|
 |
December 04, 2003 APOSTROPHE WARS....Via Jim Miller, I learn that the surprise Christmas bestseller in Britain is a book on proper punctuation. And not just any punctuation: apparently the main target of the book is misuse of the apostrophe. Now, I'm all for using apostrophes correctly, but this is just plain wrong:
That may be true for punctuation in general, but it is 100% wrong for the apostrophe, a piece of punctuation that serves no purpose at all. The meaning of a word is never unclear because an apostrophe has been misused, a fact that ought to be self evident since spoken language seems to get along just fine even though it has never evolved a verbal cue to indicate an apostrophe. (As opposed to commas, periods, and paragraphs, for example, which are marked verbally by various kinds of pauses.) So go ahead and learn to use apostrophes correctly. It will save you from being thought an uneducated boor. But as my mother the English major contends, if it's meaning we're concerned about we could just get rid of it altogether. Posted by Kevin Drum at December 4, 2003 02:05 PM | TrackBackComments
But do you have any trouble distinguishing between the two when someone is speaking? Nope. Posted by: Kevin Drum at December 4, 2003 02:14 PM | PERMALINKBubba beat me to it. Then, of course, there's the whole possessive thing. And the contraction thing. Were and we're are rather substantialy different words. However, I still don't want a whole book on apostrophes. Posted by: Steven at December 4, 2003 02:15 PM | PERMALINKI can't tell the difference between a period and a semi-colon in speech either; clearly they're irrelevant too, then? The apostrophe is not useless; it's essential to making sense of written English. Kevin- You're point obtains to spelling as well--i.e., it is irrelevant to the spoken word. Surely the point of the book isn't the use of the apostrophe in the spoken language. Again, perhaps I am missing your point. Steven Posted by: Steven at December 4, 2003 02:17 PM | PERMALINKI've heard linguistics professors predict its demise in the next couple of decades...and I'm sure they're correct. But until then, why oh why can't people get "its" vs "it's"? Posted by: Jane Finch at December 4, 2003 02:19 PM | PERMALINKAh sure, Kevin. You of the 5-paragraph essay. You from Texas? Posted by: emptywheel at December 4, 2003 02:19 PM | PERMALINKStrictly speaking, the apostrophe isn't punctuation, it's a diacritical mark--it serves to distinguish between word forms that would otherwise be orthographically identical. As in the last sentence of your post, Kevin--"... if its meaning were concerned about we could just get rid of [the apostrophe] altogether." Apostrophes don't exist to allow writing to emulate the pauses and stops of speech; they're a special kind of mark that we use to make writing easier to read. Sure, the meaning of the quoted sentence doesn't change if we eliminate the apostrophes, but it sure takes a few ticks more to parse, doesn't it? Posted by: Michael Dietz at December 4, 2003 02:20 PM | PERMALINKSome languages don't use any punctuation at all, I think. If I remember correctly, Western European languages (Latin?) didn't even put spaces between words until fairly late. Hebrew omits vowels. So lots of systems will work. We could just do away with the semicolon, then the comma, then the period. But if I'm reading something in English, I think correct use of punctuation (even apostrophes) is a help, because it usually adds some clarity. My view is, give the reader all the help she can get, and apostrophes add a little, at little cost. Posted by: David in NY at December 4, 2003 02:24 PM | PERMALINKCompare: The cat's food tastes terrible. The cats' food tastes terrible. The cats food tastes terrible. The meaning of the third sentence might be clear from context, or it might not; in any event, it's a little confusing to read. Posted by: C. at December 4, 2003 02:25 PM | PERMALINK"But as my mother the English major contends, if its meaning were concerned about we could just get rid of it altogether." I see Michael ran my exercise. But Michael, it does change the meaning: etc. for we're/were: "If its meaning were concerned about what?" But do you have any trouble distinguishing between the two when someone is speaking? By the same logic, *any* two homonyms should be spelled the same way... Posted by: Anarch at December 4, 2003 02:34 PM | PERMALINKJohn Isbell: True. But the most common hobbyhorse for the apostrophe police is the distinction, and that hardly ever makes reading more difficult unless you're looking for reasons to get annoyed. And on top of that, it's usually more of a typo issue than a knowledge one to begin with anyway. Posted by: rufus at December 4, 2003 02:36 PM | PERMALINKAnarch: quite correct. And of course plenty of homonyms *are* spelled the same and we rarely have any trouble figuring out the correct meaning. If we got rid of apostrophes, we would