Talk:Apostrophe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

That new transliteration section

Here is the text of a new section added by User:Lambiam:

Use in transliterations

In transliterated foreign words, an apostrophe may be used to separate letters or syllables that otherwise would likely be interpreted incorrectly. For example:

• in the Arabic word mus'haf, a transliteration of مصحف‎, the syllables are as in mus·haf, not mu·shaf);

• in the Japanese name Shin'ichi (which can be written in many ways using kanji but corresponds in all cases to hiragana しんいち shi·n·i·chi), the letters ん n and い i are separate moras and the name should be parsed as shin + ichi; although shi and nichi by themselves are existing and common Japanese words, their combination would correspond to hiragana しにち.

Furthermore, an apostrophe may be used to indicate a glottal stop in transliterations. For example:

• in the Arabic word Qur'an, a common transliteration of (part of) القرآن‎ al-qur’ān, the apostrophe corresponds to the letter hamza, one of the letters in the Arabic alphabet.

While this is of course well-written and important, the points are already made in other sections. Perhaps it would be better to make this section much shorter, with links to those other sections, and to move these better managed examples there. Would Lambiam like to revisit this? Thoughts? –_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 20:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I too think avoiding the repetition would be a good idea, however that's achieved. Awien (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The section I added is meant to be about certain uses of the apostrophe in English-language texts – albeit for rendering words or names that are not or not originally English. Apostrophes are not used in writing these words and names in their original languages. In contrast, the section "Other languages" is mainly about the use of the apostrophe in texts in other languages than English, although it is not quite consistent in that respect in that it also deals with some transliteration systems, which are in use for rendering foreign words in English-language texts and thus deal with English-language usage. If overlap is to be avoided, my inclination would be to merge these parts from "Other languages" into "English language usage > Use in transliterations" rather than the other way around.  --Lambiam 00:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not persuaded. Transliteration, along with romanisation, is already clearly and rationally covered in the relevant sections (though amenable to further improvement, as always). And transliteration systems are not just for citing in English-language text; they are more generally used. Sure, it's hard to tease out all the uses and keep each in its own neat section. The domain does not lend itself to that. All things considered, I say that the addition is redundant as it stands. Reconsider? Amend as I suggest above? If it is to be done as you now propose, it is a big job that requires delicate refactoring. If you want to do that work, with the care you are known for, please go ahead!

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

A big job? Am I overlooking something? In section "Other languages" I see only the following:

1. in transliterations of Cyrillic for the soft sign;
2. in transliterations of Arabic for the glottal stop (covered under "Use in transliterations");
3. in the pinyin romanization to avoid ambiguity (similar to the use for Japanese);
4. in the Wade-Giles romanization to mark aspiration;
5. in Japanese to avoid ambiguity (covered under "Use in transliterations").

To migrate these (if not already there) to "Use in transliterations" is not a big job. As I see it, there is a clear distinction between the use of apostrophes in the orthography of another language and in a transliteration/romanization system for a language not written using a Latin alphabet. While the systems referred to may be used in other than English-language texts, such use is rare except for pinyin (which is an official system in China) – in other languages other systems are more commonly employed; cf. de:Michail Sergejewitsch Gorbatschow, de:Boris Nikolajewitsch Jelzin, fr:Mikhaïl Gorbatchev, fr:Boris Eltsine, de:Al-Chwarizmi, fr:Mouammar Kadafi.  --Lambiam 12:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, big in that it is delicate surgery. Of course I understand what you are saying. Beyond considerable tidying, I have been reluctant to face restructuring those sections in which talk of transliteration and romanisation now falls, and sits well enough. It works; it's all useful; I want to see it retained. But some of it is not yet up to standard, and we need sources: for Afrikaans, Danish, Luganda, ... Yorkshire dialect, in the name of Noam! And more. There's a lesson in it: we need to press people to supply sources when they post specialised detail. Your efforts would surely be appreciated, if you have the energy. Can you also give sources for what you have added, now and in the past? I can. I hope I have done so sufficiently.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 13:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

measurement

What about the apostrophe as a notification of a measured foot? this article does not mention this function once, but it is pretty common and deserves attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.123.198 (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The article does not mention it because it is not a proper function of the apostrophe at all. It is a prime, not an apostrophe, that indicates feet, arcminutes, and minutes of time. The prime is in fact included in the box at the top right of the article, with a link to its own article. It is also mentioned prominently in the lead.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 20:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Possessive for multiple subjects

When using multiple subjects, I've often used the following format:

Are you going to Tom and Michelle -'s wedding?

But today I saw it written as:

Are you going to Tom- and Michelle- 's wedding?

I was hoping this article would have a section under "Possessive apostrophe" entitled something like "Multiple subjects", explaining how you properly form such statements. But there isn't one. If someone could write this section in, I feel it could improve the article. And if it's already there, it isn't obvious. It should be. So, in that case, could someone find away to make navigating to it easier? Greggers ^{(t • c)} 16:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

First, Greggers, please check the result of your editing before finalising your posts. Your use of {{quote}} did not work, and I had to diagnose the problem and fix it.

Why have you included those strange hyphens? No one uses hyphens like that. Since the only difference between your examples involves them, your intention is mysterious. But assuming that Tom and Michelle are marrying each other, the standard correct form for such a sentence is this:

1. Are you going to Tom and Michelle's wedding?

Now, let's take it from there. Here is another possible sentence:

2. Are you going to Tom's and Michelle's weddings?

Note the plural weddings, and note the two possessive endings. In this case, of course, there are two weddings; and Tom and Michelle are not marrying each other.

Here is a third sentence:

3. Are you going to Tom's and Michelle's wedding?

This is not standard. It seems that there is only one wedding, so there must be joint possession of it and, sentence 1 would be normal. Sentence 3 could be used in this situation, but you won't find a style guide that recommends it.

Things get interesting when we change the circumstances. Look at these two:

4. Are you going to Tom and Michelle's parties?

5. Are you going to Tom's and Michelle's parties?

Sentence 4 is standard when Tom and Michelle are jointly having some parties. Sentence 5 is standard when Tom is having at least one party, and Michelle is also having at least one party (without any implication that they are having any party together).

There are extensions to survey that involve possessive adjectives (or possessive pronouns, if that's what you like to call them). Two quick examples, both standard but with different circumstances assumed:

6. Are you going to his and Michelle's wedding?

7. Are you going to his and Michelle's weddings?

You are right that the article does not give these facts about separate and joint possession. Should it? Perhaps. Strictly, it is just a question of the choice between one possessive form and two, and this article is about the apostrophe and its uses, including its use in a possessive once we have already decided that a possessive is needed. But I'll think about this and perhaps add something; we do include facts about possessives in general, because it is here that people tend to look for them. I've now added a paragraph about this, as an important preliminary, very early in the section on the possessive apostrophe. Anywhere else it would be hard to find, and it doesn't logically belong in any more specific subsection – despite one's first thoughts to the contrary. It is not a matter of multiple subjects (note that, Greggers); nor is it neatly a matter of the sorts of compounds we discuss separately in detail. [Added later.–Noetica]

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Noetica, apologies for the bad template usage. I'm surprised I misused it, and will keep a closer eye on it in the future. Secondly, thank you for clearing that up with me and adding to the article. Your explanation was very comprehensive and I understand now how I should be using apostrophes. It doesn't surprise me that the use of hyphens is non-standard. It's not something I've seen much of, but it stuck in my mind and I wanted to find out exactly what was the right way of going about such things.

