| Author |
Message |
Fred
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:32 pm
Post subject: 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fred
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 3:20 pm
Post subject: Re: Apostrophe is only for missing letter(s)? |
|
|
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote up in the written word?
| Quote: |
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.
|
Thanks for that.
I wonder then why we don't have a feminine form - as in the woman her hat ->
the woman'r hat?
Fred |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Apostrophe is only for missing letter(s)? |
|
|
Fred wrote:
| Quote: |
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?
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil C.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 18, 2004 6:49 pm
Post subject: Re: Apostrophe is only for missing letter(s)? |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:32:58 +0000 (UTC), "Fred" <Fred@somewhere.abc>
wrote:
| Quote: | 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?
|
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 plurals.) Place name illustrate this
quite nicely. I dimly recall that it it came in in the early modern
period when English was asserting itself as a literary language the
classically educated classes were trying to make it more logically
satisfying. They wanted to distinguish the possesssive from the plural
- and trip up hoi poloi. The irony is that Latin nominative plurals
and genitive singulars are often identical(!) and that we can't
distinguish the two in spoken English. This gives us no problems at
all whereas apostrophes have been an endless source of catastrophes,
especially for greengrocer's.
There has long been a myth that the 's is short for "his" but it is
just a myth.
--
Phil C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fred
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 1:17 pm
Post subject: Re: Apostrophe is only for missing letter(s)? |
|
|
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:gBUwd.41$nL2.21@newsfe6-
| Quote: |
The simple answer is that seventeenth-century grammarians got it into
their
heads that the possessive '-s' (no longer '-es' by this time) was actually
a
contraction of 'his' (the man his hat - a form of locution that became
popular at the beginning of the seventeenth century). They therefore took
to indicating this supposed 'contraction' by using the apostrophe. This
would have appeared in print in the mid- to late-seventeenth century.
|
On the same subject.
Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it - its?
Fred |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 6:40 pm
Post subject: Re: Apostrophe is only for missing letter(s)? |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 11:17:28 +0000 (UTC), "Fred" <Fred@somewhere.abc> wrote:
| Quote: |
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:gBUwd.41$nL2.21@newsfe6-
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.
On the same subject.
Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it - its?
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) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Molly Mockford
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 6:40 pm
Post subject: Re: Apostrophe is only for missing letter(s)? |
|
|
At 11:17:28 on Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Fred <Fred@somewhere.abc> wrote in
<cq3o08$p8s$1@sparta.btinternet.com>:
| Quote: | On the same subject.
Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it - its?
|
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 says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Phil C.
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Apostrophe is only for missing letter(s)? |
|
|
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 11:34:36 GMT, "John Briggs"
<john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: | 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).
|
I struggle to believe that any grammarian ever _really_ believed that.
There was no shortage of Old English documents to check and no problem
comparing with other languages which use a possessive "s".
That was an era when the elite classes were feeling the push of those
from below. Arcane rules of "correct" language have always been used
to separate "us" from "them" - this was given a big boost by the
status of classical education. It was, though, an era when fact and
fantasy still had a very blurred dividing line - so perhaps some
grammarian wanted it to be true badly enough that it became "true".
Trivia corner. The soft Scandinavian possessive "s" survives in many
place names of Viking origin - Haceby, Goulceby etc.
--
Phil C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mUs1Ka
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 8:41 pm
Post subject: Re: Apostrophe is only for missing letter(s)? |
|
|
Fred wrote:
| Quote: |
On the same subject.
Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it - its?
None of the personal pronoun possessives needs an apostrophe. |
Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs.
--
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Briggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 9:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Apostrophe is only for missing letter(s)? |
|
|
mUs1Ka wrote:
| Quote: | Fred wrote:
On the same subject.
Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it - its?
None of the personal pronoun possessives needs an apostrophe.
Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs.
|
One's?
--
John Briggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robin Bignall
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Apostrophe is only for missing letter(s)? |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 13:41:12 -0000, "mUs1Ka" <mUs1Ka@exite.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Fred wrote:
On the same subject.
Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it - its?
None of the personal pronoun possessives needs an apostrophe.
Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs.
|
Except "one's".
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mUs1Ka
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Apostrophe is only for missing letter(s)? |
|
|
John Briggs wrote:
| Quote: | mUs1Ka wrote:
Fred wrote:
On the same subject.
Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it - its?
None of the personal pronoun possessives needs an apostrophe.
Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs.
One's?
I believe that "one" is not a personal pronoun, but an indefinite pronoun. |
--
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mUs1Ka
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Apostrophe is only for missing letter(s)? |
|
|
Robin Bignall wrote:
| Quote: | On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 13:41:12 -0000, "mUs1Ka" <mUs1Ka@exite.com> wrote:
Fred wrote:
On the same subject.
Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it - its?
None of the personal pronoun possessives needs an apostrophe.
Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs.
Except "one's".
See reply to John Briggs. |
--
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matti Lamprhey
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:32 pm
Post subject: Re: Apostrophe is only for missing letter(s)? |
|
|
"mUs1Ka" <mUs1Ka@exite.com> wrote...
| Quote: | John Briggs wrote:
mUs1Ka wrote:
Fred wrote:
On the same subject.
Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it -
its?
None of the personal pronoun possessives needs an apostrophe.
Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs.
One's?
I believe that "one" is not a personal pronoun, but an indefinite
pronoun.
|
Is there any rationale for that? On the face of it, "one" would seem to
fit the "personal pronoun" label very precisely and, er, definitely.
Matti |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mUs1Ka
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:57 pm
Post subject: Re: Apostrophe is only for missing letter(s)? |
|
|
Matti Lamprhey wrote:
| Quote: | "mUs1Ka" <mUs1Ka@exite.com> wrote...
John Briggs wrote:
mUs1Ka wrote:
Fred wrote:
On the same subject.
Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it -
its?
None of the personal pronoun possessives needs an apostrophe.
Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs.
One's?
I believe that "one" is not a personal pronoun, but an indefinite
pronoun.
Is there any rationale for that? On the face of it, "one" would seem
to fit the "personal pronoun" label very precisely and, er,
definitely.
I think that "personal" here refers to a specific person. The |
indefinite/indeterminate pronouns refer to unknown persons; one, someone, no
one, anyone, everyone etc.
--
Ray |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in