Apostrophic history

[Fred56]

Comment: I've seen apostrophes being used all over the place, in newspapers, in web posts, in letters. So I thought I'd give everyone in this for'm th' "101" on 'em:

 

Apostrophes are a part of a linguistic feature (of English) called contraction. Contraction is what happens when two words are joined together (generally this happened first in spoken, then in written English). Examples are words like can and not, which become cannot, then can't, or we and are, (which might have been we-are) becomes we're.

 

An apostrophe is always used (as in both examples) to signify the elision of one or more characters from such a compounded, or contracted word. This contraction-elision procedure is also used in the possessive case of nouns. In other words, the possessive case (my, his, hers, theirs), is formed by first adding the possessive pronoun: “Fred, his ideas”, (became) “Fred-his ideas” then “Fred's ideas”, the first letters of any possessive pronoun are dropped, or elided, (the apostrophe takes their place) and the “s” only is used.

If the word is a plural, the apostrophe goes after the s (e.g. “the Smiths' place”). If the word otherwise ends in an “s”, the same can be done (after the “s”), but some add an “s” (“Tess's place”), and this is accepted use as well.

What isn't usual is to write things like: “the cat with it's tail in the air”. This actually says “the cat with it is tail in the air”. Or use it with plurals like: “the street number's are on each letterbox”. This says: “the street number is are on each letterbox”.

geddit?

[Glider]

Can we have one on 'your - you're' and 'their - there - they're' too? (or is that 'to?')

[Fred56]

'sigh'

[ydoaPs]

Can we have one on 'your - you're' and 'their - there - they're' too? (or is that 'to?')

 

What about "affect" vs "effect"? Or "lay vs "lie"?

[Fred56]

This is about apostrophes (and how lots aren't properly used properly, or properly used correctly, or...). If there are perceptions that some sort of remedial programme is on offer, I dunno.

But surely you can figure out when to use "their, there, or they're (they are)"??

[DrDNA]

Where can I go to complain about the improper use of myself? OK, I'll do it here. Thanks Fred.

 

As in: 'so and so and myself attended the meeting'

 

It drives me nuts.

[ydoaPs]

Where can I go to complain about the improper use of myself? OK, I'll do it here. Thanks Fred.

 

As in: 'so and so and myself attended the meeting'

 

It drives me nuts.

What about the people who insist that "irregardless" means the same as "regardless"?

[Fred56]

I dunno, after the car drug me cross th' lot, I don' remember so good. But regardlessly, it prob'ly don' matter so much anyhow.

[Glider]

What about "affect" vs "effect"? Or "lay vs "lie"?

Aargh! Or 'Amount' Vs 'Number' as in "The amount of participants tested..." The first set of marking is due in soon...I can't bear it!

 

This is about apostrophes (and how lots aren't properly used properly, or properly used correctly, or...).

Ahh...tautology, another favourite. Either 'apostrophes that aren't used properly' or 'that aren't used correctly' is adequate. The use of both, as in '...that aren't properly used correctly' is a tautology

 

If there are perceptions that some sort of remedial programme is on offer, I dunno.

But surely you can figure out when to use "their, there, or they're (they are)"??

Yeahuh, but you lit the fuse when you raised something that bugs so many people

[Dak]

Bah, i hardly blame anyone for not being able to grasp English's shitty, inconsistant rules. e.g., if we're keeping "o'clock" on the grounds that it used to be "oF-THE-clock", why is it "shan't" and not "sha'n't" (what with 'sha' not being a word, and it coming from "shaLLnOt")? and why is "won't" still a contraction of "wo-nOt" despite the fact that 'wo' isn't a word anymore?

 

But, yeah, as long as you remember how to structure centances in the archaic form (glider his post contains an error, does not it?)*, remember that 'will' becomes 'wo' when contracted, that "shallnot" doesn't follow these rules, and that "o'clock" is short for (the now stupid sounding) 'of the clock', and any other exceptions, then it's all rather simple as long as you also remember how to pluralise and possivify words that allready end in 's' properly. and that they can be used as scare-marks, and that when you're pluralising numbers or individual letters, you do use an apostrophy...

 

don't get me wrong, i don't actually have any trouble doing this. but when people do, i'd be inclined to blame English, not them.

 

actually, i just like complaining about English.

 

don't get me started on its spelling

 

[/rant]

 

* or 'glider has post...' as i was taught

[Fred56]

Here we see the heuristic paradox. Mens sibi proicatia fini continati nullus et omnium {the null and the infinite (are) the mind's own projections of ending (and) of continuing}

[Glider]

I never used to care about it really, but so many school-leavers entering University such have crap writing skills that we find outselves having to go over these basic things again and again. It takes up a lot of time that could be spent on other, more relevant things and it starts to grate after a while.

 

I'm not really concerned with perfection, but basic things such as those mentioned in the first five posts. We are supposed to be able to take a certain level for granted in A-Level students, but it seems to be getting worse. I've even seen SMS shorthand appearing in essays over the last few years (4 example, & just so u no), it gets really annoying.