Thanks again. I really appreciate what you've done. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 12:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine, Greggers. Thanks to you for raising the matter.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-standard heading style

I am not a fan of the non-standard heading style used in this article -- even though I suspect it was done in response to a comment of mine a while ago that headings were nested to too deep a level such that the levels were becoming visually indistinguishable. I propose that it is put back to Wikipedia standard, however that is done. 86.133.242.226 (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

An adjective modified by an adverb phrase

Apostrophe#General principles for the possessive apostrophe: "Time, money, and similar" says: "Exceptions are accounted for in the same way: three months pregnant (in modern usage, we do not say pregnant of three months)." I do not see a possessive construction here, but I see an adjective modified by an adverb phrase ("pregnant by three months"). Similar expressions include "five years old", "one centimeter deep", "four times removed", "ten kilometers per hour faster", and "forty grams heavier". I am watching this page, so please place any responses here. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that you raise the matter, Wavelength. I don't like those simple tests either, and in this case the test is especially poor. For example, it would incorrectly rule out I'll have a dollar's worth (perfectly standard), because we do not say either *I'll have worth of a dollar or *I'll have a worth of dollar, or anything like that – although ?I'll have the worth of dollar is vaguely plausible as an archaism.[Two typos fixed in what follows; thanks, Wavelength.–N]

For convenience, here is the whole current paragraph in the article:

Time, money, and similar
An apostrophe is used in time and money references, among others, in constructions such as one hour's respite, two weeks' holiday, a dollar's worth, five pounds' worth, one mile's drive from here. This is like an ordinary possessive use. For example, one hour's respite means a respite of one hour (exactly as the cat's whiskers means the whiskers of the cat). Exceptions are accounted for in the same way: three months pregnant (in modern usage, we do not say pregnant of three months).

Certainly there is a difference to account for. I'd say it involves what follows the modifier: a noun, or an adjective. The matter is not well covered in the standard guides. Here is all that Chicago has to say, for example:

7.26 Genitive
Analogous to possessives, and formed like them, are certain expressions based on the old genitive case. The genitive here implies of.
 an hour's delay
 in three days' time
 six months' leave of absence (or a six-month leave of absence)

There is better treatment in Stephen Curtis's Perfect Punctuation (cited in current discussion at WT:MOS):

... in ten years' time ... four weeks' holiday ... to omit the apostrophe in any of them would be incorrect.
...
... the apostrophe is only needed in front of a noun such as time, imprisonment, etc. You do not need an apostrophe in phrases such as:
 ten years later
 ...
 three months pregnant
 ... (p. 148)

(Note in passing that Curtis assumes no apostrophe by default, so that if an apostrophe is not needed, it is wrong to include one.) Another opinion, but with a less clear principle invoked, is found in the esteemed Gregg Reference Manual (also cited at WT:MOS):

¶646 In many common expressions that refer to time and measurements, however, and in phrases implying personification, the possessive form has come to be accepted usage. (See also ¶817a, note.)
 one day's notice  a dollar's worth   a stone's throw
 a nine days' wonder   several dollars' worth   for heaven's sake
 [... twelve further examples, all with noun heads ...]
NOTE: Be sure to distinguish possessive expressions like those above from similar wording where no possessive relation is involved.
 two weeks' salary   BUT: two weeks ago, two weeks later, two weeks overdue
 I bought five dollars' worth of chocolate truffles.
 BUT: I found five dollars lying on the sidewalk. (p. 190)

A lot of that is obvious, and this guide divides the issues differently from other guides, and uses possessive differently from Chicago. But now let's look at the examples given in the note referred to in that excerpt:

¶817 ... NOTE: A hyphenated compound adjective and an unhyphenated expression often provide alternative ways of expressing the same thought. Do not use both styles together.
 a one-year delay
 OR: a one year's delay
 (BUT NOT: a one-year's delay)
 a two-week cruise
 OR: a two weeks' cruise
 (BUT NOT: a two-weeks' cruise) (p. 228; formatting changed minimally because of our markup limitations)

Again, interesting choices. Somewhat controversial.

It seems to me that our paragraph can be altered to something more nuanced, with citation of sources such as these. But I'll have to look at more of those, and to think this through – when I get time. Meanwhile I hope for your further comments, Wavelength. I always love to see those! And perhaps others will join in.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Noetica, thank you for your response. Probably, you intended to quote four weeks' holiday and several dollars' worth. I have no other comment on this discussion at this time, although I have pondered your response.

-- Wavelength (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, Wavelength. I have fixed the two typos you mention, thank you (and noted this above). Please feel free to modify such a thing if you are confident that it is a simple slip – at least in my case, and probably in general – with a quick note that you have done so. Often when one is typing in a quote, or where one must watch formatting closely, trivial things can be missed.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition

"However, proper pronunciation should determine this beyond a reasonable doubt in most instances. For example, Descartes is properly pronounced day-kart, not day-kartz; likewise for Dumas. Thus to generate the sibilant necessary for the possessive, the extra s is clearly required. To render Descartes's as Descartes' is to assume an incorrect pronunciation of the name." I fully agree. Maybe it can be rewritten, but the user who added this is completely right. I can't stand it when people write to the contrary. An apostrophe has no pronunciation, so "Descartes' works" is pronounced Day-kart works, which is wrong. The additional s is always required unless the word's final s is pronounced that way already, like Jones. Any guide that says otherwise is wrong and needs to try saying what they've written (it's not "Congress recess", it's "Congress's recess"). Something to the effect of this really needs to be added. Reywas92^Talk 19:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"The additional s is always required unless the word's final s is pronounced that way already, like Jones." And probably even in that case. Goochelaar (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I see, but some things should be more clear because some people just don't get writing what you actually say. Reywas92^Talk 21:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the anonymous and unexplained addition that you are discussing. This is a Wikipedia article, so NPOV applies. Strictly, there are no "correct" pronunciations or punctuations to appeal to: there are only dominant ones. Sure, just about everyone pronounces a sibilant in the possessives of Descartes and Dumas, but that does not objectively determine how the possessives are to be written. The guides disagree; and some mention that disagreement. The book Descartes' Dream [sic] has the form Descartes Dream [sic] on the cover in one edition at least, but uses the form Descartes' Dream throughout the text. Very many scholarly works published in recent years use the form Descartes', as a Googlebooks search will show. [My amended text is underlined.–N] The assertion "Any guide that says otherwise is wrong and needs to try saying what they've written" (see above) is just unargued opinion. Take note of the point that is already clearly made in the article:

Certainly a sibilant is pronounced in these cases; the theoretical question is whether the existing final letter is sounded, or whether s needs to be added.

I have long been persuaded that Descartes's is the better form. But what I (and you) are persuaded of is not relevant here. Similarly for cases like congress' versus congress's (and much trickier cases). But see current discussion at WT:MOS for those.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Incorrect use of the apostrophe (according to the generally accepted rules) ..."

This phrase is just plain nonsense. As opposed to what? Incorrect usage according to non-accepted rules? Correct or incorrect usage is defined by the rules, it's redundant and compeletely unnecessary to state this. It's equivalent to saying "Breaking the law (as defined by the law) ..." Kenhullett (talk) 20:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur. And the header Non-standard English use should be Incorrect use. Reywas92^Talk 21:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking for an explanation why "the qualification in parentheses is meaningful and important." Otherwise I'll fix it again and change the header. Kenhullett (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My response to this is like my response in the preceding section. As opposed to what? As opposed to some presumed but non-existent objective principles.

In absolute terms there is no such thing as "incorrect use" in punctuation. There are only smaller or greater divergences from some more or less agreed body of practice. In the 18th-century, was arena's "incorrect" as the plural of arena? No: it diverges a little from an emerging, socially determined norm. Is arena's now an "incorrect" plural? Only in that the norm prohibiting it is better defined and better established; not absolutely.

If you don't see this, I invite you to re-read NPOV, and to think again about just how provisional, chaotic, and disputed English punctuation is, along with English usage in general. That's how the world is, and this is Wikipedia's response to that diversity.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 22:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's just silly. By that logic, why have the section at all? Any incorrect usage can be rationalized as just a different norm. While there are some gray areas (such as the spelling of grey/gray), modern English is standardized by existing objective principles (such as style manuals like Strunk and White), especially in the use of the apostrophe. I'm fixing it. Kenhullett (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Kenhullett, your comment "that's just silly" is offensive and a breach of Wikipedian standards of civility and the respectful, rational conduct of discussion. Be patient, and let's see if others will comment. I am reverting your impulsive edit, and I advise you to exercise more restraint. Take note: this is a descriptive article, not a prescriptive piece that declares what is correct and what is incorrect.

