TH’ APOSTR’ PHE
A LITTLE LESSON ON WHERE TO PUT THE APOSTROPHE TO SHOW POSSESSION,
as in John’s problem, or 2,000 students’ binging problems, or the ladies’ room or the men’s, or the little boys’ (for all the boys as opposed to all the girls), or just the one boy’s room at home, and so on.
First: You should know what an apostrophe stands for.
The apostrophe ONLY stands for a letter or letters
that have been left out, as in
’cause for because
‘course for of course
‘ lo for hello and Lo’ for Lolita or Lois
don’t for do not
isn’t for is not
he’s for he is
it’s for it is
o’clock for of the clock
I’m for I am
Let’s for Let us
O’Conner for Of Conner, as Sean of the clan Conner
These are all called contractions. Go through each one in the left hand
margin and say out loud (softly) what letter/s are being dropped, have
fallen away. [apostrophe comes from the Greek apos = away from, trophein = to fall]
None of these above examples have anything to do with possessives,
the ‘s in John’s problem.
Ok, now, here are the 2 excellent questions you should be asking:
Well, great. Why am I learning about contractions when what I’m
not clear about is possessives. Where do I put the damn appositive or
apotheosis or whatever it is–aPOStrophe!–when I’ve got Johns problem
as well as mine, or Denis ‘s or Denice ‘s or when the noun is plural like babies or
birds or women or men or mice or moose or sheep??
AND (I think I’ve got you now, Dixon), if an apostrophe is used
ONLY to indicate that a letter or letters have been left out, why do
they use it to show possession anyway? Nothing has been left out in
John’s problem,
unless that’s (contraction of that+is) what his problem’s
(problem+is==> problem’s) all about. Ha ha. Answer THAT! (Better still,
could you just tell me how to form the possessive, one simple rule?)
Lordy, would that students talked to themselves and to me this way! Yup,
I can do it all for you. One rule for forming the possessive, no one
else knows it, ‘cept me and now you. Will you remember it?
* * * * ** ***
*** TO MAKE ANY NOUN SHOW POSSESSION, JUST ADD
* APOSTROPHE S TO IT *
* * * * * * *
the problem of John ===> John ‘s problem
the problem of Dennis ==> Dennis ‘s problem
the problem of Denise ==> Denise ‘s problem
the novels of Dickens ==> Dickens ‘s novels
the novel of Dixon ===> Dixon ‘s novel
a script of the 2 Dixons=>the Dixons’s script
the Swiss family Izz, their script (there are six Izzes in the family!)
===> the six Izzes’s script
That’s all you do, just add apostrophe s to the singular noun or the plural
noun. Of course, if it SOUNDS ridiculous because of all the s’s, then
convention says, leave off the last s. Actually, it was people drowning
in other people’s expectorations that required the dropping of the final s, rather
than grammarians’ good sense. Sidle up close to someone and say:
Dickensez novels (for Dickens’s novels)
or
the writersez workshop (for writers’s workshop), or
the six Izzesez sizziling script (for Izzes’s script)
So when it’s too hard to say, as it usually is in the plural and also with some
nouns that end in s in the singular, like Jones or Jesus, then leave off that extra s and just use the
apostrophe all by itself to show possession: Jones’ Jesus is Jesus’ Jones.
the six Izzes’ goldfish
the ladies’ room
the one hundred soldiers’ helmets
the campus’ writers’ workshop
Charles Dickens’ novels
Dennis’ problem, and Denise’s
in Jesus’ name,
amen. (If you want to, go ahead and hang on to
that correllary ‘rule’ about never adding the ‘s to a plural that already
has an S, like:
ladies
monkeys
5 Nixons
3 blind mice
…that’s ok with me, but that’s the where where the confusion will
slip back in: you’ll forget that it has to be a plural with an s in the
plural form.
Try making the four plurals just above, ladies through mice, into
possessive plurals: the 29 ladies (zez) jobs
ladies’ jobs
the monkeys’ heads, the Nixons’ script, the mice’s whiskers. Are those all
correct? (Yes.)
And is that all there is to it?
