Vince, you seem to have a knack for introducing subjects that generate a lot of response, whether or not the subject deserves the level of response it generates (I’m thinking your recent post on “uppercase” and “lowercase”). Give me a ring. Don’t touch that dial! The English language (and, most likely, ANY language) is filled with carryover words which may not accurately describe the items which they are supposed to describe, but everyone knows what they mean. So what’s the big deal?

Punctuation, like proper grammar and correct spelling, serves a very important purpose: to make the intent of the written word as clearly understandable as possible. People who write well generally use grammar properly, spell correctly, and punctuate accurately; unfortunately, it seems that such people are becoming increasingly rare.

One of the arguments the referenced article puts forward seems to be that, since so many people don’t know the rules, it’s time to chuck the rules. Great: in order to make the unschooled (or unmotivated or uncaring or whatever) feel better about their shortcomings, we should impoverish the language. Sorry…I don’t buy it.

What we need is more punctuation!
Like floating emphasis and question marks that can be placed on any vowel.

hhp

Even when you type fo’ shizzle, it requires an apostrophe, natch.

I am pretty happy with the punctuation scheme as presently constituted. That might be the result of familiarity. I find that Americans like to overuse commas, especially in lists. This seems to be a result of academia.
As a person who is helping to destroy American English through marketing language (Think Different - catchy but notoriously incorrect), I take great liberties with punctuation and language, with less being more the rule.
On a philosophical level I am constantly fighting the urge to think (as all old men do) - Things Were Better Before…
peace

Paul, there’s a great deal of difference between knowing the rules and intentionally breaking them for effect, and breaking the rules because you have no idea what the rules are. The former instance is called artistic license; the latter is called being clueless. And, fellow old man, it’s inescapable: some things were better before…but a lot of other things really sucked.

As a person who is helping to destroy American English through marketing language (Think Different - catchy but notoriously incorrect)

Marketing and advertising will in no way “destroy” the English language. Every language naturally evolves over time, new words are added, archaic ones are forgotten, meaning shift, foreign vocabulary becomes integrated, punctuation standards change, etc.

Oxymorons, unconventional phrasing, and things of those natures are not “incorrect” usages of language— especially with advertising. Catchy is the point. The only way you can improperly use a language is to use the wrong rhetoric in the wrong situation. Think of Japanese for example, there clear levels of formality how you speak and write to certain people. Every language is like that though; in any setting there are certain things that are appropriate and inappropriate to say.

However, those examples are more deeply based on social constructions than on language. Language and the way it is used and accepted has very deep roots in local cultures…

Also, there is nothing wrong with commas.

r.k

The two typical sides of the argument are too superficial. One side likes to break rules, the other likes the status quo, and both sides rationalize away to suit their personal preferences. That’s not Design. Few people bother to really worry about how written language actually works. It is in this consideration that the Minimalism espoused by those who want to “simplify” language is flawed. We need richer information, not poorer.

Commas: I myself use too many of them. They make a written piece more conversational, which can do unwarranted harm to immersive reading in some contexts. In that Spatium article I wrote, at the end I went back and -carefully- pulled out ~50 commas. So about one for each 50 words. It became more true to its medium, hence more functional.

hhp

More people ought to worry about how written language actually works.

I agree with rkeller. Language is flexible and fluid because it’s a mode of expression, but writing is a system within that mode of expression. It’s a set of practices based on common understandings which either yield rules or exist because of them. So, while I think change is inevitable, removing something because some people are too lazy or poorly educated seems foolish to me.

The apostrophe, in particular, is a useful signifier. I’m sure we could abolish the letter ‘k’ as well, but do we really need to? Some parts add flexibility and depth, even if they are part of a rule or are arguably extraneous. Try adding to before subtracting from language.

I also dig the comma. I once wrote a sentence in grade school containing six commas, all properly used, without trying. I could tell that my english teacher wanted to reprimand me, but had no grounds for it. I loved that, and have used them liberally ever since.