Why have the section at all? Because it addresses departures from a norm, and these are widespread and of great interest.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A norm that you're saying doesn't really exist? That's it's just some arbitrary rules that may or may not have equal validity with some other, unspecified norms?

I have to say you've fundamentally misunderstood wikipedia in general and this article in particular. It's supposed to be encyclopedic, i.e., present facts. The standards of the English language are factual, and you're trying to undermine the presentation of those facts in some misguided attempt to seem equivocal. You even directed me to NPOV even though your edits are in direct contradiction to the section 'Giving "equal validity"'. There are no prominent grammaticians endorsing different standards; people who misuse the apostrophe either don't know the rules or don't care enough to get it right. To imply that they might be employing some different standard is untrue and contrary to the spirit of wikipedia. And for someone to insist that such an untruth should be included in wikipedia is silly. Sorry if you consider that uncivil, but it's the truth. I don't have the time to participate in edit wars with people who are actively trying to destroy wikipedia; if you ever decide to stop your absurd campaign of undermining wikipedia's presentation of factual, encyclopedic content, let me know. Kenhullett (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted to research and write a section describing different historical or regional differences in the use of the apostrophe, that would be factual and would be a valid addition to the page. But to imply that modern English does not have a set of standard rules that are accepted by all experts is a blatant misrepresentation. As a responsible editor, I should not let this stand, but like I said I don't have time for edit wars. Once again it looks like blunt, uninformed insistence will win out over the desire to present factual information. This is why wikipedia is rapidly headed toward obsolescence.Kenhullett (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Kenhullett, your immoderate invective does you no credit and serves no good purpose. Forbearing to point to policies on incivility (also highly relevant here), yes: I do direct you to NPOV. And I invite you to meditate on its implications. Take this sentence for a start:

An article should not assert that the most popular view is the correct one, nor should this be implied by mentioning some views only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

Our readers will readily form the opinion that these most flagrant "lapses" are frowned upon by all the style guides. But over at my usual haunt, Wikipedia's Manual of Style WP:MOS, there is wide and fierce disagreement on what should count as "correct". Nevertheless we strive to establish standards for the whole Wikipedia project, and to formulate them decisively. As I suggest above, the role of articles such as Apostrophe is different. The topic is linguistic, and good scientific, descriptive linguists (qua linguists) do not speak of "incorrect" uses. That uses are judged incorrect is one thing; that they are somehow objectively incorrect, independent of judgements, is another.

As a concession to brevity, the section does go on to speak of "apostrophes used incorrectly to form plurals". This is perhaps fair enough, since the particular way to understand this has been made clear at the start: "Incorrect use of the apostrophe (according to the generally accepted rules) is endemic, and the perceived abuse of the punctuation mark generates heated debate."

What could be misunderstood in that? Perhaps an authoritarian would object, but anyone interested in dispassionate description of modern practice will, I submit, find it perfectly sound.

Please don't give up, if you still think there is a serious problem. Let's see if others agree, or have any different light to shed on the matter. Meanwhile, forgive my smiling at this notion, which I confess I find kinda cute, and easily dispatched by any random dozen style guides, or by reading this article with attention: "to imply that modern English does not have a set of standard rules that are accepted by all experts is a blatant misrepresentation."

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Languages are always in a state of flux; there is no moment when a language can be frozen and codified in a set of absolute rules, never to change again. What was incorrect or non-standard usage in Shakespeare's day had become normal, standard practice by Richardson's; a lot of what was normal usage in Dickens' / Dickens's time already seems odd and old-fashioned to most people today. Degenerate, incorrect Latin became elegant correct French (and Italian, Spanish, Romanian . . . ). It's a constant tug-of-war between the forces for change and the effort to fix. In the case of the apostrophe, the situation in the real world is that application of the traditional rules has broken down to a state of anarchy, and it remains to be seen whether the old rules can be reimposed, whether a new consensus on usage will emerge, or whether the apostrophe will simply disappear and its function fulfilled in some other way. So since the function of an encyclopedia is to describe not prescribe, it is completely appropriate in my opinion to retain the heading "Incorrect use of the apostrophe (according to the generally accepted rules)", or "Non-standard use of the apostrophe (according to the generally accepted rules)". As Noetica says, people looking for guidance as to what is generally considered correct will find it, while the article retains its neutrality by describing other common usages. Awien (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Typographical quotes

This edit changed typewriter quotes to typographic quotes in a lot of places. Do we want that?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.245.186 (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Spelling spoken language - removing the word "shop" but keeping the possessive apostrophe

What do you think of adding a section on spelling of spoken language? When we refer to going into town to pick up some meat from the Butcher's Shop, most people would say that "they are going to the Butcher's". They leave out the word shop, as the tendancy is to shorten or lose lots of words in spoken speech.
However I notice that in lots of Wiki articles the word Butcher's (short for Butcher's Shop) is spelled as Butchers - not only leaving out the word shop but leaving out the possessive apostrophe as well.
Despite correcting many pages I find that the apostrophe is taken out almost as fast as it is added!
Could some style policy be added to Wiki, or a section in the Wiki apostrophe article added to point out this error.
Many times an article on say a local village has a list of buildings in the local high street.
It usually goes something like this:
A Town Hall,
A Supermarket,
A Pharmacy,
A Post Office,
A Butchers,
A Newsagent
and a Hair Stylist.
I sometimes wonder what the butcher, newsagent and the hair stylist are doing standing in the street? Haven't they got a Butcher's, Newsagent's or Hairstylist's to go to. World of departure (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The sound represented by the apostrophe in T'Pau is a schwa. An apostrophe can represent either a schwa or a glottal stop depending on the surrounding letters. And not just in science fiction. In romanized Hebrew, it can represent a schwa (accent sheva) or a glottal stop (letter aleph). It can also represent the letter ayin; I'm not sure of the technical name for that sound (pharyngeal fricative? pharyngeal approximant?) ---- Collin237 (32.178.249.133) 22:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

French and Italian surnames

Isn't the use of d' or D' in an Italian surname like D'Angelo also an example of contraction? I have a feeling it's short for di or de, which I think means 'of'. So David D'Angelo would translate as "David of Angelo". I'm not certain though, does anyone know? Spoonriver (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of French surnames,

how would possessive apostrophes be used?

For example the footballer Samuel Eto'o.

Would the football boots belonging to Samuel Eto'o.

Become Samuel Eto'o's football boots?

Hope someone can help, thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike pagetooth (talk • contribs) 16:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Names ending in s

Are we sure that James's crown is correct usage? I was taught (in Britain) that James' crown is correct. DJ Clayworth 15:17, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

As someone bearing a name ending in s, I have strong feelings on this. People doing it my dispreferred way is one of Charles's -- not "Charles'" -- pet peeves. --Charles A. L. 18:54, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

I'll chip in support for Charles's opinion: nearly every style guide I have ever looked at either explicitly says "use 's even after s" or gives "Charles's", "Paris's" or "Mars's" as an example. See for example Strunk and White [1]. 'Hart's Rules' is the only one that discussed it at length, and there it is allowed (but not compulsory) for names ending in an s that suggests a plural or possessive already (i.e. John Adams is Adam's boy), and conventional in the classics (Herodotus' etc). However, on the web, and particularly in American journalism the trailing apostrophe is increasingly common, and such crimes as "Marx' Theory of History" or "Alvarez' poetry" are sometimes seen. BrendanH 15:58, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

I changed “James” to “Elizabeth”—the page is getting sexist anyway ;-) I also added a note about names ending in -es which sems to be pretty true (see also [2]) —Mulad 01:55, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes I write Charles's, sometimes I write Charles'. I never write Charle's, but I do write Tam's instead of Tams's, since Tam is an acceptable nickname (her usual nick is Tams, some people call her Tam). For the most part, it's a matter of style, though I prefer Baggins's to Baggins' as it's easier to pronounce correctly for my hopeless brain (like Bagginses), while girls' isn't pronounced like "girlses". --Elektron 09:21, 2004 Jun 14 (UTC)

