 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / British English / December 2004Apostrophe 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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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.  SignatureJohn Briggs "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote 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. 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 "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:gBUwd.41$nL2.21@newsfe6- > The simple answer is that seventeenth-century grammarians got it into their > heads that the possessive '-s' (no longer '-es' by this time) was actually a > contraction of 'his' (the man his hat - a form of locution that became > popular at the beginning of the seventeenth century). They therefore took > to indicating this supposed 'contraction' by using the apostrophe. This > would have appeared in print in the mid- to late-seventeenth century. On the same subject. Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it - its? Fred >"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message >news:gBUwd.41$nL2.21@newsfe6- [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >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. SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from u.c.l.e) At 11:17:28 on Sun, 19 Dec 2004, Fred <Fred@somewhere.abc> wrote in <cq3o08$p8s$1@sparta.btinternet.com>: >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. SignatureMolly 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.) > 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. SignatureRay >> 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? SignatureJohn Briggs >>> On the same subject. >>> Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it - its? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > One's? I believe that "one" is not a personal pronoun, but an indefinite pronoun. SignatureRay "mUs1Ka" <mUs1Ka@exite.com> wrote... > >>> On the same subject. > >>> Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it - [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > 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 > "mUs1Ka" <mUs1Ka@exite.com> wrote... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 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. SignatureRay "mUs1Ka" <mUs1Ka@exite.com> wrote... > > "mUs1Ka" <mUs1Ka@exite.com> wrote... > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > indefinite/indeterminate pronouns refer to unknown persons; one, > someone, no one, anyone, everyone etc. Then I'd accept that there are definite and indefinite personal pronouns, I think. Matti >> "mUs1Ka" <mUs1Ka@exite.com> wrote... >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >indefinite/indeterminate pronouns refer to unknown persons; one, someone, no >one, anyone, everyone etc. A quick Google finds a division of opinions on this. "One" is classified as an indefinite pronoun by some writers. Others have it as a personal pronoun. Yet others cunningly avoid the issue by not mentioning it. I find the distinction between personal and indefinite pronouns to be applied somewhat arbitrarily. For example, the pronoun "both" is classified as an indefinite pronoun. This seems illogical to me as "both" is no less specific than the plural personal pronouns (them, they, you, your). SignaturePeter Duncanson UK (posting from u.c.l.e) >> 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". Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Hertfordshire England >>> On the same subject. >>> Why don't we have an apostrophe in the possesive form of it - its? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Except "one's". See reply to John Briggs. SignatureRay >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. SignaturePhil C. >Hello > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >(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. SignaturePhil C. > Hello > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > example) would be manes so that man's (as in the man's hat) is > shorthand for manes. 'Er Indoors, who knows about such things says it's possible but she can't be certain. Incidentally, the 'e' form of the genitive lasted much longer than Old English - it's very evident in Chaucer who is Middle English. -- Mike Stevens narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Old grammarians never die - they simple parse away |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.