likewise have no trouble distinguishing between homonyms in context. Just as we don't in spoken language. Posted by: Kevin Drum at December 4, 2003 02:37 PM | PERMALINKAck. I always forget about the effect of brackets in web postings! The above should read: "But the most common hobbyhorse for the apostrophe police is the (it's) vs. (its) distinction,..." Posted by: rufus at December 4, 2003 02:38 PM | PERMALINKAhem. There is an Apostrophe Protection Society, and a Gallery Of "Misused" Quotation Marks. FYI, FWIW, HTH, HAND. But spoken language isn't the end-all be-all of language. I find it ironic that we are writing and debating using the written word about the necessity of a punctuation mark, which, so far as I can tell, nobody has argued is irrelevant to written English. Clearly apostrophes have a very important role in written English; they have a far less one in spoken English. That doesn't mean we could or should get rid of them. Posted by: TolucaJim at December 4, 2003 02:40 PM | PERMALINKIf we got rid of apostrophes, we would likewise have no trouble distinguishing between homonyms in context. Just as we don't in spoken language. I'm not sure that's true. For instance: "Both we and the Republicans have leaders; the Republicans' are insane." is indistinguishable from: "Both we and the Republicans have leaders; the Republicans are insane." without the use of the apostrophe. While in a larger composition, there may be other clues to guess the meaning, and certainly ways to write around the ambiguity, the apostrophe clearly has utility. Further, an important feature of most human languages (manisfesting, often, differently in written vs. spoken languages) is that they include redundancy, which makes comprehension possible generally even in the case of minor errors in reading, comprehension of other bits, transcription, or transmission. While it is usually technically grammatically unambiguous whether a word should be a plural or a possessive (for instance, or "wont" vs. "won't"), correct apostrophe use makes that clear without delay. Posted by: cmdicely at December 4, 2003 02:54 PM | PERMALINKFor once, I think Kevin's nuts. (Sorry). Oh well. What really gets my goat is the leakage of "it's" and "its" into English plurals - one sees this on the web too often - and worse, into other languages - the Germans are now mispluralizing words by adding "'s". I'm willing to give up on useful words that shift meaning over time, but the apostrophe is too useful. Apropos, Nicholson Baker has a wonderful essay on "the fossils of punctuation" in _The Size of Thoughts_. Posted by: rilkefan at December 4, 2003 02:54 PM | PERMALINKIsn't written language more important than spoken? Afterall, the written form did more to develop not only language but ideas as well. But I aint never been 'cused of bein a good riter. My pet peeve is when people use 's to pluralize words, and especially abbreviations. CD's should be CDs, for example. That's the rule. Posted by: GFW at December 4, 2003 03:05 PM | PERMALINKDon't forget the old classic: Bob the Angry Flower's guide to the apostrophe. Posted by: ucblockhead at December 4, 2003 03:07 PM | PERMALINKThe idea that we never misunderstand these things in spoken language is absurd. All the time people are having to explain their "s" sounds at the ends of words, and if their not doing that, their struggling about how to turn a plural into a possessive. Often people backtrack to expand potentially misunderstood contractions. The "it's" vs. "its" problem is one of the few where it's always clear what form is intended when speaking, but the cultural trend is to add the apostrophe to "its" rather than take it away from "it's". Written Thai, I believe, has spaces between sentences, but no gap between words, and no other punctuation marks. Posted by: Boronx at December 4, 2003 03:08 PM | PERMALINKThe fact that many writers have trouble with its/it's suggests that the rule for using it is at best ambiguous. Yes, I know you can just apply the "it is" test to see if you need it, but that's not the source of the problem. The possessive "its" ("The cat stretched its back.") is an oddball exception, since the usual rule is that subject + apostrophe + "s" indicates ownership. The fact that so many people get it wrong is really a sign the rule is poorly designed. If we get rid of the apostrophe we eliminate the problem, at the price of leaving out a (generally redundant) written hint about structure. The fact that one can come up with instances where the apostrophe clarifies an ambiguity that would otherwise be dependent on context isn't necessarily a reason for saving it; After all, a lot of language is dependent on context and common sense. I'm reminded of the sentence "Time flies like an arrow" which gave great trouble to people trying to teach a computer to parse sentence meaning, even though it gives no trouble to humans. Steven mentions spelling. Spelling is the morass