I seem to recall learning something to the effect that if the possessive suffix is a separate syllable, it should be ’s, otherwise just ’. Unfortunately I can't think of any words where this would be consistent except plurals (which could well be a rule to themselves)—dogs’, not dogs’s ("dogzez"). "James" for instance could have the possessive pronounced "Jamz" or "Jamzez", and I expect people will punctuate according to their own preference. Can anyone think of other examples? Better yet, on the likely chance that I've simply misremembered the rule, can anyone correct me? -- Perey 06:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Archimedes' Principle is certainly not pronounced "Archimedeses", for what that's worth as an example. Robin Johnson 16:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I seem to recall a learning about apostrophes with names depending upon if the name had a certain number of syllables. If it has only one syllable, then it is ' 's '; if it has more than one syllable, it is ' s' '. Examples: Joss's and Camus'

Proscriptive statements about this issue are generally erroneous. There are two extreme schools of thought. One says that you must use -'s in all cases, regardless how the word ends. The other says that if the word ends in a /s/ or a /z/ sound, use only -'. Various other systems acheive different levels of middleground. As a philologist, I have seen many older documents, and in them, the second rule tends to prevail, although there are some authors who use -'s if the word ends with -x, -z, or -ce, but many do not. The "must use -'s in all cases" rule appears to have originated during the Purist movement of the nineteenth century, in which many rules were changed from natural rules to positive laws based on "logic". This is where the rule against double negatives originated. Since, in many words this produced unnaturally difficult pronunciations, some post Purist grammaticians invented an exception to the rule, by which -' could be used if -'s caused a difficult pronunciation, such as in "Archimedes's". My general inclination is to ignore most Purist rules as they are unnatural and fly in the face of the language's genius. And as a philologist, I can only say that the spelling should reflect the speech. If you pronounce what belongs to James as "Jameses", spell it "James's". If you pronounce it "James", spell it thus. The same goes for words like "Marx" and "Justice" which do not end in -s. Since different people pronounce these different ways--I, for one, pronounce an extra syllable on almost none of these--no definite rule can be applied, and it is foolish for the article to proscribe so certainly.

It depends how you would say it aloud. For example, a lot of people might say “James’ book,” but nobody would say “Chris’ book”. So, “Chris’s book” must be used. But for ‘James’, either way is acceptable.

Added this as a comment - I think it is something a lot of people will find very useful. Many people know that they say 'Jameses', but still spell it "James'", thinking that this is correct. I think part of the 'issue' here is that people get confused between the rule for a plural ending in S, and a singular ending in S. I know that if I had heard that one line before (if you say the extra 's' then write the extra 's'), I would have changed how I used the apostrophe a long time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.85.128 (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

RdCrestdBreegull (talk) 05:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when I was in grade school in the 1950's, I was taught that plural possessive of words ending in "s" were formed by adding the apostrophe; while the possessive of a singular norm which ends in "s" were formed by adding "'s". So "James's crown" was considered correct, and presumably was pronounced "Jameses". And, as you can see, I was also taught to use the apostrophe in writing decades. Wschart (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

An appropriate place to discuss s' vs. s's?

I'm surprised that no one has brought this up yet. Does anyone think that the s' vs. s's issue does not belong to an article about a punctuation mark but rather the phenomenon of grammar describing possessive relations? Whichever typography you prefer, it's not a matter of the apostrophe; it's always there. It's not like confusing normal pluralization (two books vs. *two book's) with possessive relations (*my fathers car vs. my father's car, which is proper to deal with in relation to the apostrophe. The Saxon genitive article directs its readers to this page for details, but I don't know why this discourse belongs here rather than to the Saxon genitive article. If I were to research the issue, I wouldn't think of searching it here, but rather over there (presuming I know what the 's marking is called in linguistic terminology). It may be because I'm not a native speaker of English, and my way of thinking and understanding grammar conflicts with native speakers' conceptualization of the matter. Please clarify. - TopAce (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is relevant here. If you search for usage guides on Google, those that have information abou this will list it with the other apostrophe uses. Reywas92^Talk 22:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Poor referencing

I've just marked what are currently reference #10 and #11, currently in the "With other punctuation; compounds with pronouns" section, with a couple of tags because their not good references right now. Who exactly recommends these things?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

A's are the highest marks achievable in these exams.

Whilst many will use an apostrophe when there is a risk of misreading and find it acceptable, the apostrophe is being coerced into a use for which it is not meant which in turn tends to encourage misuse elsewhere. It is far better to rearrange the sentence to convey the meaning accurately and be of correct punctuation. In this case it may be better to say "An A is the highest mark achievable in these exams." thus avoiding both the possible confusion and misuse of the apostrophe.

In the case of dotting Is and crossing Ts, the apostrophe does need to be used since other annotative methods are available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.203.222 (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see any justification for the tendentious coerced into a use for which it is not meant. The apostrophe is meant to mark elision. For historical reasons it now more often does something else in English — it marks singular possessive meaning. That is a fact. But for historical reasons it also marks the plural of non-word sequences like A. That is also a fact. This is not a recent aberration this is a long-established use of the apostrophe which is still common and current in many places. To deny this fact is to place fasle information in the encyclopedia.DavidCrosbie (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Historical Background

After skimming this entire Talk page, I'm amazed that no one has mentioned the historical reason behind ('s) for the possessive.

It's not because some august authority such as the OED or William Strunk created an arbitrary "rule".

No, apostrophe s is a genuine relic of Middle English, a "fossil", if you will, of the largely forgotten genitive case in English.

You see, in Chaucer's time (and before), it was customary to write the genitive (the possessive) thusly:

The Squires Tale

The Monkes Tale

The Milleres Tale

These are in fact how each tale is titled in the Skeat/Modern Library edition.

But sometime before Shakespeare arrived on the scene, the formulations got changed to the following:

The Squire's Tale

the Monk's Tale

The Miller's Tale

Now do you see what is going on? Students of German and Latin will certainly recognize what this is all about, and should require no further explanation.

Yet half-educated editors and copywriters persist in flaunting the "permissible alternate" in our face (James'), all the while totally ignorant of the grammatical and orthographic history of English.

Perhaps all is not lost, though. I ask each one of you who advocates the barenaked apostrophe (James', Charles') to actually pronounce those names in the possessive. If you claim that there's still only one syllable, then there's no hope for you-you're clinically brain-dead.

Cbrodersen (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm saddened that someone used such sloppy grammar and proof-reading in their attempt to condemn others' knowledge and use of the English language. HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Two typos and you call my post "sloppy grammar". You completely missed the point, and that's really the sad part.Cbrodersen (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I was simply looking at recent changes, yours in this case. It isn't my job to patrol the whole article every time I look at it. Thank you for fixing those others, but it is actually a little controversial to edit others' posts on a Talk page. As or me missing the point, the point of this article is about using correct grammar and spelling to make writing clearer. MY point was that yours was harder to discern while it contained such glaring grammatical faults, in an article about grammar. Yours was a post that aggressively criticised others' use of the language. There was considerable irony in the fact that you couldn't do it all that well yourself. Let's stick to discussing how best to improve the article, as well as we can. HiLo48 (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's put things in perspective, shall we? First of all, I didn't "edit others' posts", I added a brand-new one of my own, one that brings a significant point to bear, I think, on the question of how the possessive should be formed. I was gratified to discover that Wikipedia actually has an article on this subject, called "Saxon Genitive". Check it out, if you're interested.

Yes, I do criticize those writers and editors who advocate the use of a lone apostrophe in words or names ending in s (James', Chris'), because they are ignorant (uninformed, under-educated) about the history of the genitive case in English. They are substituting an alternative that has no historical or grammatical basis. It is simply a lazy typographical expedient that has been decried by many authorities from William Strunk on down, and rightly so.

As for my "glaring grammatical faults", do you really think that two typos warrant that description? If you do, then you are someone who truly "can't see the forest for the trees". Cbrodersen (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Shakespeare manage without the apostrophe?85.230.201.24 (talk) 15:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC) Shakespeare managed without the apostrophe, so who are we to change his punctuation?85.230.203.248 (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Shakespeare's printers used the apostrophe, and modern editions do change the use. David Crystal in the Cambridge Encyclopaedia of English (reference given in article) gives on page 68 two versions of a speech from King Lear including this line

FIRST FOLIO (1623) As much as Childe ere lou'd or Father found

New Penguin (1972) As much as child e'er loved or father found DavidCrosbie (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Eastern European surnames

What about Hungarian surnames which end with -s (pronounced /ʃ/ like English sh)? Miklós Borsos

What about Hungarian surnames which end with -sz (pronounced /s/ like English s)?

