The Long Campaign to Abolish the Apostrophe
The peculiar phenomenon of recklessly apostrophized plurals is nothing new. Lynne Truss's prescriptive ancestors were ridiculing "grocer's" back in the 19th century. And though apparently simple, the guidelines for using the apostrophe have been eccentrically applied since the mark first popped up in the 1500s. As editor Tom McArthur notes in With customary reserve and indecision, we've declined to take sides in the Great Apostrophe Debate. But we would like to hear whether
Pikes Peak, named after explorer Zebulon Pike, lost its apostrophe in 1891. That was the year that the newly formed U.S. Board on Geographic Names outlawed this seemingly innocent mark of punctuation: "The possessive form using an 's' is allowed," declared the Board, "but the apostrophe is almost always removed."
Some would be quite happy to broaden the ban on that "morbid growth in English orthography," as linguist Steven Byington characterized the mark. Writing in American Speech in 1945, he observed that "the language would be none the worse for its abolition."
More recently, in an article bluntly titled "Axing the Apostrophe," Adrian Room argued that apostrophes are simply unnecessary. So what, he said, if “we’ll” appears as “well” or “he’ll” as “hell.” Context, he insisted, "should soon show which word is meant, and grammatical parameters would make ambiguity unlikely" (English Journal, 1989).
Another knowledgeable opponent of apostrophes (those "uncouth bacilli," in George Bernard Shaw's words) is English teacher Peter Brodie, who also advocates abolition: "they are largely decorative, like the French circumflex, and--unlike the comma--rarely clarify meaning" (English Journal, 1995).
And just last month, Dr. John Wells, Emeritus Professor of Phonetics at University College, London, dismissed the apostrophe as "a waste of time." Speaking at the centenary dinner of the Spelling Society, he asked, "Have we really nothing better to do with our lives than fret about the apostrophe?"
According to my extremely unscientific Google poll, two very different groups are behind the campaign to abolish the apostrophe.
One group is made up of learned individuals such as Room, Brodie, and Wells: pragmatic educators who have apparently decided that trying to enforce the "rules" in the face of the mark's widespread abuse is hardly worth the effort. If the apostrophe has become the Rodney Dangerfield of punctuation marks, it probably deserves no respect and might just as well quietly slip off the keyboard.
If you think that judgment is harsh, consider the view of the other group of abolitionists--those whom we might call the IM crowd. Not only is the apostrophe unnecessary; far worse, it's uncool. Peter Buck, guitarist with the rock band REM, speaks plainly: "We all hate apostrophes. There's never been a good rock album that's had an apostrophe in the title."
(Come on, all together now: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band!)
Of course, the anti-apostrophe campaign has met with some opposition. There is (or at least was) an American Apostrophe Association operating out of Oregon. And England is home to both the Apostrophe Protection Society and the AAAA (Association for the Annihilation of the Aberrant Apostrophe).
But let's hear what you think: is the apostrophe worth preserving, or is the little squiggle a lost cause? Share your apostrophic thoughts by clicking on the "comments" button below. Or take a bold stand simply by choosing where to enjoy a cup of coffee--at McDonald's (with apostrophe) or at Starbucks (without).
And if you're not ready to ban the apostrophe just yet, check out Stephen Notley's illustrated version of the rules: Bob's Quick Guide to the Apostrophe, You Idiots (at Bob the Angry Flower Web Site). Or our somewhat gentler page, Guidelines for Using Apostrophes Correctly.
More About Punctuation:
Comments
Lynne Truss names her chapter on apostrophes, “The Tractable Apostrophe” argues that as long as the purpose of the apostrophe was to indicate an absence or elision as in “he’ll” or “won’t” it served a perfectly practical purpose. But that since it began to be used to indicate possession in the 18th century, “the whole thing has spiralled into madness.”
I agree, “he’ll” isn’t equivalent to “hell” nor “won’t” to “wont,” and my opinion is that disambiguation is always a good idea when attempting to communicate (except when ambiguity is intended).
I for one, yield to a full many instances in
a past life: that of (late) juvenilia in
verse, whence a free and often mistaken use,
whether mine, as most was, or some faulting
editor’s (that betimes re-read, gave an
economy (some kind of license taken) that at
end made better sense and Got To what wanted))
of friend apostrophe – “Gk: apostrophe, lit.,
act of turning away. 1: the addressing of a
usu. absent person or a usu. personified thing
rhetorically. [Carlyle's "O Liberty, what
things are done in thy name!"] is example.