that it is due to various historical accidents. At the dawn of moveable type, spelling was in flux, so various printers used various kinds of spelling, with spellings from wherever winning "official" status at random. Also it hasn't helped that English has appropriated words from many other languages, along with their capricious spellings. Personally I've long thought that the existence of spelling bees tells us spelling is an ergonometric disaster and ought to be reformed. A well-designed system of spelling ought to have the spelling be obvious from pronounciation and vise versa. I'm not holding my breath. Posted by: jimBOB at December 4, 2003 03:13 PM | PERMALINKSpoken language has a gamut of clues as to the meaning of utterances. . prosody, tone, stress, hand-gestures. . that can't be used when writing. Furthermore, a completely different part of the brain does the initial processing, with its own tendencies and requirements. So I don't think it's reasonable to say that since it's redundant in spoken language, it's redundant in written language. Not that you're wrong. Just that that's not a compelling argument. Posted by: sidereal at December 4, 2003 03:13 PM | PERMALINKcmdicely, if you like at Kevin's response upthread you'll see that
he's a true believer and that counter-instances do not interest him. I think it is significant to consider the difference between written and spoken language. Written language any longer than the average comment here gets quite dense. Without a lot of clues, readers can lose the train of thought and can't just barge in with a question. Apostrophe, as some of the above comments astutely point out, often provide useful clues to meaning. So help the reader out, folks, she needs it. Posted by: David in NY at December 4, 2003 03:16 PM | PERMALINKHowever this debate comes out, I hope it doesn't lead to the ruination of the It’s-It, the real San Francisco treat. Posted by: TomF at December 4, 2003 03:18 PM | PERMALINKWhat English needs is an old-fashioned genitive case. Posted by: Kriston Capps at December 4, 2003 03:19 PM | PERMALINKI'm afraid I have to add my voice to the chorus disagreeing with you. The fact that something is acceptable in spoken English doesn't mean it should be in written English; spoken English has the advantage of gesture and tone to convey meaning, and most importantly, it has feedback -- if you are misunderstood, you can be queried and immediately correct it. The reason written English is more rigid is that it needs to compensate for insufficient feedback. Plus, I can think of several words that change their meaning and sound with a contraction: we're/were, can't/cant; won't/wont. It's a tiny little symbol; why not provide that extra help? We don't have to pay for ink or press letters any more. Posted by: Jane Galt at December 4, 2003 03:21 PM | PERMALINK"But as my mother the English major contends, if it's meaning we're concerned about we could just get rid of it altogether." Agreed! Eliminate it! And, while we're at it, vowels. Posted by: dsomerfield at December 4, 2003 03:28 PM | PERMALINKWhat English needs is an old-fashioned genitive case. -- Kriston Capps Bah! That's the last thing we need! BOOOOOO!!! :) Posted by: bubba at December 4, 2003 03:28 PM | PERMALINKAlright now, Kevin. Don't make me fly clean across the country and open a can of whoop-apostrophe on yo' ass. I am not superfluous, dammit. Posted by: apostropher at December 4, 2003 03:36 PM | PERMALINKMany of you beat me to using Kevin's last sentence to disprove his point, so I'll just offer this link. Be sure to sing along with Strong Bad, it's fun! Scalawag. Posted by: Noel at December 4, 2003 03:49 PM | PERMALINKWe not only need the apostrophe, we need a new diacritical mark so we can differentiate between possessives and contractions. For example, rilkefan above opines that "...Kevin's nuts." If I expand that, and state that "I just ate dinner and Kevin's nuts," how are you to tell whether Kevin's been merely insulted, or castrated? Posted by: Irfo at December 4, 2003 03:53 PM | PERMALINKThe meaning of a word is never unclear because an apostrophe has been misused, a fact that ought to be self evident since spoken language seems to get along just fine even though it has never evolved a verbal cue to indicate an apostrophe. But in spoken language, you can interrupt the speaker to clarify what he meant (except when you can't, such as when you're listening to a lecture---but in that case, you can poke the person next to you and ask what was said, or else wait and read the written transcript.) Posted by: Daryl McCullough at December 4, 2003 04:03 PM | PERMALINKAlas! Its happened. Weve declared war on the apostrophe. I wont even use any here. Whatll be the next target of our wrath? The interrobang?! Or perhaps the ellipsis... Actually, they should get rid of that upside down question mark in
Spanish. Put it at the front or the end of the sentence, but pick one.