What about Polish surnames which end with -sz (pronouned /ʂ/)? Tomasz Strzembosz

What about Czech/Slovak surnames which end with -š (pronounced /ʃ/ like English sh)? Ivan Diviš

217.173.180.225 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

3rd purpose in first paragraph

Somebody recently contributed to the opening paragraph, providing 3 purposes of the apostrophe. For the 3rd purpose, they put "the marking as plural of written items that are not words established in English orthography (as in P's and Q's, the late 1950's)". This is partly correct, but the example in parentheses is completely inaccurate. NOBODY spells '1950s' with an apostrophe. Why? Because it is not possessive or showing omission, and there is no possible way to misread it. The whole "P's and Q's" thing is debatable at least, but a VERY poor example to use in this article, especially in the introductory paragraph because it is guaranteed to confuse people who are trying to learn about the apostrophe. I think we apostrophe people would all agree that most people would spell it as "Ps and Qs" since there is no chance of misreading whatsoever. This needs to be changed ASAP. RdCrestdBreegull (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually quite a lot of people use apostrophes in years. I know this, because I correct that error from time to time in Wikipedia articles. It is sufficiently common that our manual of style explicitly (WP:DECADE) says not to do it. A simple Google search for "1950's" - with the quotation marks - will find plenty of such usages. I'm not saying they're correct, merely that it is common. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Even though people may use it in that way, I'm pretty sure Wikipedia doesn't purposefully use and advocate incorrect usages of punctuation marks, such as using hyphens and dashes interchangeably. '1950s' is plural, and plural forms do NOT use apostrophes, except in obscure cases where there's a chance of misreading, although I can't think of any such examples off the top of my head. My point is that the main two solid functions of the apostrophe are to make things plural and to show omission, with its side function being to make obscure plurals easier to read. At the very least, the examples in parentheses should be changed to instances that actually make sense. I could do a Google search right now for 'Wikpedia', and the first thing to come up would be 'Wikipedia', but does that mean that 'Wikpedia' is a correct spelling of 'Wikipedia'? No. RdCrestdBreegull (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your statement that use of the apostrophe to pluralise is incorrect. However your statement that "NOBODY spells '1950s' with an apostrophe." is clearly incorrect. People do quite commonly - and incorrectly - use the apostrophe in plurals. The Google search for wikpedia is not a good analogy - Google spell-corrects, and the first thing that comes up (Wikipedia) is not what you were searching for (Wikpedia). Whereas a search for "1950's" will find many examples with the apostrophe. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I just think it's embarrassing for Wikipedia to feature something so misleading in the introductory paragraph of an important article that many people will be consulting regularly for guidance on how to use the apostrophe. Would you want people to start spelling '1950s' as '1950's' because Wikipedia said it was a correct usage of the apostrophe? The sentence should at the very least be changed to incorporate examples that aren't incorrect. RdCrestdBreegull (talk) 08:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It is Wikipedia's job to describe how things are, not just how they should be. If many people use the apostrophe incorrectly, we need to mention that - even if we are also describing the correct usage. However you have a fair point that the incorrect usage is listed in the lead section without distinguishing it from the correct usage - which is potentially misleading our readers (who should be able to get a good summary by reading the lead section only). So I've added a sentence to the lead stating that such usage is considered by many to be incorrect, with a link to the relevant section. I think the examples in the lead section are reasonable though - they do illustrate two common usages, both of which get covered in Apostrophe#Use_in_forming_certain_plurals. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Much better! RdCrestdBreegull (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I stated that 1950's is correct and and normal and I cited the leading contemporary Grammar of English in support. What is there to support the widespread but mistaken dogma that it's incorrect? You can, if you wish, cite those style sheets which prohibit it. You can also explain the rationale. However, that does not make it 'incorrect'. DavidCrosbie (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, let me try to be less confrontational. There is a time and a place to tell writers the particular conventions of an individual publishing house or periodical or university. However, this is an encyclopedia, a place for facts insofar as they can be determined. The facts are that the plural apostrophe has a history as long as the possessive apostrophe and that the extreme proscriptions expressed above are a recent development. In this extreme form they seem confined to the United States, although a degree of preference against plural apostrophes has developed elsewhere.

The apostrophe conventions are a mess because, as David Crystal point out, different (sometimes conflicting) principles were incorporated over such a long stretch of time. The conventions are widely flouted. It's not so much that people don't understand as that they have no desire to understand. Wikipedia can help

° by explaining the hybrid nature of apostrophe use — best done through history, I believe

° by reporting the whole range of permissive and proscriptive regimes — preferably explaining why the variation exists

° by avoiding the dogmatic use of 'incorrect' when that judgement is not universal

° by making a clear distinction between factual explanation and doctrinaire justification

I have no objection to the factual statement that certain forms are not accepted in students' term papers in some or all American universities. I do object to the factually inaccurate statement that they are 'incorrect'.DavidCrosbie (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Your point is well-made. Most of your changes look good to me. (Except for the one I reverted.) Mitch Ames (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Apsotrophe in names of clubes, societies, etc.

"Sometimes the apostrophe is omitted in the names of clubs, societies, and other organizations, even though the standard principles seem to require it: Country Women's Association, but International Aviation Womens Association; Magistrates' Court of Victoria, but Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Usage is variable and inconsistent. Style guides typically advise consulting an official source for the standard form of the name; some tend towards greater prescriptiveness, for or against such an apostrophe. As the case of womens shows, it is not possible to analyze these forms simply as non-possessive plurals, since women is the only correct plural form of woman. However, some guidance could be derived from assessing whether the club or organization was created by or for its members. If a group of individuals created the organization for their own benefit and for that of other members who joined subsequently, and it was therefore a society of members, the possession would by definition be theirs, and so the apostrophe could be justified. If the organisation was created by an external body – a company or an individual – and others were then invited to join, then possession would belong to the founders, not the members, and the apostrophe could be deemed inappropriate."

Having said that the apostrophe-less forms cannot be analysed as non-possessive plurals, the article then seems to accept that the apostrophe may nevertheless be dropped in some circumstances, but it fails to explain how the resulting form is to be analysed. In International Aviation Womens Association, for example, what exactly is "Womens", grammatically? The latter part of this paragraph is also written a bit like an editor's personal opinion/speculation and is unsourced. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that this idea of a distinction between "by" or "for" justifying the dropping of the apostrophe is completely bogus. 86.160.83.135 (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this example correct?

The article gives the following example:

• Was She's success greater, or King Solomon's Mines?

Is this right? Shouldn't there be another apostrophe after "King Solomon's Mines"? 86.181.169.110 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think there should be, because the question is actually:

• Was She's success greater, or King Solomon's Mines' success?

Mitch Ames (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Failed verification"

I recently made this edit which was reverted. The sentence in question is first and foremost about "most English-speaking countries", with Australia given as an example. However, the source cited is talking purely about Australia and says nothing about "most English-speaking countries". I therefore feel the sourcing is somewhat misleading, which is why I added the tag. I may have used the wrong tag; perhaps it should have been or something. 86.177.107.162 (talk) 03:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent comment: I wrote the whole of the above just looking the the diffs and thinking that the actual text displayed on-screen was "failed verification" (like the template name), and wondering why I had used such a wording. However, it's just come back to me now that the on-screen wording is actually "not in citation given", which seems perfectly clear. The claim about "most countries" is not actually in the citation that purports to support it. Am I missing something here? 86.177.107.162 (talk) 03:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC).

Anon, I appreciate your making your point, and the explanation you now give of it.

First, something procedural: we avoid needless trouble by providing a full edit summary, each time we make a change. I do this every time: it's obvious what I've done and why; and it's easy – even much later – to track what went on by scanning through the history of the page.