2. Gk: apostrophos, turned away. a mark ‘ used
to indicate the omission of letters or
figures, the possessive case, or the plural
of letters or figures.” –> Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary.
Admitted and apologizing, having more learned
a thing or two over years, yet not asking
forgiveness for act of giving which under any
writers’ hat, has to be first instance, first
case; lay loose language and grammar and
punctuation’s mold to say your say, we shall
attempt understanding.
As a book author and newspaper and magazine journalist, I would be against dropping the use of the apostrophe. I see no harm in using a simple mark to make clear one’s meaning, and feel the majority of those who would abolish it simply don’t know how to properly use it, or, in this age of e-mail and instant messaging, don’t want to bother.
I strongly believe the latter reason is the most prevelant; but then, as you see, I also still hyphenate “e-mail” as, I might add, my stylebooks suggest.
I’m Betty’s daughter and my mother’s name is Betty. If there were no apostrophes, would I be the daughter of Bettys? To have two moms, that’s quite a trick. I can’t even imagine it! If I can not then don’t you know? Apostrophes just can not go.
Of course it should not be abused. It never should be overused. But abolish it? We’d be confused. So yes, I think it should be used.Were we to take the mark away, when writing dialogue we’d say, “would not, not wouldn’t, should not, not shouldn’t. Do not, not don’t, Will not, not won’t. Then what would court reporters do? They must transcribe words that are true. They can’t misquote even a mark. And what about the office clerk? (British pronunciation) He couldn’t ever miss a mark. Imagine What Scrooge would have done, If Cratchet had missed even one?
No, apostrophes still have their place. They’re too important to erase. They say too much so many ways. I give them due respect and praise.
This whole discussion should be titled (though I know the title is already taken) “Much Ado About Nothing”. Honestly, when I was a child and learned English, the use of the apostrophe was taken for granted and taught in the same way in every school (and there were many) in which I took an English course. But really! I know it’s sometimes misused and abused, just as the exclamation point (which people are always telling writers to use sparingly) seems to be another hapless punctuation mark which has its legitimate uses. It does seem that grammarians, editors, professors and other erudite scholars could employ themselves, their time and their money (especially if their being paid for their work) on more productive issues. I can think of many other issues in the language, such as the confusing array of single and double quotation marks, parentheses, brackets, braces, and various other more obscure but annoying little marks which nobody seems to be able to agree as to exactly how they are to be used. Things did seem to be straightforward when I was growing up. The comma rule, for instance, seem to have changed. I guess the comma may have been a bit overused at times. But the pendulum seems to have swung the other way. It’s hard for me to remember that fewer commas are allowed now. Then there are those infrequently used but seemingly (to me) ambiguous semicolons. Hmm. Remember National Punctuation Day? Maybe we should have “National Punctuation Month” (or week) in which a different punctuation mark, and any controversies surrounding it, be discussed. Just a thought.
Laura
I’m known as the Queen of the Apostrophes, and my daughter, The Princess. Her teacher in Grade 5 said she was the only child in that year who knew how to use the apostrophe. That’s because her mother taught her well. One of the tips she inherited was to ask, “Who owns the object?” eg “Who owns the feet?” The apostrophe denoting ownership is then placed after the answer eg “The children’s feet” or “The wolves’ feet”. Simple! Abolition would indicate a lack in the ability to think systematically and logically.
Abolishing the apostrophe would mean getting rid of a major source of annoyance for this copy editor.
I’m referring, of course, to other people’s misuse of it.
I used to think that if I could do it, anyone could. The problem is not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t care – and that’s the part that hurts.
Languages evolve. Even French spelling is undergoing some major “renovations”.
Gina
Let usage, or lack thereof, take care of the issue. Languages change, so let this change happen. No need for concern, we’ll/well adjust.
French spelling is undergoing “renovation”? Sacre blu! Zut alor! *grin*
Just as people misspell words, or use them incorrectly, the apostrophe is misused. That doesn’t mean we should lower our standard of correctness. Why should we ‘dumb down’ so many things for so few people? Keep the apostrophe!
If we’re removing linguistic elements because they’re misused or “unnecessary,” we really ought to jump the gap and begin writing Orwell’s NEWSPEAK dictionary.
Am I the only person who finds this idea double plus ungood?