possessive of St Thomas should be St Thomas's, as the pssessive of Charles be Charles's and James, James's.

The point I am making, though (and it has been made previously) is that proper and place names do often break the rules and it is sometimes difficult to argue that they shouldn't if they have been that way for a long time.

My own feeling is the St Thomas should be spelt St Thomas's. Certainly, if it is pronounced "St Thomasez", then I would have no doubt about this at all.

If, as aput says, it is associated with two saints called Thomas, the Apostle and à Becket, then it should rightfully be spelt St Thomases'

Incidentally, there has been a historical play on the BBC this weekend and they refer to the saint as "Thomas Becket. When did his name change, does anyone know? Was it when Boadicea's name changed to Boudica? That is, long after I left school.

I've always missed the older apostrophization rule for names that end in s. I notice that the Chicago Manual of Style, 14th ed., mentions, (sec. 6.26), (as does Fowler, 1st ed., possessive puzzles) that Jesus and Moses are names that are traditonally exempt from this rule: so, Jesus' name and Moses' leadership. I wouldn't call punctuation mistakes grammatical, as the two are really different things, but I'm sure some will disagree with me. The rules [sic] for apostrophization are all quite silly. Why are all possessive forms of pronouns exempt, except, of course, one's?

As for Boudica's names: Tacitus gives Boudicca, and his is the only contemporary account of her. (I seem to remember some coins of hers but am not sure her name is on them. Will have to look around) I'm not quite sure whence the other form came, but it is considered incorrect. As for Thomas à Becket, I remember when the previous Pope John Paul died, a newspaper article mentioned that he had been reading Thomas A. Kempis' Imitatio Christi. Does anybody know what St Thomas à Becket's name was in his own time? Something Norman no doubt. (Reminds me of folks who refer to Leonardo da Vinci as da Vinci, which simply means from the village of Vinci. It's not really a name, but description.

I don't think the apostrophe rules are silly, but I do wish they'd be consistent. While I, too, have noted the Chicago Manual of Style rule about Moses and Jesus, other style manuals don't have that same rule, if I recall. After all, what is so bad about Jesus's or Moses's?

I just don't see any reason, Richard, why proper names should be exempt from the s's rule. A rule is a rule. Now, with the 2 saints and all, maybe it should be St. Thomases', but it should be "Prince Charles's sons." After all, everyone agrees (though you don't always see it that way) that it should be the "boss's secretary." Why should Charles or St. Thomas (with one saint) be different? It doesn't make sense.

My rule is to write what I say, which is Charles's and Thomas's, with these familiar names. But euphony makes it much harder to comfortably say Moses's and Jesus's and Demosthenes's, so I don't.

I don't think the apostrophe rules are silly

We just have different criteria of silliness. The apostrophe is unnecessary to mark plurals. In speech, you cannot hear an apostrophe, so when spoken "the book's cover" is no different from "the books cover [most of European history]" or "the books' cover". Context is enough to differentiate.

As for the Jesus/Moses rule, I have heard "in Jesus' name" pronounced as /In dZiz@s nejm/, but I always thought it a hypercorrective form of the Latin genitive of Jesus.

We had this discussion once before. Although the apostrophe itself cannot be heard it can modify the pronunciation of the word in which it appears.

To be fair, this applies primarily (or possibly exclusively) to the apostrophe of omission, not to the apostrophe of possession - but wed be in trouble if we dont accept this - even in speech. Well not know what were saying!

Good point, Richard. The whole point of this thread was that, in fact, the omission of the appropriate apostrophe had me wondering what the headline was about.

Contractions are a bit different: virtually none of the contractions of pronoun + verb are pronounced as they would be if you just took the apostrophe out. So we might need to show the pronunciations of these.

The reason is often that the pronoun ends in a vowel, so is an open or long syllable (except that pronouns typically get shortened): so we is pronounced wee, and we'd comes out regularly as weed.

Add to that the fact that these combinations then get shortened, often with slight irregularity: so wee+d can become wid, and yoo+r is usually yor.

However, your example is contrived. Shaw is printed without apostrophes, and is usually quite readable, because most occurrences are of words that don't otherwise exist, like Ive, youve, shes, theyd, isnt, werent. In practice even for homographs it'd be no more of a problem than the ambiguity of that.

Albert can't understand Victoria's cant. In my dialect of American Standard English, both cants are pronounced the same. I'm sure there are other examples.

Indeed it is. To make a point it is often necessary to contrive an example to make it.

However, your own point about the ease with which incorrectly spelt or punctuated writing can be read is not really something I dispute. The adoption of texting has proved, if proof were needed, the even the most emaciated and deformed constructions are readily understandable.

My belief is that it is better to use accurate and well-formed constructions since good writing, like oratory, does more than simply communicate.

Richard.

My point was not that I can contrive examples to refute what you asserted, but just that the "rules" of orthography are not exceptionless laws and are therefore not really rules. Also, I have no problem using the "rules" when appropriate, because I am by trade a writer. My bête noire just happens to be people who assert that the "rules" of English orthography are logically or morally determined, when in fact they're a bunch of haphazard descriptions of some historical accidents.

jheem,

Apologies. I did not make it clear that my most recent posting was in response to aput's comment "...However, your example is contrived. Shaw is printed without apostrophes, and is usually quite readable, because most occurrences are of words that don't otherwise exist..."

And I agree with you that there is no point in insisting on slavish adherence to rules, especially when such rules are continuously changing. I have said, and will continue to say, though, that when rules are clear and well-accepted they should be kept to - unless there is a good reason for breaking them.

Kalleh's point about the inconsistency of apostrophe application rules is well-made but, as you say, the rules were not carefully designed and their appliction properly considered by an expert panel of language designers. Inconsistency is inevitable in a living and accidentally-created language.

Artificial languages could, theoretically, be perfect; the only trouble seems to be that nobody ever wants to adopt them. And I wonder how long it would be, even if a whole society were to start to speak Esperanto exclusively, before jargon, slang and idiom began to creep in? I'd guess at about a week!

OK, Richard. Thanks for the clarification. I think we mostly agree.