origin of "o'clock" , "let's"
I'm interested in the origin of words like "o'clock" and "let's" - the question is what really " o' " and " 's " are in those words. What's their origin and the original meaning and from which grammar constractions they come from?
Learners of English are always told by teachers that it is the way like it is and we have to learn it by heart. But I'm too inquiring person to leave it without an answer.
"of the clock" & "let us"
O' Clock comes from "of the clock", or "of the hour" I think, I could be wrong though. Let's is just short for "Let us" the ' symbol just shows us where a letter has been dropped, of sometimes more than one letter has been dropped. Im sure one of the language buffs can explain propperly.
Thanks a lot. I must say English are the nation-of-short-forms. They shorten as much as possible forms of words, constuctions or they make grammar rules siplier (except tenses). I think about shorts like e.g. I'm, you're, we've, he's and also those not really correct but used commonly: wanna, gotta, goin', brakin', 'cause etc. It's interesting to consider because these similar rules of short writing would be unthinkable e.g. in Polish (my native language).
In addition. I don't want to say it's bad but I just had a thought about the differences of the way of writing and pronounciantion rules :).
"wanna, gotta, goin', brakin', 'cause etc."
But most of those are those horrid and ugly Americanisms.
I read once that the possessive apostrophe + S was originally a contraction of "his", so that the original construction would have been "Jack his dog" but was then shortened (as we English-speakers love to do) to "Jack's dog". Presumably there was also one a feminine form -- "Jill her dog" but it died out .... probably because it's a lot easier to add an S onto words than an R.
Writing "he's" a thought about "he has" nevertheless your post about apostrophe + S is interesting. I didn't know about that.
<< I read once that the possessive apostrophe + S was originally a contraction of "his", so that the original construction would have been "Jack his dog" but was then shortened (as we English-speakers love to do) to "Jack's dog". Presumably there was also one a feminine form -- "Jill her dog" but it died out .... probably because it's a lot easier to add an S onto words than an R. >>
Actually, it originated from the genitive case. Like Latin and other languages, English used to have a case system. So if we assume that the word "king" was used way back in Old English, then the genitive form might have been "kinges". Then the "e" got dropped, and it became "king's".
- Kef
The origin of the apostrophe is grammarians saying that it was a contraction of "his", though.
>>Thanks a lot. I must say English are the nation-of-short-forms. They shorten as much as possible forms of words, constuctions or they make grammar rules siplier (except tenses).<<
Oh, English grammar rules are *not* simple at all. Yes, English has far less inflectional morphology than, say, Polish, but it makes up for it with plenty of complexity with respect to syntax and usage.
>>I think about shorts like e.g. I'm, you're, we've, he's and also those not really correct but used commonly: wanna, gotta, goin', brakin', 'cause etc.<<
Mind you that "wanna", "gotta", and "'cause" are practically standard in everyday spoken North American English, only not showing up in specifically formal speech. As for what you write as "goin'" and "brakin'", the realization of the present participle affix and sometimes the gerund affix "-ing" as [I~n] or in somet dialects [i~n] is very common throughout North American English.
>>It's interesting to consider because these similar rules of short writing would be unthinkable e.g. in Polish (my native language).<<
You say "writing" here - such are not used in formal writing in English either (you would not see a book or article written in such a way in English), but are common in informal writing in English (for instance, "wanna" and "gotta" are commonly used in informal writing by North American English-speakers, to whom such forms are native).
Note that "let's" while originating from "let us", basically has a different meaning from "let us" altogether and unlike with other contractions "let's" and "let us" are not interchangable.