No. Not quite. I haven’t answered why they use an apostrophe at all for
possessives. APOSTROPHE ALWAYS STANDS FOR LETTER/S LEFT OUT, right?
This holds true for possessives; it’s just that we’ve lost all awareness
of the form–what got left out, by whom, when, why?
actually 10 in Latin, 8 in Greek until
/ you get to advanced Greek, then it’s 12
/ ^
In Latin and Greek, / nouns have eight different endings, depending on how
they’re used in their sentence, and on whether they’re singular or plural.
If a noun is a subject (nominative case), it has a particular ending:
agricola (farmer, fem.sing.) Longa agricola est. == The farmer is tall. God knows why he’s feminine! [Maybe that’s why he’s singular. ( : ]
If the noun shows possession (genetive case), it’s agricolae:
Filius agricolae longus est. The farmer’s son (the son of the farmer: filius agricolAE) is tall.
If the noun is the object of the verb, it’s agricolAM:
Filius agricolam pugnavit. The son punched out the farmer. (Not for the above reasons:
in Rome, sexual ambiguity no problem.)
And so on, five case endings for singular nouns, five more for plural.
Some modern languages still carry this burden, though generally all language
tends toward simpler forms, so these case endings tend to drop off, as they
did in French and Italian, and Spanish, all of which at one time looked a lot
like the Latin, and in fact, at an even earlier time, WERE Latin. German has
case endings today; so does Russian. Such languages with changing endings on
the nouns are called inflected. Linguists will talk about the inflexion of the nouns.
Our verbs are still inflected a little bit: I say, you say, he says. She inflects.
German has four inflected cases in the singular & 4 in the plural
Nominative (subject) Vogel (bird)
Genetive (possessive) Vogels
Dative (indirect object) Vogel
Accusitive (direct object) Vogelm
Guess what. English, which derives from the same ancient language as modern
day German (just the way Italian, French, Spanish, and Portuguese all derive
from Latin), once upon a time, our English, had four cases in the singular and 4 for the
plural, same as German. Maybe it was five, I forget; had to drop Old English because the
professor kept falling asleep in his own class.
So our modern English word leaf, for example, once had 8 different endings
depending on how it was used in the sentence and whether it was singular or
plural:
Nominative, singular leaf and 4 more for
Genitive (POSSESSIVE) leafes the plural
Dative (to or for the leaf) leafe – leafas –
Accusative (dir.obj.) leafum etc.
So when in Old English they wanted the meaning ‘of the leaf,’ as in
the color of the leaf or the leaf’s color
all they had to say or write was leafes, the genitive singular of leaf
(pronounced LAY AFF for leaf, and LAY AFF ESS for leafes).
The leafes color wast puurdy reed, sav whar ye catyrpel hath feed.
That little ‘e’ in there, in LEAFeS, wasn’t stressed much, but the S was
necessary to indicate the genitive (possessive) case, so gradually people quit
saying lay-AFF-ess (leafes) and just said lay-affs (for leafes), but if they
weren’t careful, they’d never know the difference, when it came to writing,
between leafS (the pronunciation of the genitive singular) and leafs,
the pronunciation AND spelling of the nominative plural. So the monks, the
only ones that could write and therefore worry about such things, put an
apostrophe in the possessive form to indicate there had once been an e there
and that you still had the possessive case: leafes ==> leaf ‘s
The apostrophe still standing, then, for something left out. ‘
There were other forms for the possessive, difference declensions of nouns and
so on, but people are lazy and lauguage reflects that, and eventually ‘s
was used for all possessives, whether singular or plural, whether the
word ended in s, like bliss or Moses or moss; and then the ear entered in:
Mosesez (Moses’s), mossesez (mosses’s) were difficult and splattery to say,
so if the word ended in s, they just let the apostrophe stand for both the
`e’ and the `s’: Moses’ tablets Jesus’ sake moss’ color
the leaf’s veins
the leaves’ odors as they burn
Natch, not everyone was consistent, so now both forms co-exist:
Denis’ problem or Denis’s problem
so no wonder practioners of the written language get confused: it looks as if
there’s no order or logic at all. But there IS history: you’re learning it.