I was merely passing on an observation that many Europeans have told me about the over-punctuation of American English. I happen to agree with them. Of course language is plastic, meant to be molded to suit the times. I don’t feel guilty but I also feel that marketing has a destructive influence on the English language. So be it.
Hrant - i would argue that carefully constructed minimalism can be richer. My own tastes run to haikus and other minimalist type of poetry rather than the epics of this world. They feel far more open to interpretation which suits my artistic ideal. I want to start people thinking, that’s all.
I agree with all the comments about knowing the rules before breaking them. This is usually true in all fields of endeavor (although I’ve heard some punk rock guitarists who’ve been playing for 6 months who play things I would never think of - I’ve been playing for 37 years).
As for the apostrophe - I feel very Possessive about them and would like them to stay…
peace

Think Different was correct English!

Different is used in the way “combustion” is used here: “I’m tired of waiting for the sun to warm us up, Hank. Let’s create fire. Think combustion.”

It was correct English (and still is), but not in the way one immediately thinks of the usage of that phrase.

Paul, you’re just saying that because if we threw out apostrophes your icon would be passe. =)

The assertion that “context makes it redundant” boils down to demanding that people waste more time explaining themselves. Already, when I say “literally,” I have to stop and explain that I mean “literally” literally. Once upon a time you could just use the word and trust that people know what it means.

There’s a pervasive attitude today of “I can do whatever I want,” shouting down any question of whether something is a good thing to do. Try to explain to people that “barter” does not mean “haggle,” and they’ll figuratively jump at your throat. “LANGUAGE CHANGES, OLD MAN! EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT I MEAN SO SHUT UP!” Yeah, fine, but then we’re left without a word for barter. Language is fluid, but there’s a lot to be said for directing the flow.

There are all kinds of existing ambiguities that pop up in our language and have to be talked around. Why add more? The apostrophe takes up almost no space; why would you want to replace it with words? “The chicken broke James’ fast.” You have a pretty clear idea of what that means, and it only took a millimeter to clear up any confusion.

The apostrophe is an interesting piece of punctuation. Unlike the comma, semi-colon, etc. — and even the exclamation mark when used grammatically —, the apostrophe seems almost an accidental mark. Its uses in English are the result of the way in which we idicate the possessive with s and our tendency to contract through vowel ellision. Neither of these characteristics of English are what I would consider fundamental aspects of language, unlike for example words, clauses and phrases, which are, of course, the domain of the comma, the semi-colon, etc.. The latter are grammatical punctuation marks in the full, linguistic sense of the term grammar; the marks themselves are conventional, but what they indicate is not conventional and is common in one form or another to all human languages.*

The apostrophe is a conventional mark that indicates things that are not quite conventional, but not essentially grammatical either. There are many ways in which languages can indicate possession: it just so happens that, since the decline of noun casing, English has evolved a means of indicating possession that is helpfully indicated by an apostrophe — helpfully because the method of indicating possession is all but identical to the method of pluralising a noun. As Kevin notes, this can result in ambiguities, which the apostrophe resolves. The apostrophe is similarly helpful in indicating contraction, although in that case the usage is more distinctly conventional, since contractions have no grammatical function: they are simply verbal laziness.

The argument that ‘Language changes, so I can abuse grammar as much as I like’ is a different form of laziness. Language does change, of course, or rather the conventional aspects of language change. They are fluid and they evolve over time. Words, for example, assume new meanings and lose old ones. But the essential elements of grammar change very slowly if at all and, arguably, once they change one no longer has the same language. Old English is not the same language as modern English, not because it uses different spellings and earlier forms of words, but because it is grammatically distinct. Old English is an inflected language in which word order is not very important to meaning, while modern English is largely uninflected and word order is absolutely essential to meaning. Inflection also means that Old English had no need for an apostrophe, because possession was indicated by the genitive case of the noun.

