Where did the 's come from? Historically, I mean.

The use of the apostrophe to denote possession has its origins in Old English, which
frequently attached the genitive singular ending –es to nouns. Hook (1999), points out
that 60% of all nouns in Old English formed their genitive cases in this manner (p. 44); it
is therefore not surprising that the current genitive ending –s has survived in Modern
English. The apostrophe could be viewed as a way in which to mark the deleted vowel –
e of the –es possessive ending, “derived from the Old English strong masculine genitive
singular inflection” (Blockley, 2001, p. 35). Adrian Room (1989, p. 21) provides support
for this view, citing the Old English word for stone, stän, whose genitive form was
stänes.

Hook (1999) maintains, however, that the apostrophe is “a mere printer’s gimmick,
doubtless born of the mistaken notion that the genitive ending was a contraction of his”
(p. 44). An invention of mortals, the apostrophe has indeed been subject to human error.




You're invited to explore the history of the apostrophe HERE.

quote:

Hook (1999) maintains, however, that the apostrophe is “a mere printer’s gimmick,
doubtless born of the mistaken notion that the genitive ending was a contraction of his”

Rightly or wrongly this is a good way of explaining to the "apostrophe-deprived" persons who don't know when to use the thing.

I tell such people that the apostrophe is a "tombstone", a memorial for something that's departed. This concept works for apostrophes indicating contraction (it is becomes it's) or possession (the dog, his bone becomes the dog's bone). If there is nothing to commemorate then there's not need for the tombstone.

Linguistically flawed the concept might be; a good training aid it surely is.

quote:

Linguistically flawed the concept might be; a good training aid it surely is.

O what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive.

~ Sir Walter Scott

It's true that one of the Old English suffixes for the genitive was -es, but the problem with hypothesizing that the apostrophe s punctuation indicates the elision of the e sound, is that there is a gap of about one hundred years between when the e stopped being pronounced, at the end of the Middle English period (ca. 1400), and when the apostrophe was adopted from French (for a different purpose than the marking of the possessive) in the 15 century. Then you have a gap of another hundred years or so before the apostrophe s convention was used for marking the possessive. Two many years, I think. People a couple of hundred years after Chaucer thought he had got his rhymes and meters wrong because they didn't realize that the phonology of English had changed drastically between the Middle English period and Modern English. It wasn't until the 19th century that historical linguists started to understand the phonology of Old and Middle English.

quote:

when the apostrophe was adopted from French (for a different purpose than the marking of the possessive)

What was the purpose in French? How was possession indicated in the period after ME and before the apostrophe?

What was the purpose in French? How was possession indicated in the period after ME and before the apostrophe?

Elision of letters. Simple s without apostrophe for possessive. You can take a look at a 17th century book like the Shakespeare First Folio in its original orthography and see that apostrophe are used for elision of letters (and not always), but not for the possessive form.

For example, from Hamlet, I.ii:

And now Laertes, what's the newes with you?
You told vs of some suite. What is't Laertes?
You cannot speake of Reason to the Dane,
And loose your voyce.

[...]

If it assume my noble Fathers person,
Ile speake to it, though Hell it selfe should gape
And bid me hold my peace.

[...]

My Fathers Spirit in Armes? All is not well:
I doubt some foule play:

quote:

Originally posted by zmježd:
It's true that one of the Old English suffixes for the genitive was -es, but the problem with hypothesizing that the apostrophe s punctuation indicates the elision of the e sound, is that there is a gap of about one hundred years between when the e stopped being pronounced, at the end of the Middle English period (ca. 1400), and when the apostrophe was adopted from French (for a different purpose than the marking of the possessive) in the 15 century. Then you have a gap of another hundred years or so before the apostrophe s convention was used for marking the possessive...

zmj-- of course we have no way of knowing, but I wonder if the French apostrophe was borrowed so as to distinguish plural from possessive? In Old English, that wouldn't have been a problem, because you would have, e.g., 'as' for plural and 'es' for genitive/possessive. In spoken English, of course, we still can't tell the difference between brothers and brother's-- and I'm having a hard time thinking of an example where you couldn't easily tell the difference from context, anyway. But it does offer a handy written way of distinguishing between brother's and brothers' (sing. and plur. possessive)-- that could be important in a legal document.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bethree5,

Actually, brother is not a very good choice as an example. The Middle English plural was brethren, so it would be brethren/brethren's. There were plenty of other plurals formed with -en in ME, several of which remain, such as ox, oxen; man, men, etc.

I recently learnt that the word "clerk" once formed its plural and possessive by adding "en" - clerken.

This is why there is a Clerkenwell Road in London - it's where the "clerks' well" was - and indeed, still is.

I wonder if the French apostrophe was borrowed so as to distinguish plural from possessive?

I think it was borrowed to mark elided letters, the job it does in French and Early Modern English. It was later adapted to differentiate between plurals and possessives, which by that time had collapsed into the same endings and pronunciation. Not all Old English nouns had s or n in the genitive or the plural: e.g., sunu 'sun' m. nom. sg., suna gen. sg., suna nom. pl., and suna gen. pl., compare this with stán 'stone' nom. sg., stánes gen. sg., stánas nom. pl., and stána gen. pl.

ox, oxen; man, men

The plural of man, is a different case than the plurals in -en. Man ~ men is an instance of a phonological process called umlaut. Same with goose ~ geese, tooth ~ teeth, etc. The root man just happens to end in n.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
Actually, brother is not a very good choice as an example. The Middle English plural was brethren, so it would be brethren/brethren's. There were plenty of other plurals formed with -en in ME, several of which remain, such as ox, oxen; man, men, etc.

Right, Arnie, bad example. Reading further in Jerry's source, ME-speakers as early as the 1200's were known to have thought the genitive ending -es (pronounced ees) was actually "his/ 'is", & errors by the Bard himself are quoted. When (after 1500) the apostrophe showed up, it was used to indicate a dropped vowel sound (whether -es or 'is!)--- but standardized rules as to its use were not set down for another 300 yrs!

The history of 's (neveu's original question) is not crystal-clear, and that is its historical significance, I think. That our language wobbled along for hundreds of years with confusion on a simple grammatical point even by the highly educated-- there's your Norman conquest. During the time French/ Anglo-Norman dominated the royal and legal courts, written English was developing informally behind the scenes. By the time it again became the language of law (1420's), many changes had been made to accommodate regional and spoken dialect. No wonder the effort to standardize (started late in the 15thc. soon after arrival of printing press) took so long.