Second, the statement that you considered unverified is supported in the discussion preceding it (with citations), not just the citation that immediately follows. If you disagree, or if you think this is not clear from the context, please talk about it here so we can improve things together.

Noetica^Tea? 04:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sometimes a bit lazy about edit summaries when I feel the edit is self-explanatory, as in this case. I marked a statement as "not in citation given", and the reason for the edit was that, erm, the statement was not in the citation given. However, I agree that edit summaries are useful when scanning the history window even if the edit is self-explanatory. I don't understand your second comment. The preceding discussion mentions only USA and UK, and UK is admitted to be a potential exception to the "most countries" rule. "English-speaking countries" is somewhat open to interpretation, but for starters we can look at English_language#Countries_where_English_is_a_major_language. USA and Australia -- the only countries, as far as I can see, for which any evidence is offered -- are a very long way from constituting "most" of these. 86.176.212.218 (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

A fair point, Anon. Please feel free to assemble citations for New Zealand, South Africa, Canada, Republic of Ireland, and any others of interest. The US and Australia provide an indicative sample (and the UK is not so thoroughly against the trend). In an article with an enormous number of references already, that might be thought sufficient. But if you want more, please find them and add them. I ask you to consider in the meantime: is there really any doubt about the general assertion? Don't you agree with it? Noetica^Tea? 12:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Completing the list of apostrophe-less possessive pronouns

@Noetica: I probably should have given a more detailed edit summary to motivate my recent edit, in which I completed the list of possessive pronouns without apostrophes. Without my edit (i.e. in the current reverted form as well as the pre-edit form), a subsequent sentence is false:

No apostrophe is used in the following possessive pronouns and adjectives: yours, his, hers, ours, its, theirs, and whose.... All other possessive pronouns not ending in s do take an apostrophe....

The last sentence in this quote is simply false. My edit made it true by putting all the exceptions to it prior to it.

So we have to either restore my edit or rewrite the false sentence (perhaps as "All other pronouns having no s in the base form but taking an s in the possessive do take an apostrophe"). Take your pick -- which do you prefer? Duoduoduo (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, DDD. But note: the text used to say this (as sampled on 7 September 2009):

All other possessive pronouns ending in s do take an apostrophe: one's; everyone's; somebody's, nobody else's, etc.

I have had a lot to do with this page, but I was away from Wikipedia for 2010. I catch what vandalism I can, but I did not in that year. The simple solution is to restore the correct non-negated version, isn't it? It is a perfectly accurate statement. Would you like to attend to that?

Noetica^Tea? 05:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. The errant word "not" was inserted in October 2009 by someone with a lot of edits, so presumably it was done in good faith. Duoduoduo (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Commission

Hi, does anyone know what the word "Commission" is doing in the heading "Commission: greengrocers' apostrophes"? I don't get it. I'm tempted to just delete it, but thought I'd check first. 86.179.6.201 (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That subsection discusses errors of commission whereas the next subsection discusses errors of omission. Please see http://www.onelook.com/?w=error+of+commission&ls=a and http://www.onelook.com/?w=error+of+omission&ls=a and Ground truth.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Most definitions of "error of commission" that I can find, including the OneLook-indexed ones, seem to be related to bookkeeping. I get the general idea that here it might refer to the inclusion of an apostrophe where none is required, as opposed to the omission of a required apostrophe. On the one hand it's good to learn new words at Wikipedia. On the other hand, I suspect that most readers will be totally baffled by the heading "Commission: greengrocers' apostrophes", and will not have any way to discover what it means. On balance, I vote to delete the word. Any other views? 86.179.1.77 (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"Errors of commission" and "errors of omission" would in my view be fine, but linguists are very reluctant to call anything a mistake or an error (as opposed to a trend or an evolution). I agree that the bald "commission/omission" headings are less than clear, as well as implying "error" anyway. Maybe the way to go would be to revert to simply "Greengrocers' apostrophes", and rename "Omission" to something like "Tendency towards omission/elimination". Awien (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

But errors of "commision" (Wiktionary definition 5) are "crimes" against the English language! Mitch Ames (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

My grammarian half cries "Right on, Mitch! Misuse of the apostrophe is indeed a crime!" My linguist half observes "Interesting! We may be witnessing the demise of the apostrophe." Pragmatically I note that we are likely to encounter opposition to calling an error an error. So where doe's thi's get u's in term's of the heading's of these section's? (Just kidding: applying the "rule" that the function of the apostrophe is to warn that an s is coming). Awien (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

On the basis that I still believe "Commission: greengrocers' apostrophes" will be incomprehensible to most people (I still don't really understand it myself), I have changed the heading to "Superfluous apostrophes ("greengrocers' apostrophes"). 86.160.212.134 (talk) 03:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect example?

Based on the ASCII table, a ' is a valid apostrophe in the electronic age, and a  ’  isn't a valid ASCII character. The example, "The apostrophe ( ’ , often rendered as  ' )", seems like it is backwards to me. I would argue that the statement should be reversed. All uses of the apostrophe within the article use the appropriate ASCII character, except this one. Perhaps it should read, "The apostrophe ( '&nbsp, often displayed in handwritten text as  ’ )" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketosh (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The apostrophe was written and printed as ’ long before computers were invented. It was a restriction of typewriters having a limited number of keys, and later computer characters sets having a small limit on the number of characters that caused the use of ' to replace the apostrophe ’ and the quotation marks ‘ and ’. ASCII (1963) has only 95 printing characters, and includes only '. The larger character sets introduced with the Windows systems in 1998 include ‘ and ’ in addition to '. —Coroboy (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

apos

I suggest merging everything useful from the apos article into Apostrophe. It is only about the term as an abbreviation, which should be obvious when apos redirects to Apostrophe, and the XML entity, which is already briefly mentioned under Apostrophe#Entering apostrophes. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 08:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC).

Redirected; there wasn’t anything to really merge. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 03:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC).

Summary of rules for most situations

I find the presentation of "Summary of rules for most situations" slightly odd because the first bullet point contains relatively specialised detail about possessive pronouns. I would expect to see ordinary nouns explained first. Should we change it around? 86.176.211.121 (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

I am sure that the "typographic" qualifier is useful in the main presentation. There are several varieties of apostrophe, and the article cover at least typographic and typewriter ones combined. In DePiep's version of infobox the contraposition of varieties is not clear. I am not sure that ʼ should persist in infobox because there is its own modifier letter apostrophe stub, but I did not see valid arguments for removal. If even IPA uses it under the name "apostrophe" – why not indeed? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

For a comment on an important grammatical matter, that post is sadly ungrammatical. So much so that I don't get its point. HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem relates to the varieties of apostrophe depicted at the top of the infobox. I made an edit that I now realise was based on a misunderstanding, then further edits were subsequently made. Whatever the history, I think the current presentation is unsatisfactory. For most purposes there are two main apostrophe forms: typewriter and typographic. In the infobox, we currently give one of these main prominence, and simply call it "apostrophe". We then give the typewriter apostrophe equal prominence with the very rare "letter apostrophe", which confusingly appears (at least on my browser) identical to the typographic apostrophe. I don't think we even need to mention the "letter apostrophe" here, or, if we do, it should not be given equal billing with the typewriter apostrophe. Also, if we specificallly mention "typewriter apostrophe" here, then we should call the other one "typographic apostrophe", not simply "apostrophe".86.146.105.118 (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

keyboard-drown-some-keys-like-space-unusable-will-reply-later-on-funny-depiep

Now it has changed again. I'm not sure it's any improvement. I have now set it back to the original version, pending agreement about the best presentation. I suggest we leave it as it is while we are discussing it here. 86.146.105.118 (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

‌’ ' is the worst solution of all, the only one which I will not accept. Compared to bracket and ellipsis, it may misleadingly suggest that ’ ' is a form of apostrophe, not just two different glyphs pushed to one box because someone is unwilling to accept that typographic apostrophe is the most important apostrophe. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

When I looked at the top of this box before it was reset, I saw a larger apostrophe with a caption, and underneath that a couple of less large apostrophes with captions, suggesting some sort of hierarchical relationship, like the examples underneath were special kinds of the apostrophe given above. It was a little confusing because the one labelled letter apostrophe looked the same as (or very similar to) the large apostrophe; I wondered whether the difference was masked by my fonts, or whether the difference was just semantic. Perhaps if this box is intended as a summary or illustration it might be better to display them with context, such as: don’t, don't, cʼh. Just an idea. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 04:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC).