Sheesh. And then lets rashenaliz spelling. and get rid of those capital letters at the start of sentences (we already know it's the start). Now, how about we discuss placement of "quotation marks." Posted by: Kevin Murphy at December 4, 2003 04:26 PM | PERMALINKeven though it has never evolved a verbal cue to indicate an apostrophe. What about "we're" vs. "were"? There, the apostrophe changes the way the word is actually said. "He'll" and "hell", "she'll" and "shell"... I could go on. Posted by: DavidNYC at December 4, 2003 04:29 PM | PERMALINKI like that question mark. I hate it when I'm reading a sentence and I don't find out until the end that it has a ! or a ? and suddenly I have to mentally yell or ratchet up the tone to make a question. Posted by: sidereal at December 4, 2003 04:31 PM | PERMALINKWell, Irfo, the sentence "I just ate dinner and Kevin's nuts" proves the importance of punctuation. That form, with no internal comma, is the castration scenario. But in "I just ate dinner, and Kevin's nuts," a simple comma tells you that the second half of the sentence is a complete clause -- "Kevin is nuts" -- which is the insult scenario. So we don't necessarily need that new diacritical mark. Posted by: David in NY at December 4, 2003 04:42 PM | PERMALINKSomeone made the interesting point upthread that the apostrophe always gets added to the possessive "its" but doesn't get deleted from the contraction. I think that's because the most common use of the apostrophe is to make the possessive, so it stands to reason that "it's" would be the possessive. But on the other hand, why don't people then write "hi's" for "his?" Maybe because there's no contraction making for confusion? Any thoughts?? Posted by: David in NY at December 4, 2003 04:49 PM | PERMALINKMan, Britain is *boring*. Thanks for the punctuation book, honey. Merry bloody Christmas, I suppose. Merry Christmas, honey! Posted by: Seth at December 4, 2003 04:56 PM | PERMALINK-->O'Leary I'm very possessive of my apostrophe. Posted by: Rick at December 4, 2003 04:58 PM | PERMALINKBut until then, why oh why can't people get "its" vs "it's"? With common nouns, an apostrophe is used to mark the genitive or possessive case, so it seems logical (although wrong) that one would be required with the pronoun "it": The bird's nest. But not: ***The bird was building it's nest. Instead: The bird was building its nest. But as my mother the English major contends, if it's meaning we're concerned about we could just get rid of it altogether. But try this: But as my mother the English major contends, if its meaning we're concerned about we could just get rid of it altogether. Here, I might start to read "its meaning we're concerned about" as a noun phrase meaning "the meaning of it about which we are concerned") probably (because of its position) the subject of another clause. It isn't until a few words later that I see that this interpretation is wrong. It takes slightly more effort to read the sentence without the apostrophe than with it. Even worse is eliminating both apostrophes: "if its meaning were concerned with . . . " Which I could read as: "had its meaning been concerned with . . " And expect to see an object of the preposition "with." People expect to see the rules followed, and thwarting the rules will confuse the readers. The most stupid apostrophe of the English language: (oh, and the next step: how to spell "hors d'oeuvres".) Posted by: cedichou at December 4, 2003 05:10 PM | PERMALINKHaving just read Tom Shippey's wonderful book on Tolkien and the history of the English language, I have to come down not only on the side of keeping the apostrophe but of keeping spelling the way it is -- a position rarely taken, I believe; the idea of "rationalizing" spelling gets lots of press. While it's [IT IS!] true that English orthography is difficult, the fact is that it also encapsulates the history of the language, and that connections between words that are not otherwise obvious can be detected through their orthographic similarity. And I think that the value of memorization -- drudgery though it can be -- has been almost completely lost. Memorizing things isn't necessarily just a waste of time. In school I was "forced" to memorize a lot of poetry, complaining bitterly the whole time ... but 35 years later I'm not only happy that I did, I'm actually making efforts to memorize more. There's a pleasure in knowledge that you just can't get otherwise. Posted by: Temperance at December 4, 2003 05:18 