[Royston]

I never used to care about it really, but so many school-leavers entering University such have crap writing skills that we find outselves having to go over these basic things again and again. It takes up a lot of time that could be spent on other, more relevant things and it starts to grate after a while.

 

Tsk tsk, no gold star for you Glider.

 

I'm not really concerned with perfection, but basic things such as those mentioned in the first five posts. We are supposed to be able to take a certain level for granted in A-Level students, but it seems to be getting worse. I've even seen SMS shorthand appearing in essays over the last few years (4 example, & just so u no), it gets really annoying.

 

*I started a thread on the latter (I'll post a link). Considering essays are all about communication, and the use of language should be as universally understood as possible, I feel a certain level should not be taken for granted at GCSE, let alone A-level. Maintaining a high standard will also prevent students getting into bad habits e.g using SMS shorthand...which makes me grind my teeth. Lowering the bar, even for trivial errors, doesn't make sense to me...if you make a small error in a mathematical equation, the result is wrong, so why not the same rigour with English. That may sound a little strict, or over the top, but it really isn't, especially when communication is needed at a professional level.

 

Considering the entire wealth of online spell checkers, dictionaries et.c there's just no excuse. English should be improving with the extra tools available.

 

Communication is obviously paramount in nearly any role after education. Correct use of language, should be at the top of the list of priority education. It appears recently, (well to me anyway) that this doesn't seem to be the case.

 

when people do, i'd be inclined to blame English, not them.

 

Would you be inclined to extend that argument to other academic subjects ?

 

*http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23925

[Dak]

if said academic subjects were stupid, then yes. Although, e.g., physics is as stupid and unintuitive as it is, and we can't really change it -- English, otoh, is within our power to change and make more sane and consistent.

 

btw, ellipses (...) should have a space after them, and there's no '.' in 'etc'

 

otoh, there's being shit, being shit in a way that is at least partially English's fault, and then there's not bothering. I'd be inclined to place most SMS/AOL-speak that finds its way into essays as 'not bothering', which is a bit irritating.

[Royston]

if said academic subjects were stupid, then yes. Although, e.g., physics is as stupid and unintuitive as it is, and we can't really change it -- English, otoh, is within our power to change and make more sane and consistent.

 

I certainly agree with that. Whereas some subjects in physics are inherently counter intuitive, you can't really blame the universe for that...it's tough if you don't understand it. There are some clear inconsistencies in language, which are obviously manmade, and are not really necessary. However until there is a reprise, or overhaul of the English language ( universally accepted changes ), then for the sake of good communication, it's better to stick to the accepted methods, rather than the students making that decision.

 

btw, ellipses (...) should have a space after them, and there's no '.' in 'etc'

 

Looks horrible though, don't you think ( the ellipses, that is )

 

e.g - exampli gratia

etc - et cetera

I was taught et.c - et cetera

 

Blame my G.C.S.E English teacher for that, he used to go red in the face if he saw e.t.c, etc.

 

otoh, there's being shit, being shit in a way that is at least partially English's fault, and then there's not bothering. I'd be inclined to place most SMS/AOL-speak that finds its way into essays as 'not bothering', which is a bit irritating.

 

I guess, and despite English could be refined to be more intuitive, without hampering the range or scope of the language, simply not looking up the correct use of English for an essay ( for example ), is also 'not bothering.' It just seems there's less excuses for poor English, when we have the internet, that is, you don't even need to go to your local library. Though I certainly agree using SMS/AOL is irritating.

[CDarwin]

when you're pluralising numbers or individual letters[/Quote]

 

Actually, the new tendency is not to use an apostrophe plurilizing an Arabic numeral, because the number is different from the letter so it doesn't need to be specified that the "s" denotes a plural. It's "10s" not "10's."

[Glider]

Tsk tsk, no gold star for you Glider.

Dude, only 1 cup of coffee, it's not even light out yet and you want perfection? Anyway, I was using Latin rules of syntax

 

*I started a thread on the latter (I'll post a link). Considering essays are all about communication, and the use of language should be as universally understood as possible, I feel a certain level should not be taken for granted at GCSE, let alone A-level.

But that's the whole point of A-Levels, so tutors in higher education can assume a certain standard and not have to waste time with remedial teaching of stuff that should already be understood.

 

Maintaining a high standard will also prevent students getting into bad habits e.g using SMS shorthand...which makes me grind my teeth. Lowering the bar, even for trivial errors, doesn't make sense to me...if you make a small error in a mathematical equation, the result is wrong, so why not the same rigour with English. That may sound a little strict, or over the top, but it really isn't, especially when communication is needed at a professional level.

True. I don't think it's over the top. Schools may be lowering the bar for written English, but scientific journals are not. Ultimately, graduates should be able to write at a standard that would be acceptable for publication, but it's getting harder to get them to that level as they are entering HE with lower standards to begin with.

 

Considering the entire wealth of online spell checkers, dictionaries et.c there's just no excuse. English should be improving with the extra tools available.

I think students rely too much on spell checkers and other automated tools and not enough on proofreading. To a spell checker, "Dear Sir or Madam" and "Dead Sod or Moron" are equally acceptable.