0
Usenet Posted 21 years ago
English in UK
Apostrophe is only for missing letter(s)?
Hello
I see we have some Old English cognoscenti in this forum so I wondered if someone could confirm or otherwise, the assertion that the possesive use of the apostrophe (the man's hat) is actually just another example of the apostrophe being used to denote a missing letter.
My understanding is that in Old English the genetive form of man (for example) would be manes so that man's (as in the man's hat) is shorthand for manes.
On the topic of the apostrophe, when did it first appear and what would motivate its introduction? It seems that it is most often used to avoid writing a single letter and so is hardly worth the bother. And what is its relationship with the spoken equivalent? Is it perhaps the case that lazy (or rapid) speech gave rise to contractions which were then taken up in the written word?
Fred
I see we have some Old English cognoscenti in this forum so I wondered if someone could confirm or otherwise, the assertion that the possesive use of the apostrophe (the man's hat) is actually just another example of the apostrophe being used to denote a missing letter.
My understanding is that in Old English the genetive form of man (for example) would be manes so that man's (as in the man's hat) is shorthand for manes.
On the topic of the apostrophe, when did it first appear and what would motivate its introduction? It seems that it is most often used to avoid writing a single letter and so is hardly worth the bother. And what is its relationship with the spoken equivalent? Is it perhaps the case that lazy (or rapid) speech gave rise to contractions which were then taken up in the written word?
Fred
Top answer
[nq:1]I see we have some Old English cognoscenti in this forum so I wondered if someone could confirm or otherwise, ... [/nq] The simple answer is that seventeenth-century grammarians got it into their heads that the possessive '-s' (no longer '-es' by this time) was actually a contraction of 'his' (the man his hat - a form of locution that became popular at the beginning of the seventeenth century). They therefore took to indicating this supposed 'contraction' by using the apostrophe.
- [nq:1]I see we have some Old English cognoscenti in this forum so I wondered if someone could confirm or otherwise, ...
- [/nq] The simple answer is that seventeenth-century grammarians got it into their heads that the possessive '-s' (no longer '-es' by this time) was actually a contraction of 'his' (the man his hat - a form of locution that became popular at the beginning of the seventeenth century).
- They therefore took to indicating this supposed 'contraction' by using the apostrophe.
- This would have appeared in print in the mid- to late-seventeenth century.
- John Briggs
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
17 Answers
0
[nq:1]I see we have some Old English cognoscenti in this forum so I wondered if someone could confirm or otherwise, ... the case that lazy (or rapid) speech gave rise to contractions which were then taken up in the written word?[/nq]
The simple answer is that seventeenth-century grammarians got it into their heads that the possessive '-s' (no longer '-es' by this time) was actually a contracti
The simple answer is that seventeenth-century grammarians got it into their heads that the possessive '-s' (no longer '-es' by this time) was actually a contracti
00
[nq:1]Hello I see we have some Old English cognoscenti in this forum so I wondered if someone could confirm or ... the case that lazy (or rapid) speech gave rise to contractions which were then taken up in the written word?[/nq]
The possessive apostrophe doesn't denote anything except the conceit of the inventor. The genitive form was just "s". (Some may have been rendered -es but so were some
The possessive apostrophe doesn't denote anything except the conceit of the inventor. The genitive form was just "s". (Some may have been rendered -es but so were some
00
"John Briggs" (Email Removed) wrote up in the written word?
[nq:1]The simple answer is that seventeenth-century grammarians got it intotheir heads that the possessive '-s' (no longer 'es' by this ... indicating this supposed 'contraction' by using the apostrophe. This would have appeared in print in the mid to late-seventeenth century.[/nq]
Thanks for that.
I wonder then why
[nq:1]The simple answer is that seventeenth-century grammarians got it intotheir heads that the possessive '-s' (no longer '
Thanks for that.
I wonder then why
00
[nq:1]The simple answer is that seventeenth-century grammarians got it intotheir heads that the possessive '-s' (no longer 'es' by this ... indicating this supposed 'contraction' by using the apostrophe. This would have appeared in print in the mid to late-seventeenth century.[/nq]
On the same subject.
Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it - its?
F
On the same subject.
Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it - its?
F
00
You might like to ask that question in the newsgroup alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe.
There is a possibility of an informative reply, but the certainty of humorous thread-drift.
Peter Duncanson
UK
(posting from u.c.l.e)
There is a possibility of an informative reply, but the certainty of humorous thread-drift.
Peter Duncanson
UK
(posting from u.c.l.e)
00
At 11:17:28 on Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Fred (Email Removed) wrote in :
[nq:1]On the same subject. Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it - its?[/nq]
Because the whole of Usenet would come to a grinding halt, having absolutely nothing left to talk about.
Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink say
[nq:1]On the same subject. Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it - its?[/nq]
Because the whole of Usenet would come to a grinding halt, having absolutely nothing left to talk about.
Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that lives under the sink say
00
[nq:1]The simple answer is that seventeenth-century grammarians got it into their heads that the possessive '-s' (no longer '-es' by ... 'his' (the man his hat - a form of locution that became popular at the beginning of the seventeenth century).[/nq]
I struggle to believe that any grammarian ever really believed that. There was no shortage of Old English documents to check and no problem comp
I struggle to believe that any grammarian ever really believed that. There was no shortage of Old English documents to check and no problem comp
00
[nq:1]On the same subject. Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it - its?[/nq]
None of the personal pronoun possessives needs an apostrophe. Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs.
Ray
None of the personal pronoun possessives needs an apostrophe. Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs.
Ray
00
[nq:2]On the same subject. Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it - its?[/nq]
[nq:1]None of the personal pronoun possessives needs an apostrophe. Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs.[/nq]
One's?
John Briggs
[nq:1]None of the personal pronoun possessives needs an apostrophe. Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs.[/nq]
One's?
John Briggs
00
[nq:2]On the same subject. Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it - its?[/nq]
[nq:1]None of the personal pronoun possessives needs an apostrophe. Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs.[/nq]
Except "one's".
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England
[nq:1]None of the personal pronoun possessives needs an apostrophe. Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs.[/nq]
Except "one's".
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England
0
Related Questions