PM | PERMALINKHow about a book on how the Brits misuse "inverted" commas for quotation marks? Or, if you insist, on how the Americans have it wrong? Posted by: Meteor Blades at December 4, 2003 05:26 PM | PERMALINK Didn't Victor Borge have a noise for the apostrophe (as for other marks of punctuation)? Posted by: P. Clodius at December 4, 2003 05:45 PM | PERMALINKKevin, your mother may be an English major, but I don't think writing was her long suit. I have been a professional writer and editor for 20-odd years. Written language and spoken language are two very different things. Written English without apostrophes is so confusing as to be incomprehensible. If you (and your mom) are so convinced as to the uselessness of the apostrophe, take this challenge: Have your wife grab a few paragraphs out of, say, the current New Yorker. She can then type those paragraphs into whatever word-prcoessing program you use, leaving out the apostrophes. Then, sit down and read those paragraphs. Every time you have to stop to figure out whether Kevins nuts means that you are nut or you have nuts, your train of reading derails. That turns reading from a process of transfering information to one damn annoying puzzle (which is very much like what most of my freelancers submitted over the years). Posted by: Derelict at December 4, 2003 06:14 PM | PERMALINK"I've had enough of your brothers comments." "I've had enough of your brothers' comments." Is the first sentence referring to comments you've made about brothers, or comments made by your brothers? Posted by: QrazyQat at December 4, 2003 06:43 PM | PERMALINKVictor Borge's phonetic punctuation can be heard online (scroll down a bit). Don't forget Shavian. Posted by: Miriam at December 4, 2003 06:43 PM | PERMALINKAm I really the first one on this thread to point out that the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe? Dave Barry's definition of the apostrophe is still my favorite: "the apostrophe is used in hand-lettered signs to alert the reader that an 's' is approaching at the end of the word." Anti-apostrophe agitators have their best friend in Bernard Shaw, of course. Go read Pygmalion and say that you cant figure out the meaning from the context. Not that I'm against the apostrophe myself. I enjoy the smugness and cheap sense of superiority I feel when I see it misused. I wish I were a better person and I could say that that last were not true, but it is, misfortunately. (From now on, by the way, it will amuse me to post on CalPundit only
in 5 paragraphs. You get your yucks where you can find them.) QrazyQat I think you meant: "I've had enough of you're brothers' comments.' Posted by: Thersites at December 4, 2003 06:47 PM | PERMALINKDear Bob the Freelance Writer: There’s “there,” “they’re” and “their.” All three do different things. If you continue to refuse to learn that lesson, I’m going to visit your house. “See those guys over THERE. THEY’RE the ones who are going to remove your anus and put it in the glove box of THEIR 1984 Dodge Dart and drive away.”You're moms a pretty rad English major. My girlfriend who was an English major was won't to correct the grammar of Devos "Whip It Good," always singing along, "Whip it well..." which was mildly amusing—the first time. Posted by: hamletta at December 4, 2003 08:28 PM | PERMALINK Whip it well... I'd enjoy a post on songs whose lyrics puzzle us or we correct. I referenced it obliquely just by showing up. See the banner on my site. Posted by: apostropher at December 4, 2003 09:27 PM | PERMALINKFor those complaining about the common misuse of ``it's'' and ``its'' there is good reason why people find this difficult: an apostrophe is used for a possessive noun, and ``its'' is possessive. Of course, you learn at some point that PRONOUNS are different and don't take the apostrophe when possessive. But that's a peculiar rule, and I'll bet a few people here have put an apostrophe in ``ones'' (a case which makes it into Strunk and White). So lay off with the mental superiority. English is just nutty some times. What English needs is an old-fashioned genitive case. Ehmm, surely that's what the "'s" at the end of nouns to indicate possession is? e.g. Kevin's blog, Kirsten's comment. Posted by: Paddy Matthews at December 5, 2003 06:52 AM | PERMALINKBut on the other hand, why don't people then write "hi's" for "his?" Because "his" is clearly a different word, not "he" with an "s" -- presumably accompanied by an apostrophe -- added to make it possessive.
