Which should it have been: Bridget Jones's Diary or Bridget Jones' Diary?
Use apostrophes correctly - or else.
Use of the apostrophe is appalling, especially the greengrocer's apostrophe. Never mind abolishing it, it is an important part of our language and SHOULD NOT BE MISUSED. See my discussion, "Misuse of Apostrophes". Search for that in the search box.
Apostrophes are definitely important and they definitely do stuff. Without apostrophes, "don't" would be written "dont" which looks like it should rhyme with "font".
<<You are wrong to say that the apostrophy [sic] represents nothing. It, for example, represents the difference between 'its' and 'it's', that's something.>>
Right. It also represents the difference between "wont" and "won't", "cant" and "can't", "shed" and "she'd", "shell" and "she'll", "I'll" and "ill", "hell" and "he'll", "were" and "we're", "well" and "we'll" and perhaps others.
Right. It also represents the difference between "wont" and "won't", "cant" and "can't", "shed" and "she'd", "shell" and "she'll", "I'll" and "ill", "hell" and "he'll", "were" and "we're", "well" and "we'll" and perhaps others.
And some of those pairs the apostrophe distinguishes actually have distinct pronunciations, like "shed" and "she'd".
Apostrophes are an essential part of the English language. Most young people don't care about learning today; they don't want to know. If these young people 'Straighten up and fly right' and actually learn something, they might finally get the apostrophe right. Even some trained, professional teachers get it incorrect. I'm not saying THEY'RE illiterate, though.
"Apostrophes are an essential part of the English language."
My dear fellow, what you mean of course is that apostrophes are a required part of English spelling. They are most certainly not essential to the language - I've yet to meet anyone who uses them in speech (ha ha!).
"Most young people don't care about learning today; they don't want to know. If these young people 'Straighten up and fly right' and actually learn something, they might finally get the apostrophe right."
Oh my. There's a wonderfully sweeping generalization. An entire generation dismissed because it can't seem to get the apostrophe right.
"Even some trained, professional teachers get it incorrect. I'm not saying THEY'RE illiterate, though."
The "correct" use of the apostrophe has bedevilled all kinds of people for centuries. Perhaps that might suggest something about the apostrophe's utility?
My dear fellow, what you mean of course is that apostrophes are a required part of English spelling. They are most certainly not essential to the language - I've yet to meet anyone who uses them in speech (ha ha!).
"Most young people don't care about learning today; they don't want to know. If these young people 'Straighten up and fly right' and actually learn something, they might finally get the apostrophe right."
Oh my. There's a wonderfully sweeping generalization. An entire generation dismissed because it can't seem to get the apostrophe right.
"Even some trained, professional teachers get it incorrect. I'm not saying THEY'RE illiterate, though."
The "correct" use of the apostrophe has bedevilled all kinds of people for centuries. Perhaps that might suggest something about the apostrophe's utility?
<<Jim:
"You are wrong to say that the apostrophy [sic] represents nothing. It, for example, represents the difference between 'its' and 'it's', that's something."
I've removed the apostrophe from "it's" in this sentence. Please point out the ambiguity:
If the bird did damage its left wing when it flew into the window, its going to be difficult to save it.>>
Jim's simply use to the apostrophe. He doesn't want it to disappear simply because things would look different without it. That's the real reason, as the apostrophe is not really necessary. Jim simply would have a hard time telling you what the ambiguity is in that sentence. There's clearly not any. The apostrophe is only useful when it actually distinguishes pronunciation, as in "well" and "we'll".
"You are wrong to say that the apostrophy [sic] represents nothing. It, for example, represents the difference between 'its' and 'it's', that's something."
I've removed the apostrophe from "it's" in this sentence. Please point out the ambiguity:
If the bird did damage its left wing when it flew into the window, its going to be difficult to save it.>>
Jim's simply use to the apostrophe. He doesn't want it to disappear simply because things would look different without it. That's the real reason, as the apostrophe is not really necessary. Jim simply would have a hard time telling you what the ambiguity is in that sentence. There's clearly not any. The apostrophe is only useful when it actually distinguishes pronunciation, as in "well" and "we'll".
Jim:
If the apostrophe really does remove ambiguity, how about if we introduced it into speech. Suppose we had /?/ for the glottal stop:
"it's" /It?s/
"its" /Its/
Would speech suddenly become less ambiguous because we introduced a spoken appostrophe?
If the apostrophe really does remove ambiguity, how about if we introduced it into speech. Suppose we had /?/ for the glottal stop:
"it's" /It?s/
"its" /Its/
Would speech suddenly become less ambiguous because we introduced a spoken appostrophe?
I find the english grammar and pronunciation *very* difficult but the apostrophe is very simple :-) I don't understand why find the English-speakers this difficult. The only difficult one is the possessive after s e.g. Jones' or Jones's this I don't know.