Nope. Boxes serve for a presentation (preferably a text presentation, to allow copying), but not for context. A dynamic IP's desire to wipe out variants but classical (a.k.a. typographic) and ASCII (a.k.a. typewriter) apparently based on the fact that only these two are interesting for him/her, see e.g. this edit, which obviously has nothing to do with Wikipedia's goals and policy. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

U+2019 ’

So, this code point is shared between typographic apostrophe and right single quote? If there is no dedicated character for a (punctuational) apostrophe, then the problem of presentation is really complex. I missed this point when made my variants of infobox. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

"The apostrophe is different from the closing single quotation mark" - Both U+2019. This should be clarified or omitted --92.192.57.123 (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

IM, it is named U+2019 ’ RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK (’, ’, ’). But since this page is about apostrophe, the quotation mark aspect does not need to be in the infobox is it? It's double use of U+2019 could well be described in the text. Finally, isn't it the font-designers freedom & job to design a pure apostrophe glyph (and a typographic apostropohe that is by definition) for U+0027 ' APOSTROPHE? Is there any need to differentiate between "apostrophe" and "typographic apostrophe"? -DePiep (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It does appear that the "correct" appearance for the thing called an "apostrophe" is U+2019 in most fonts. Searches of typewritten text that predates typewriters shows the curly form used almost exclusively. It may be unfortunate that Unicode decided to share a code point for apostrophe and single close quote, but their decision does not change what "apostrophe", the subject of this article, means. Instead the reuse is a fact that can be mentioned in the text, nowhere near the top. Font designers cannot use U+0027 for a correct apostrophe, as that value is also used for left single quotes and the correct apostrophe would look wrong there. I think the correct appearance of the box is to use U+2019 for the main glyph, use U+0027 for "typewriter apostrophe" and get rid of "letter apostrophe" entirely.Spitzak (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The easy part is this: I agree that the "modifier letter apostrophe" should not be in the sidebar. It is mentioned below, in the #Unicode section, together with the "Armenian apostrophe" and such. -DePiep (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The statement "The U+2019 (glyph) is used to show an apostrophe" is plausible, but we'll need a RS. There could be a typesetter who says: "for apostrophe, I always use U+2019", or a font design that says: "our apostrophe at U+0027 looks more like the right single quote, because ...". That would solve it. In the end, I expect both glyphs (and no more) in the sidebar. -DePiep (talk) 09:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

ASCII

Didn't ASCII define ` as a left single quotation mark and ' as a right single quotation mark? The Computing section seems to suggest `these' quotes were just some sort of hack on earlier computer systems, but the ASCII specification defined those glyphs years earlier. 94.1.133.102 (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No, wrong. What you all guys tend to miss is that there are different characters for paired (single quotes) and unpaired apostrophes. The ` ASCII character is a left unpaired apostrophe; the ' ASCII character is a straight unpaired apostrophe. These two characters are not paired, they aren′t meant to form single quotation marks if combined, despite being used as such quite frequently. The latter one—the straight unpaired apostrophe—was made straight for a good reason: in order to keep the character set short, this single character was meant to be universal (as an apostrophe and as a single quotation mark) at the (rather little) cost of being typographically erroneous; its straight nature is also to outline its non-paired nature. Now we have proper typographical charsets, so both the straight apostrophe and the straight double apostrophe should not be used in properly typesetted text anymore. Remember: these characters are shortcuts from past; they′re surrogate, non-typographical, created only to simplify input of text on typewriters and keyboards. For laymen. 95.220.226.75 (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You Got It All Wrong

I′m afraid you got it all wrong, guys. As I already wrote somewhere here, you all seem to forget that single and double vertical dashes may be of two kinds: paired and unpaired. What is currently presented in the article as a typographical apostrophe is in fact a paired symbol—it is the right part of single quotation marks—whereas the real apostrophe must be unpaired because it isn′t logically coupled with any other character in text. Get it straight: the right-hand character in the single quotation marks and an apostrophe are not the same thing. The real typographical apostrophe is this character: ′. Not ’, it is not an apostrophe at all, but part of the ‘’ pair of single quotation marks. Exactly the same logic applies to double vertical dashes: ″ for unpaired use, “” for paired. Please acknowledge the difference (the unpaired right single/double dashes are sometimes called “primes”.) In the regular web-based Wikipedia text editor the proper apostrophe may be found this way: textbox menu → “Special characters” → “Symbols” → the last vertical dash (next to the degree character.) 95.220.226.75 (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Here’s the facts. From the very beginning (X3.4-1963), character 0x27 was called an “apostrophe”. Apparently it soon after started being called “Apostrophe (Closing Single Quotation Mark; Acute Accent)” (see for example Jukka Korpela’s historical notes).

Character 0x60 was assigned no later than X3.4-1968, but I can’t find a copy of that—only the reproduction of its character chart in RFC 20. Tellingly, section 4.2 of RFC 20 calls it “Grave Accent (Opening Single Quotation Mark)”; it also gives a tantalising reference to X3.4’s Appendix A 5.2 which would apparently clear up the use of this character. (Korpela’s notes also cover 0x60.)

So, the multiple uses of 0x27 as apostrophe and right single quotation mark (and acute accent), and 0x60 as left single quotation mark (and grave accent), are indisputably attested. Then it seems that this overloading fell out of favour, probably because of standards like ISO-8859; by 1991 at the latest, ECMA-6 called 0x27 only “apostrophe”, and 0x60 only “grave accent”.

Nowadays, the only standard that really matters is Unicode, and while it gives the name “apostrophe” to U+0027 ' APOSTROPHE, it also very clearly says of U+2019 ’ RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK that “this is the preferred character to use for apostrophe”. Certainly they mean different things, but the difference is semantic, not typographic (rather like homophones), and so Unicode has seen fit to unify them. (Also relevant: the official Unicode mapping of ASCII, which actually specifies that ASCII “apostrophe” 0x27 maps to U+2019, and ASCII 0x60 to U+2018.) (Also also relevant: while Unicode says that U+2019 is the character to use as an apostrophe, it does have category Pf, meaning it’s a final or closing punctuation mark; U+0027 is Po, “other” or general punctuation. Make of that what you will.)

And at no time, anywhere, ever, has U+2032 ′ PRIME been an apostrophe. It’s a prime symbol, nothing more and nothing less. -- Perey (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly Markus Kuhn is a great wizard (seriously, I do not mock on him), but by no means is any file within http://www.unicode.org/Public/MAPPINGS/VENDORS/ not an official Unicode mapping of ASCII. Kuhn himself commented in the file that

“ This usage was not reflected in the international standard and other national adoptions of it, but become widely used in some communities in the United States and is now found in numerous historic and still even some contemporary English-language 7-bit ASCII text files. ” — Markus Kuhn, [3]

Unicode.org just provides several mapping used by various vendors. It is not a Consortium’s definition of historical ASCII from 1963. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I was a bit hasty in throwing that one in; I remember wondering whether “VENDOR” in the URL meant it was purely third-party, but perhaps I was mollified by the “MISC” part. In any case, even were it official, I ought to have said “an” official mapping, not “the” official mapping (“the” official mapping is of course 0x27 == U+0027 and 0x60 == U+0060, by design). -- Perey (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Baldy Bill

Your recent edit to Apostrophe appears to have added a Wikipedia:Userbox relating to the article itself. Our userboxes are for editor use only and have no interest to our readers. Thank you.  –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 09:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

W3C Recommendation that ISO-8859-1 be interpreted as Windows-1252

An citation-needed claim in the Apostrophe#Typographic apostrophe in 8-bit encodings section

HTML 5 standard specifies that this value is interpreted as CP1252

could be verified in W3C HTML5 draft here [4]

When a user agent would otherwise use a character encoding given in the first column of the following table to either convert content to Unicode characters or convert Unicode characters to bytes, it must instead use the encoding given in the cell in the second column of the same row.