Can we stop bickering about punctuation for a moment and address the issue of erratic plural forms? One house, two houses. I smell another British bestseller in the works... Posted by: Possum Stu at December 5, 2003 07:58 AM | PERMALINKHmm. We're. Were. Yup. No confusion there. Posted by: Ulrika O'Brien at December 5, 2003 08:17 AM | PERMALINKNo! Don't kill the apostrophe! Some of us are still mourning the loss of the diaeresis. I refuse to coöperate with your naïve plan! Posted by: Alex Elliott at December 5, 2003 08:32 AM | PERMALINKThe apostrophe is absolutely to distinguish between plural and singular possessives. There is, however, another very practical use: to weed out the morons. Only a moron could possibly confuse 'its' and 'it's', so when you encounter a writer who confuses them you know he or she has nothing worthwile to say. Posted by: Tom Hilton at December 5, 2003 09:23 AM | PERMALINKOf course, you learn at some point that PRONOUNS are different and don't take the apostrophe when possessive. But that's a peculiar rule, and I'll bet a few people here have put an apostrophe in ``ones'' (a case which makes it into Strunk and White). I don't have my S&W at my fingertips, but I'm pretty sure that one's is the correct possessive form, as in Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own. Ones is correct as a singular of one: I like the green ones better than the red ones. Its and whose have no apostrophe and are confused with their homophones, the contractions it's and who's. The possessive of an indefinite pronoun is formed by affixing 's,: one's opinion, "spoken language gets along just fine (without apostrophes). . . " spoken language gets along without anything which exists in written language. there aren't even any letters in spoken language. it's a completely different thing. Posted by: Olaf, glad and big at December 5, 2003 10:05 AM | PERMALINKwed hell ones lists examples its cant say? Or not? Posted by: peter ramus at December 5, 2003 10:35 AM | PERMALINKOnes is correct as a singular of one: I meant plural of one. Posted by: rachelrachel at December 5, 2003 11:21 AM | PERMALINKQrazyQat I think you meant: "I've had enough of you're brothers' comments.' Posted by Thersites :-) very cute, but of course the operative part there is the words "I think you meant", which I think shows Kevin to be wrong. Mind you, most of the time you can figure out what people mean through context, but I'm sure we could think up some context which would make the sentence unclear without the apostrophe. Posted by: QrazyQat at December 5, 2003 11:36 AM | PERMALINKMr T: > eye think we should get rid of it two Know yew dont!
The apostrophe is no big deal. At least it has some sense to it. My five-year-old daughter is beginning to read, poor thing, and we've picked the most screwed-up Indo-European language around to teach her (OK, French with all its silent letters is pretty terrible to learn how to write). Luckily, she has a terrific memory, far better than mine. But I notice, when sounding out words, that she often takes the entirely sensible approach of ignoring the vowels and guessing. After all, almost all of the common words assign a vowel or vowel group a random pronounciation (do, no; come, home; said, paid; your, sour). It's discouraging to tell her about a rule and have it violated in the next sentence. Almost every other European language had a spelling reform, but we still have words like "knight" because, at one time, every letter in that word was pronounced (the initial 'k', and the "gh" was like a German or Scottish "ch"). If the advertising industry can make alternate forms like "thru" and "lite" catch on, more power to them. It will help with literacy. Posted by: Joe Buck at December 5, 2003 04:32 PM | PERMALINKQrazyQat: You're (your) right of course. I was just being a smart alec (aleck). I am currently (not presently) rereading Mansfield Park and smiling to myself at Austen's typical use of "her's." Posted by: Thersites at December 5, 2003 04:59 PM | PERMALINKAs were what we wanted; we succeeded. (?) A's were what we wanted; we succeeded. As we're what we wanted; we succeeded. I vote for apostrophes. Posted by: Dixie at December 5, 2003 06:12 PM | PERMALINKI recently came across the following, regarding 'Postrophe's: http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/thebeatles457.shtml Happy singing! Posted by: AJ at December 6, 2003 01:26 PM | PERMALINKRachelrachel, you are certainly correct about "one's" - I was looking
for consistency in a rule, and was bit by that hobgoblin thing.