Possession is a basic aspect of language, and so long as English indicates possession by adding an s to a noun, the apostrophe will remain useful for anyone who cares for precision and wants to avoid ambiguity. If someone really wants to get rid of the apostrophe, he should invent a new way of indicating possession. Personally, I’m all in favour of a return of the genitive case. :)

_

* It is worth noting that not all writing systems mark all aspects of grammar equally. The most important punctuation in English is not a mark at all, it is the space between words, but some writing systems do not indicate word breaks at all: in these, the phrase is the smallest visually distinct element. Yet the concept of the word is common to all languages, as far as I know, and the ways in which words relate to each other morphologically is quite limited across the many thousands of human languages.

Thanks John!

Clearly Paul’s icon is an alembic :)

In Canada, Tim Hortons (donut restaurant chain named after hockey star) dropped its apostrophe, to comply with French language laws in the province of Quebec.

To change the subject slightly, SmartyPants has a problem with ‘postrophes, eh?

“Imagine no possessions… it’s easy if you try.”

(I was watching the John Lennon documentary last night.)

The “Tim Hortons” case is particularly intriguing. Which language holds sway over the rules of another? Could this be a more deeply rooted cultural divide? We Americans looooove possessions. It’s the basis of our economy and lifestyle.

I for one will keep my apostrophes regardless of undecided placement and insignificant redundancy. Language is written to resolve ambiguity, not add to it. Poetry aside, precision is the purpose of punctuation. Leaving clarity in the trust of context is to shadowbox with your audience.

We may not need MORE punctuation. Pehaps we could stand to make better use of those marks we already have in rotation.

From the article at the top:

“We have to learn the distinction between speech and writing…” - Tom Daydon

There is a tendency to write as we speak particularly in email or blogs. But I think alot of the richness of language ( well english actually ) occurs in the difference between speech & writing. I think the apostrophe is part of the richness of the writen form. And in speech we have to be content with context -or shadowboxing as Silas would have it.

>we idicate the possessive with s and our tendency to contract through vowel ellision. Neither of these characteristics of English are what I would consider fundamental aspects of language

[begin amateur linguistic rambling]

Not to get off-topic or nit-pick, but I’d point out that contracting in English is a type of cliticization. Which I think is a pretty fundamental aspect of language(s). While cliticization may well not be fundamental to our understanding what our utterances mean, I still think that it can play a huge part in perhaps how we go about meaning. Which words get contracted mor productively, which get privileged over others, etc.

That said, I’ve been reading a lot of Cormac McCarthy lately and he tends to eschew most, if not all, punctuation in his dialogue. And I have next to no trouble making sense of it. Although it tends toward the redneck & hillbilly, with which I’m well acquainted.

It may be the case however that marking possessives with an ‘s’ (a la English plurals) isn’t as fundamental to language as cliticization. Although I still wouldn’t want to suffer through the amibiguities were it axed from the orthography.

>Which language holds sway over the rules of another?

Not quite that simple, of course.

The Quebec government language laws stipulate that you can’t have English-only store signs in that province. (The possessive apostrophe is not French). There is no mirror-law in any anglophone province. Therefore, to create a logo that would be consistent across all of Canada, Tim Horton’s dropped the ‘postrophe. Actually, that’s a total assumption on my part, but I can’t think of any other reason they’d do it!

Strangely, the very first store was named “Tim Horton”.

English may seem overpunctuated to Europeans because it is so efficient and concise.

Try saying that in French in 13 words! Without a comma yet.

English may convey as many points, with as much complexity as French or German, but in smaller space. Compressed sentences may create a need for more, or at least a higher percentage of clarfying marks.

“Oh, I see. I thought this meant that James was broken quickly by the chicken. What an interesting mental picture!”

It’s a bigger problem than punctuation when people confuse very different words ( barter haggle ). No book about punctuation can solve that. There will always be people who care about language (type, poetry, art, etc.) and those who don’t.

When a ‘Great Leader’ says nuke-yuler on a regular basis, it’s easy to lose hope. That’s lose, not “loose”….

;)