Tess’ full name is Theresa; or,
Tess’s full name is Theresa. Mo’ is short for Maureen, Jo’ for Joann.
Mr. Izz’s syzygy, and the rest of the Izzes’ zygotes. That’s their Achilles’ heel.
John’s money is running out, but the ho’ filched six johns’ wallets.
It’s (it+is) six o’clock, by the clock’s hands.
–Which clock, there are hundreds of them!
–All the clocks’ hands, all hundred of ’em.
–Well, for Jesus’ sake, would you kindly set them?
–Why for Jesus’ sake? There were no clocks in Jesus’s time.
— Well, if not for Jesus’ sake, what about for goodness’ sake, or, if you really want to throw
up the hands in despair, for conscience’ sake!
(You can see, clearly, how dependant that one is, for conscience’s sake, on sound, for its spelling.)
[We’re getting into the range now that confuses even English professors: which
form would you say is correct: Who else’s should it be? or,
Whose else should it be?
(actually, technically, keeping to ‘else’ as an adverb, which it is, the proper form should
be: Whose should it be else? )
So, it’s hopeless, right? You were right all along: You’ll never learn.
No. Just remember my one rule and then trust your EAR (not your mind or memory,
just your EAR and tongue and saliva and natural disinclination to spit on others):
IF THE NOUN IS POSSESSIVE, ADD APOSTROPHE S.
(Corrollary: If you spray all over the page trying to say it, if your tongue stumbles
over the extra syllable, if you find yourself using your tie somewhat too informally,
then leave off that S, use just the apostrophe alone.)
That’s it. But it helps if you know the history.
There’s a footnote to this but I’ll put it down there where footnotes belong, and you don’t have to read it.*
It’s / its ~ which is possessive, which contraction?
Finally, do get the difference between its and it’s, please!
It’s so ignorant to confuse these two. It will cost you jobs, advances,
rejections, and perhaps love**, if you don’t know it’s from its.
[The form ” its’ ” does not exist, so expunge it from visual memory.
It comes about as an over-correction from those that can’t distinguish its/it’s. Hey, at least they’re thinking.
,
And don’t think you can get away with its anymore.
But since you now know what an apostrophe stands for (a letter left out), you
can tell which form is the contraction of it + is,
which leaves you the other form for the possessive its.
Here’s another aid: NO POSSESSIVE PRONOUN, which
is what ‘its’ is, takes an apostrophe (with ‘one’ exception).
By definition, a possessive pronoun (his, her, its, our, their, your, my) is a pronoun that’s IN the
possessive case. It’s already possessive; you don’t have to do anything to it. Just play it as it lays.
Just the way LAY-AFFess had a possessive case, so do pronouns, built into the spelling of the word.
Subject pronouns: I, you (sing. and plural), he, she, it, we, they [Throw in who.]
Make these pronouns object pronouns: me, us, him, her, it us, them [Comes out whom.]
Now go to the possessive case: possessive pronouns:
Your book my glasses her fan his warthog their attitude our pal
The FORM of the little word (his/her/its/my/our) is already possessive.
No apostrophe s is needed, and in fact, it’s (it is) incorrect to put one in.
Want a rule? If it’s a possessive pronoun, it won’t have an apostrophe. This goes for those possessive pronouns that absorb the noun they’re owning up to: It’s my pig. It’s mine.
Sad to say, most of the time possessive pronouns work as if they modify the noun they’re owning.
But they can stand alone, too: mine, ours, his, hers, its, theirs, yours
If it’s a possessive pronoun standing alone, it won’t have an apostrophe either.
Recap:
I + am ==> I’m (the a drops out) (the apostrophe stands for the dropped a )
I + would ==> I’d (the woul’ drops out) I’d like to go, but I’ve got to eat.
I + have ==> I’ve (Hey! There goes the ‘ha’!)
he + is ==> he’s He’s a shmuck.
she + is ==> she’s So is she. She’s worse, in fact. Schmuckess.
IT + IS ==> IT’S IT’S RAINING OUT AS I WRITE THIS. IT’S NICE. THE FLOWERS ARE TITTERING. EXECPT THERE’S A MISERABLE SOGGY DOG HUDDLING BENEATH MY WINDOW, AND
I can smell his wet fur. If indeed IT’S a he. If it’s a
she, I think it’s maybe a shee’, for sheep, is the way [Kevin art: shaggy dog]
it smells. I hate ITS smell, its sadsack eyes, its
rusty bell, or hers, or his, or its. Whose smell is
it then? It’s its!
it’s <==== it + is (a contraction)
[Now, want me to screw up everything?
How about the pronoun 'one'================> one ? ?
Yup, sad to say, the apostrophe comes back in:
one’s choices are not just one’s alone…
Though it used to be spelled ones ! As I said, most of your profs would miss
this one, that one’s degree just a couple hundred years ago, was spelled ones degree
Still, after all this, you have only one rule, with one corollary, and
that’s not so bad, especially if you have a notion of the history of
the form itself, and realize that ‘rules’ are descriptive and therefore
will reflect some of that history, which at times will make them appear
downright arbitrary.
[The form LET’S by the way, as in, Let’s go, is a contraction, but of
what? Let + us ==> let’s But I bet you knew that. Let us go = Let’s go, then, you and I, and
Try this:
How many of the forms are wrong in the following paragraph:
It’s getting late, and the monster’s going to come out when the sun
sets. Let’s get out of here. Even if the monster is British and so relatively ‘armless, its
feet stink! –Too bad it’s not footless as well as ‘armless, uh huh huh.
–I said h’armless, not ARMless.
–I knows. ‘ere’s to ya’ an’way, Johnny.
–G’bye, Monster! See you at seven o’clock sharp. We’d best be off, now…
[All those apostrophes, are they all correct?] Did you know that OK is
supposed to be a (humorous) printer’s contraction of All Correct? OK for A(ll)
C(orrect). No humor like old humor, eh? There are other theories about it too, though. OK? ‘k.
* This is that footnote I promised. I don’t recommend wading through it, but I have to write because I spent all this time firguring it out!
If you go ask an English Professor where/why the apostrophe comes to indicate possession., you’ll get a lot of evasion.
But sometimes you’ll get some knowledge. Give it a try:
Like, what got left out, Dr. ____, when you put an apostrophe for the possessive in Russell’s son. ??
Many of them will squirm and try this on you: Once back in the jolly olde days, they said my
Lord Russell his son, and the apostrophe stands for the dropped his.
The king his crown ==> the king ‘s crown
That’s got some truth to it, but it’s wrong. So, be sure to bet them first.
Then show them ye olde diary of Henry Machyn, kept between 1550 and 1563, right around when Shakespeare is being born.
Henry writes, about a funeral: …and after the chariot [came] a great horse draped in cloth of gold, with the saddle…
…and after the charet a gret horse trapyd in cloth of gold with the sadyll of the sam; and then cam mornars, the cheyffe (of whom my lord Russell ys sune, and after my lord trayssorer, and the mast of the horse, and…. ^ See this
little ys?
And that weird little ys up there got confused, in grammars and in impossibly learned heads, got confused for the
genetive third person pronoun: his So plenty of people think the possessive came from
the king his son ==> the king’s son
But in fact, there was a genitive inflexion -ys (which is our Old English -es, as in leafes) that found its way to becoming a syntactical marker of possession if you could attach it to groups. So, Henry Machyn got it wrong, too, because Lord Russell’s son wasn’t a group, but poor Henry hailed from south west Yorkshire, and was a kind of immigrant in London. What did he know!
What gets left out is the Old English genitive inflection, -es . Johanes bodkin => John’s bodkin
love**
Footnote the second, about losing love if you confuse its/it’s. My mother is always correcting my grammar when I speak colloquially. I’d sound like an idiot if I followed her rules– Knock, knock…
–Who’s there? –It’s I. That sort of nonsense, but correct me she does and I love her a little less for it, or at least condescend a little more. She is sweet.