Input encoding	Replacement encoding	References
ISO-8859-1	windows-1252	RFC1345 WIN1252

Which W3C states background of the issue in the internationalization article, here [5]

For example, the name ISO-8859-1 is often used to describe data that actually uses the encoding windows-1252. This latter encoding (Microsoft Windows code page 1252) is very similar to ISO 8859-1 but assigns graphic characters to the range of bytes between 0x80 and 0x9F. Many Web applications (such as browsers, search engines, etc.) treat content bearing the ISO 8859-1 label as using the windows-1252 encoding instead, since, for all practical purposes, windows-1252 is a "superset" of ISO 8859-1.

Nvtj (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Added Reference to article. Thank you. Zell Faze (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Omit leading apostrophe when single quoting?

Hi, I like to use single quoting, but I don't know if I should omit a leading quote if I use a word at the beginning of a quote. For example, which one is correct?

1. ‘'Twas....’
2. ‘Twas....’

Same with double quotes?

1. “'Twas....”
2. “Twas....” 78.150.212.121 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

"According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), ..."

I don't edit Wikipedia much besides fixing obvious typos and things like that, but noticed this sentence in the first paragraph (or slightly below, I guess):

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), ‘apostrophe’ comes ultimately from Greek ἡ ἀπόστροφος [προσῳδία] (hē apóstrophos [prosōidía], “[the accent of] ‘turning away’, or elision”), through Latin and French.

Wouldn't it make more sense to omit the "According to the OED" part and add it as a reference to the end of the sentence? --NeatNit (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Bands and brands with false apostrophes

The Mamas & Papas may be of interest here as I understand the band initially had false apostrophes in its name but later removed them.

Sorry I don't have time to track down a source at the moment but someone may want to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven noble (talk • contribs) 22:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Good to know

I just learned something today and I hope it won't be taken out of the article: closing single quotation mark. DynV (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Nouns ending with sibilants

The article lists the following sibilant endings: -s, -se, -z, -ze, -x and -xe. But what about -ce? I think, it may cause confusion as well. (I'm not a native speaker and thus would rather not edit articles on grammar questions myself.) 82.137.162.29 (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Using an apostrophe with words ending with an S

Much as I loath seeing James' (as I prefer to write, and to say, James's, or Alex's, or Jesus's), there are times when ambiguity can creep in due to having no S after the apostrophe for a singular noun.

One such example is with the names Carlo and Carlos. If I refer to Carlos', then is it a plural of Carlo, or a singular for Carlos? Pronunciation-wise there a difference, but not when written. The only way to disambiguate is to use Carlos' for multiples of Carlo, and Carlos's for singular of Carlos (plural would be Carloses' )

• Do you have an example of this happening in the real world where context would not make it immediately obvious?

Uhm, like when you happen to talk about several people called Carlo and Carlos respectively? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Could you provide an example sentence - grammatically correct but ambiguous - and the two possible meanings. (The example can be contrived, eg a house jointly owned by two people both named Carlo, or Carlos, or one of each, as necessary). Mitch Ames (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Greek apostrophes

This should be obvious to anyone looking at it carefully, but just to make a note here: no Ancient Greek (let alone many) wrote δ’ ἄλλος for δὲ ἄλλος. If some time-travelling Classicist had tried to, they would have understood it (after the 3rd century BC) as a mistaken doubling of the alpha's smooth breathing mark. What they wrote was δἄλλος (well, ΔἌΛΛΟΣ), which the Classicists have since cleaned up using modern spacing and apostrophes. Feel free to restore the earlier format but, if you do, be more careful about who is doing the writing.

Lagniappe that probably has no place in the article but is still fun trivia: in Greek, apostrophos (now apostrofos) is the apostrophe; apostrophe itself (now apostrofi) is "repugnance"—a literal need to turn yourself away. — LlywelynII 20:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Which apostrophe should the article use?

At the moment this article uses an apparently random mixture of curly apostrophes and straight apostrophes. Which should it be? Doesn't the rest of Wikipedia normally use straight apostrophes? (If anyone is tempted to make the article uniform, remember that in a few places the use of the two different forms is intentional, in order to illustrate the difference. Global replace is therefore not advisable.) 86.171.174.136 (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you are entirely correct and the article ought to be made consistent with Wikipedia's Manual of Style's section WP:APOSTROPHE (and the template {{selfref}} to that section should be shown as a hatnote on this article.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The article has been recently changed to replace even more straight apostrophes and quotation marks with typographical ones, counter to MOS:PUNCT. Is there a way to automatise the task? I don't know how to do a global replace in either Chrome or Firefox. Replacing the characters manually is really tedious. (Those few instances where the typographical variants are intended should be easy to clean up after the replacement.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, we should follow MOS when discussing the use of the symbol rather than its form. But changing examples like ''others’'' (others’) to ''others{{`}}'' (others') is going to get messy. Pelagic (talk) 06:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Greengrocers apostrophe in plurals? Really?

The start of this article states "In English, it serves three purposes: The marking by some as plural of written items that are not words established in English orthography (as in P's and Q's)." The use apostrophes (apostrophe's) to form plurals by some is undoubtedly common, but I'm not sure that's its purpose in English (personally I would disagree that the purpose of the apostrophe in English is to form plurals). Unfortunately I have no idea what the source (Quirk, Geenbaum, Leech & Svartvik (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, p. 1636, Longman, London & New York) actually says on this subject. The fact that this approach is often/generally frowned upon is not even mentioned in the section on greengrocers' apostrophes (CDs vs CD's). Doing so can lead to really messy and hard to read texts, like "the CD's' covers" ("the CDs' covers", i.e. the multiple covers of multiple CDs, is much more legible).

There should at least be mention that this practice is often unnecessary (and can also unnecessarily hinder readability - which is what it's meant to promote - through the introduction of multiple apostrophes and a lack of distinction between a plural and possessive), and commonly perceived as incorrect use of the apostrophe (without necessarily going so far as saying it is incorrect). 213.164.7.130 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

A stronger statement in the introduction was recently deleted with no explanation. I restored it. 86.183.128.190 (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Article seems daunting

The article seems long and daunting. It should be possible to cover all the important stuff in a few paragraphs. I think there should be such a section right at the start. Then the rest of the article can go into however much minuscule detail it likes, but readers just wanting the important information will not have to wade through it. 86.183.128.190 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

POV

It's clear that the apostrophe is used in English on one side of the other of an s that is not part of the root of a word. It's very difficult to determine that from this article; it spends most of its time as someone's original research of style guides. So much writing nowadays is done by people who aren't consulting style guides and don't care about them; why is this not simply a description of what happens? If you want instructions go to wikihow. Run to the hills! (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean, preferably with some examples showing where the article is not NPOV--Boson (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)?

"It's clear that the apostrophe is used in English on one side of the other of an s that is not part of the root of a word." That does not even make any sense. 86.183.128.190 (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The article may have problems with too much length and detail (as mentioned in section below), but it doesn't seem unbalanced. I'm having a little trouble decoding RttH's objections, but they don't seem to me to qualify as POV issues. I will remove the POV template, but if anyone wants to re-open the discussion then feel free to reinstate it. Pelagic (talk) 11:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apostrophe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414224723/http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/daniel.buncic/apostroph/apostrophe.pdf to http://homepages.uni-tuebingen.de/daniel.buncic/apostroph/apostrophe.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Some have argued?

User:Reify-tech, I'm not going to argue about this edit, because I was just 'passing through'. However my reasons for removal were that this is a single speculation, in a TEFL grammar guide context, as to the reason for the increase in this error. Have not 100s of others speculated that poor teaching or reading poor literature (or spending too long at the greengrocer's ?) may also be responsible?

I removed it because I thought it too speculative and too poorly sourced to deserve inclusion. Up to you though. Pincrete (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apostrophe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060627092149/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/stylemanual/2000/chapter_txt-8.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/stylemanual/2000/chapter_txt-8.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3718/is_200011/ai_n8927439/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://apostropheatrophy.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)