He’ll…Oh, Hell…

A while ago we gave you a blog about apostrophes and the two apparently different jobs they do.  In actual fact, however, their jobs are not so very different as both uses indicate something has been left out thus effectively shortening the statement – a thing we tend to do when talking.  Which is fine so long as the sense remains and one does not have to work too hard to understand; to grasp the meaning of the message.

Back then we concentrated on the apostrophe of possession (AKA the apostrophe of ownership or belonging) and gave you the example of how a string of apostrophised words can make perfect sense with the little nonsense story of “Jan and Her Gran”.

The other use of the apostrophe (also known as a “raised comma” but in grammatical circles is referred to as the “apostrophe of contraction”) is, in a sense, simpler as it reflects what we all do when talking: run words together so that two or three sound like one.  This means that, when writing, we omit a letter (or letters) along with the space between the words.

I’ve become aware for several years of a move to dump apostrophes all together as the correct use of them is seen as too hard; confusing; not necessary; writing would be simpler…; too many people don’t know how to use them…

If they are taught well all these objections are virtually non-existent.  In my experience as a school-marm all my working life I know that pretty well every eight or nine year old can learn to use them appropriately.

What fascinates me is the effect ditching the apostrophe of contraction could well have on our reading of such words as he’ll, she’ll, we’ll, she’d, we’d, can’t, won’t, I’ll.  Pause a moment and consider each of these minus its apostrophe. 

Reading written English can be a challenge at the best of times due to a number of factors I won’t go into here.  So why on earth make it harder than it need be?  Surely what we really need is simple, effective teaching that explains things clearly.

Just in case you had a bit of trouble visualising the effect of omitting the apostrophe on the short list I gave you above:                                                               

he’ll = hell/ she’ll = shell/ we’ll = well/ she’d = shed/ we’d = wed/ can’t = cant…

Admittedly, this last is not commonly used these days. But, according to my big, fat, two volume Shorter(!!) Oxford Dictionary there are no less than ten separate, distinct meanings for “cant” varying from “dispose of by auction” and “jargonistic” through “bold, brisk, lively, hearty” to “push or pitch sideways”…  Just to list but a few of those ten!!

To recap what I said in the beginning about making changes to the language:                                                                            

© Mary McDee 2023

Feature Photo: Boy at the well © L.M. Kling 1984