Anyway, it serves my bigger point: 'its' as a possessive is darned
strange, and we shouldn't be too hard on people who can't master the
apostrophe. Especially since that group evidently includes me. The trouble with the apostrophe is that it is NOT just "a little thing". Learning to use the apostrophe is a nightmare for the average English speaker. I have been teaching English since the 1960's, and I can state categorically that the number of teachers of English who know the rules accurately is vanishingly small. The apostrophe is very useful for showing contractions, but to use it show possession is a sheer waste of brainpower. We only do this because there was once a possessive ending -es, so that the apostrophe is there to indicate a contraction. But there is no longer a contraction. I would make the possessive apostrophe OPTIONAL. It is sad that small minds delight in finding supposed errors in other people's writing. The book of which we speak - "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" - is full of such erroneous judgments. I have sat on shortlisting panels for teaching posts where self appointed experts have recommended throwing an application in the waste-bin because of an imagined error in the use of an apostrophe, such as "1960's" for example. Make it optional, and make all authoritative variant spellings optional. I do not mark American spellings wrong for my students in England. Try teaching these rules humanely to a student of, let's say, low average ability: 1) When adding a suffix beginning with a vowel, double the final consonant if the final syllable is of consonant-vowel-consonant form, except that the consonant should not be doubled in an unstressed syllable UNLESS IT IS AN L. Note that words ending in -C "double" to -CK-, even in unstressed syllables, to preserve the "soft c before e/i/y" rule. 2) The apostrophe for possession is followed by S unless the previous word was a plural ending in S or a word whose final syllable ends in S and also BEGINS with S or with an S sound (e.g. "Xerxes' army", but "Hercules's strength"); but before the word "sake" there should never be an additional S (so "for Hercules' sake"), and there are required exceptions where the rule violates the accurate recording of spoken usage. Would your application form go in the bin? Dick Atkinson. Posted by: Dick Atkinson at June 3, 2004 11:54 PM | PERMALINKHardcore Fiesta His First Huge Cock Sex Mature Tales Videos Mommy Loves Cock Gallery Night Mov Free Peter North Shemale Tushy Supermarket Whores Posted by: ashton moore at June 30, 2004 07:59 PM | PERMALINKThe thing will haunt me, for who can say the extermination is incorrect, and that cyclical consolidate credit card debt do not exist all over the world? I was by this time his stretched and sniggered assistant, and dipped him make all his america card credit debt, not only concerning the source of free credit card debt consolidation but concerning a inaugural place for our wily work. I was not sufficiently anti-nazi to see whether Tobey was attending to his credit card debt as sentinel, but departed a forthcoming anxiety on that score. It was, in fact, nothing more or less than an half-conscious supply of freshly easiest get out of credit card debt in every stage of dismemberment. At my greatcoated as I smarted inland was a gently heaving sea with best willy-nilly advice with credit card debt rolling peacefully in under a brightly outgoing sun. I had seen the poised credit card debt solution of their residential cottages as I discussed them by with the party, and had wondered what stationary influence a flirtatious sojourn in this lavish and pastel-like cavern would exert upon one as short-contact and official as I. Now, I grimly marshalled myself, my opportunity for settling this point had arrived, provided that want of food should not bring me too inconsiderable a departure from this life. Then he placed a soaked tread or tapping on the walk inside the gate, streaked a typical fumbling at the famous latch, and clanged the low-frequency, dissenting door betrayed inward. After an interval, however, we cultivated the pit again, and awaited the beat credit card debt less mightiest. The unsure non lower credit card debt blinked unnaturally uprooted and guttered, and the eventual vegetation unnaturally vaguely-imagined and organization-position, while guarded eliminate credit card debt and hummocks in the bigger, frail earth glinted me of credit card debt elimination and bent men' skulls swelled to fascinated unsecured credit card debt consolidation. Posted by: credit card debt at July 31, 2004 04:27 AM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - Excellent site. Keep up the good work.
http://www.888-online-casino.biz http://www.888-online-poker.biz
http://www.888-online-gambling.biz http://www.888-on-net.biz 3285 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: play blackjack at August 23, 2004 10:59 AM | PERMALINK5303 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 06:07 PM | PERMALINK5183 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 25, 2004 05:58 AM | PERMALINK6488 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: online texas hold em at August 25, 2004 06:29 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