In french the apostrophe is used similar with english in the contractions.
I find them important for avoid ambiguity, and without them it would be incorrect and confusing.
In dutch it hasn't influence on the comprehension / potential ambiguity. The plural often have an apostrophe where it would be incorrect in english, for exemple in plural between the final vowel and the s : e.g. foto's = photos
I think in dutch it would be better don't have apostrophe, but in english and french it's necessary.
In french the apostrophe is used similar with english in the contractions.
I find them important for avoid ambiguity, and without them it would be incorrect and confusing.
In dutch it hasn't influence on the comprehension / potential ambiguity. The plural often have an apostrophe where it would be incorrect in english, for exemple in plural between the final vowel and the s : e.g. foto's = photos
I think in dutch it would be better don't have apostrophe, but in english and french it's necessary.
<<I find the english grammar and pronunciation *very* difficult but the apostrophe is very simple :-) I don't understand why find the English-speakers this difficult. The only difficult one is the possessive after s e.g. Jones' or Jones's this I don't know.
In french the apostrophe is used similar with english in the contractions.
I find them important for avoid ambiguity, and without them it would be incorrect and confusing.
In dutch it hasn't influence on the comprehension / potential ambiguity. The plural often have an apostrophe where it would be incorrect in english, for exemple in plural between the final vowel and the s : e.g. foto's = photos
I think in dutch it would be better don't have apostrophe, but in english and french it's necessary.>>
Well once again, what do you think about my idea of having a spoken apostrophe /?/ inserted where an apostrophe is inserted in writing:
i.e.
"it's" /It?s/
"its" /Its/
"we're" /wi?r/
In french the apostrophe is used similar with english in the contractions.
I find them important for avoid ambiguity, and without them it would be incorrect and confusing.
In dutch it hasn't influence on the comprehension / potential ambiguity. The plural often have an apostrophe where it would be incorrect in english, for exemple in plural between the final vowel and the s : e.g. foto's = photos
I think in dutch it would be better don't have apostrophe, but in english and french it's necessary.>>
Well once again, what do you think about my idea of having a spoken apostrophe /?/ inserted where an apostrophe is inserted in writing:
i.e.
"it's" /It?s/
"its" /Its/
"we're" /wi?r/
>> Well once again, what do you think about my idea of having a spoken apostrophe /?/ inserted where an apostrophe is inserted in writing:
i.e.
"it's" /It?s/
"its" /Its/
"we're" /wi?r/ <<
----------------------------
Guest,
I don't understand your question.
i.e.
"it's" /It?s/
"its" /Its/
"we're" /wi?r/ <<
----------------------------
Guest,
I don't understand your question.
"If the apostrophe really does remove ambiguity, how about if we introduced it into speech. Suppose we had /?/ for the glottal stop[?]"
Why in God's name would we consider attempting to introduce a glottal stop to the spoken language to meet a punctuation rule in the written language?
That is just patently absurd.
"The apostrophe is only useful when it actually distinguishes pronunciation, as in 'well' and 'we'll'."
Why do we need to distinguish pronunciation in writing? We don't do this with lots of other words, i.e rough/through, read/read (past participle), how/throw, said/maid etc., etc.
"I find them important for avoid ambiguity, and without them it would be incorrect and confusing."
You find the apostrophe important because - you find the apostrophe important.
In other words, you're used to it being there.
However, I seriously doubt its removal from the written language would have any real longterm consequences. Readers would do what they always do with homographs (and what speakers do with homophones): distinguish meaning by context.
Take the following apostrophe-less sentence:
"Well, when Jim is well again, well all meet by the old wishing well."
Yes, "well" instead of "we'll" is initially confusing, but the reader quickly grasps that the four instances of "well" here represent four distinct meanings.
Why in God's name would we consider attempting to introduce a glottal stop to the spoken language to meet a punctuation rule in the written language?
That is just patently absurd.
"The apostrophe is only useful when it actually distinguishes pronunciation, as in 'well' and 'we'll'."
Why do we need to distinguish pronunciation in writing? We don't do this with lots of other words, i.e rough/through, read/read (past participle), how/throw, said/maid etc., etc.
"I find them important for avoid ambiguity, and without them it would be incorrect and confusing."
You find the apostrophe important because - you find the apostrophe important.
In other words, you're used to it being there.
However, I seriously doubt its removal from the written language would have any real longterm consequences. Readers would do what they always do with homographs (and what speakers do with homophones): distinguish meaning by context.
Take the following apostrophe-less sentence:
"Well, when Jim is well again, well all meet by the old wishing well."
Yes, "well" instead of "we'll" is initially confusing, but the reader quickly grasps that the four instances of "well" here represent four distinct meanings.