For a long time I have been noticing a proliferation of little puppy dog tails in print (i.e., the apostrophe). I have a tendency to over-punctuate in the comma area and I’ve never met a semicolon I didn’t like. But commas which float above the line, at about crossing level for t’s and dot level for i’s, are distracting. I’ve concluded that America’s love affair for the elevated comma must be stopped.
I was taught almost all the grammar I know by Mrs. Hopkins in the seventh grade. What I learned and still believe is that the apostrophe has two uses: 1) to indicate possession, as in Charlotte’s Web, and 2) to show that letters are missing as in “I would’ve if I could’ve.” I try to apply these rules as I drive around, looking at signs.
One of the most common uses is on mailboxes. I say “uses”, though I suspect they are more commonly misuses. Consider the following: “The Smith’s.” We must examine all the ways this two-word message may be correct before concluding it is wrong. First, possession: This mailbox belongs to someone named Smith. But if that is the case, what monumental ego has convinced the owner of this insignificant piece of metal with a flag on it that of all the Smiths in the world, he or she is THE Smith. If he, she, or they wish to convey the message that it is a plural possessive, a box claimed by a number of Smiths, the apostrophe should follow the word - The Smiths’ mailbox. I suspect the real intent is to indicate that some Smiths live in the vicinity and, if that is the case, the apostrophe is unnecessary, superfluous and incorrect. The only way I have resolved that The Smith’s is correct is if “The” is short for Theodore. But even then, “The” should be followed by a period to denote an abbreviation as in Wm. for William or Thos. for Thomas.
I was passing a Nursery or Garden Shop when I noticed the handpainted sign, “Mum’s.” I thought, “How nice! Someone has named a shop for their mother - probably an English mother.” Then I realized it was late Summer, early Fall, and they were probably advertising the sale of Chrysanthemums. Funny thing is if they had written ‘Mums, they would have been correct. But as it was written, it could only mean that the shop belonged to Mum. Or maybe this amateurish message in paint hearkens back to the saying encouraging confidentiality, “Mum’s the word.” But why paint the word at a nursery and why include the contraction for “Mum is”? I think they fell into the strange trap where any short word which is pluralized picks up that superfluous tail.
Another sign, “Sno Ball’s.” It has to be owned by someone named Sno Ball, I guess, because if the intent is to impart the message that snow balls are being sold at the roadside stand to which the sign is affixed, then the apostrophe (if there must be one) should be on the first word, indicating the missing letter,” w:” Sno’ Balls.
Say it’s poetic license if you want, but I’m not buying that. Poets use the device, ‘tis true, but while sometimes forced to preserve rhyme or meter, the apostrophe does fall into places where letters are missing. Oft’ ‘tis o’erdone, but still it has a purpose, a raison d’être. Which raises another issue: the French. They will throw in an above grade mark just for pure cussedness. Some are straight, some are crooked, some slant left, and some, right. Whole paragraphs can change their meaning I’m sure, depending on whether there’s a slight bend in the floating fleck of ink. Accent grave, accent acute, and apostrophes all blend together in a mind bending display of above the line, below the line, and on the line spatters. I think it’s like playing a pipe organ with three banks of keys and foot pedals. The floating flecks are the chimes, I suppose.
But to get back to the mother tongue of King James, Shakespeare, and Bill Bryson, this is not ‘nit-picking nothingness about which I write. Consider the following: their (possession); there (location); and they’re (contraction for they are). There’s (contraction for there is) a world of difference among words that are pronounced almost identically! So the apostrophe must be used with precision to avoid complete confusion of the English speakers. It’s really a matter of correct spelling as well as punctuation.
I am not making a case for the elimination of the dangling dart - it has its place. (Though not between the t and s in “its” when denoting possession [this is an exception to the usual rule]; that would turn an intended possessive pronoun into a contraction for “it is”). I only object to its overuse and its incorrect usage, particularly in the pluralization of words. For instance, the plural of gun is guns, not gun’s as I see it advertised consistently in the flyers of a local auctioneer. And they are flyers, not flyer’s. The plural of Smith is Smiths, not Smith’s as I wrote about in the beginning.
Pity the poor apostrophe`,
When dangling or just leaning;
‘Tis oft’ o’erused by the confused,
‘Til it’s lost a’ o’ its meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment