Apostrophes

[The Magus]

I know this shouldn't bother me as much as it does, but I'm an editor (in training) and I've noticed a trend in how people (not just on this site) are using apostrophes and I wanted to point it out....

"Wanna" and "gonna" don't have apostrophes in them when spelled correctly. They're fine just the way they are. The poor apostrophe gets mis-/overused as it is, and needs a break.

Thanks all.

(Of course, if anyone can direct me to a source that shows that apostrophes are supposed to be used in "wanna" and "gonna", I'll gladly accept that reasoning if it fits with what I know about the rest of grammar.)

[brent]

I'm sure I overuse apostrophes worse than anyone else here. Thank you for pointing that out. I only have a few terms of junior college writing classes, and many others here may well have even less. I invite every opportunity to improve myself, and welcome comments about anything new that I can learn from. However, I don't want newer members to feel that they need a masters in grammar to post here. Also, remember that we Americans have our own, "Special" spelling of words (like we spell cheque as check, and colour as color).




We also get to ride on the special bus too!

[RadRx]

Dear Magus:

Anyone able to cite a grammar source that demonstrates usage for the words "wanna" and "gonna" should be instructed to dispose of the text immediately.

Carefull, boy's. Its quite possible your expressed limits of appostrophetic grammar intolerance will result in it's denouncement as elitism. After all, someone here expressed the belief that English must be allowed to be unfettered or suffer the fate of Latin. Long live random punctuation and spelling. if u lik thet sourt of thng;


Where though is the definition of how to handle slang contractions such as "wanna" and "gonna" and "gotta", and "haveta", and "getcha", and "betcha".
Not disputing, but enquiring minds want to know.

(disclaimer: all appostrophe use and other grammar mistakes in this message are incorrect on purpose).

PS: nothing wrong with "wanna", "gonna", and the like. It's dialogue and needs a way to be represented in written English.

[glammaman2000]

...including"it's"?(read:its)

Damn, I got one apostrophy right. Can't I do anything completely wrong? :-(

[brent]

Let's all remember that this is the Internet, and that there are lots of nonnative English speakers here (and that's just counting the Americans... ).

[The Magus]

I really don't mean to be over-critical, or too rigid in how I think about language (though I can offer some counter arguments for the "language naturally changes, so let it!" argument). I'm just baffled as to why people would add things to already slanged words that make them more difficult to spell. Why write "gon'na" instead of "gonna"? Why "wann'a" instead of "wanna"?

It's such a minor issue, but those apostrophe'd words jump out at me every time I see them.

[brent]

I wasn't that put off, I didn't know that gonna would work, but it does in my spellchecker. So I learned something. However, there is a big trend right now of mixing Ebonics, Spanglish, and purposeful misspellings into the English language, and this hasn't been helped by the advent of cyberculture, and those ridiculous names people seem to adopt these days.

Would the past tense of "gonna" be "gonnad"?

[brent]

No, I think technically it should be: Gonna'd
you simply move the apostrophe.

Oh, and when I was getting coffee with a friend today, I thought of you: this beefy guy walks by and someone else says to his friend (also a group of 2 gay men), "Boy he is P-H-O-I-N-E, fine!" I had to laugh...

[ashleydelfin]

~grumble~ stupid care2 won't get me out of stupid starfish level after I don't know how many clicks ~grumble~

Anyway, hi!

My roommate and I would argue for hours over this -_-* I say language is alive and thus it MUST evolve. Otherwise it will die. Now, that is not to say that you should write whatever you want and be done with it. The purpose of language is, ultimately, to communicate. So if you can't understand what someone is telling you then it is sort of useless. So, while language must evolve, it should always evolve for the better and with a reason. Changing language just because is stupid.

(That is my argument for getting all rap artists back to primary school so they can learn to spell properly or suffer endlessly by being forced to read badly written fanfiction!

[Insert wicked laughter and sound of thunder])

Anyway, about wanna and gonna... well... I suppose that since they are slang words there's no really "correct" way of spelling them. However, why add an apostrophe when you don't need to?

So, I hope that made sense. If not, blame the chocolate I ate, the flu my brother passed on to me, and society (society is always at fault, it seems). Oh, and Care2.

~hugs~
~Ashley

PS: Please excuse any and all grammar mistakes in this message.

[glammaman2000]

the past tense of"gonna"is"haddagonna".as in;"you shoul'na oughtta haddagonna done dat".

[brent]

I don't understand what this whole thing about a language dying is about. How is Latin dead? Isn't used in science, law, medicine, etc? If English dies, what will we all speak?

Originally Posted by brent

I don't understand what this whole thing about a language dying is about. How is Latin dead? Isn't used in science, law, medicine, etc? If English dies, what will we all speak?

Latin has been considered dead for about a hundred years probably because it is not the primary language of any race or country (The Vatican excepted). It is not used in common speech, has not evolved and has been frozen in time without significant growth. It is used in some church liturgies and as you say still survives in scientific and historical texts.

I am not convinced that Latin is really any better at making unabiguous statements than is any other advanced language (except Mathematics). As said, the purpose of language is to communicate. Is Latin vocabulary and grammar better suited to the subtlties, and plethora of meanings, and points of view that have evolved in the modern world? Can it be made so without bastardizing it?

As for the death of English, I personally am not going to worry about it since I will most definitely preceed it. However, if you are a young American, you and your kids better learn Spanish too. Those who command both English and Spanish during the next 50 years will be the ones who rise to the top in this hemisphere.

[Mdlftr]

This is an interesting thread. English is a living language because many people speak it, use it, mangle it and keep it interesting!

Re: Ebonics, rap and deliberate misspellings: part of that is for effect, part of that is to grab attention, and part of it is just sloppiness.

As far as making up new words (Lewis Carroll's Jaberwockky comes to mind: " 'twas brillig in the slithy toves..")

or new phrases that take on new meaning ("enemy combatants" "Compassionate Conservative" "Regime change") these are all examples of a language that is vibrant, interesting, and being used!

As an example, people may make up nonsense words to mean whatever they choose them to mean, e.g., "Woof!"

In common usage, "woof" is supposed to be the sound that a dog makes. In gay culture, it is used to mean an attractive, well-built man who could be considered a very desireable sexual partner. Usage varies, since it can be used by one person to describe their own reaction on seeing such a person, or used as a description of the individual. I've even seen emails where people are asking each other what that means, anyway!

People develop lots of ways of expressing an idea that is important to them. Thus, "hottie" "stud" "hunk" "bod" "stud muffin" "buff" "built" "stacked" "choice" (sexually attractive and well built)

How about all the semi-words for
Muscular body parts: Pecs, lats, abs, glutes, guns, bis and tris, traps, quads, gastrocs, bulls, calves, etc.


I'm sure Latin had similar usage in its day. A lot of what we have today is ecclesiastical Latin (used in church services) or latin from inscriptions (quite a few of which contain abbreviations, BTW!), so the more coarse terms have been allowed to die out! The ancient Romans and Greeks definitely liked sex---you just have to take a look at the "good luck" signs (penises) carved into the streets of Pompeii to see that! Also at Pompeii there is an entire museum, called "Forbidden Pompeii" that contains all the everyday household objects that the Victorian excavators of Pompeii thought were too risque to be displayed. Check out the aptly-named god Priapus: he looks like he has 3 legs! -- and he was used as part of a balance for weighing household items! So, I'm sure that the everyday language had lots of terms for **ahem*** "body parts" that would be right up there with ours for creativity!!

Similarly, unless web blogs and emails last forever, our current slang will be forgotten as it is replaced by something else.

In 2035, will a built guy be "primieval, man, just primieval !" Who knows?! That's what keeps it interesting......


My two linguistic cents,


Mdlftr

[RadRx]

LG and Brent:

I don't think 'gonna' has a past tense since it is not contracted in its 'to go' verb form. I see it used in situations where:

1. Something didn't happen in the past (I was gonna call) or

2. Something is anticipated (He's gonna call)

Mind you, my grammar class was 20 years ago, but I think these are examples of past perfect and future perfect tenses of the verb 'to call.'

I can't think of a situation where the contraction is used in the present tense in its actual verb form either (I'm gonna the store? -- Not!).

[brent]

RadRx, I was just having fun. I don't think it even makes sense to have a past tense version of gonna. Having learned most of my grammar durring the cut-backs of the Reagan years, you're all lucky [i] i dunt tok lIk this. [i]

[glammaman2000]

what is the importance of all this?for those of you have read the Tolkien books,(as opposed to just seeing the movies;or reading the Cliff notes)one of his strongest subliminal messages is this:LANGUAGE SHAPES THOUGHT."i went to the store to buy some milk.the cashier only had singles;so now all i have is ones in my wallet"or"i went to the fuckin'store to get some fuckin'milk,but the fuckin'cashier only had fuckin'singles;so now all i got is fuckin'ones in my fuckin'wallet"..."i wonder why i'm so fuckin'miserable all the fuckin'time?"

About Tolkien. For those who have not read the books, the language is by far the most illuminating aspect. The plot is good, the characterizations are good, but the sentence structure and obscure but clear new words and phrases add a depth to the story that can't be explained. For example, the never before seen simple phrase "a fell voice on the wind" was immediately clear in my mind when I first read it in context and knew the inherent evil the phrase intended.

Sounds in themselves carry meaning and have been carried through many languages and even the same language in different forms but still have the same basic sound and psychological impact. e.g. "Mamma", "Mother", "Mam", "Ma". Or how about "foul", "foe", "fell", "fie"

For just pure enjoyment of reading English for its own value, I can't recommend any better modern book than "Lord of The Rings". Tolkien makes the language well up from the depths of collective memory.

German has Hoch Deutch (High German), Russian has aristocratic Russian (nearly wiped out by the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 when the old books were banned and new books were written by lower class people). It's not unexpected that English would have it's more sophisticated form also. Unfortunately Shakespeare, as good as it is, is 400 years old and just a tad dated.

[glammaman2000]

some languages are more difficult than others!assuming that genetic intelligence is randomly distributed through populations;the first big work-out your brain gets is learning your own language.i speak english&reasonably good spanish.because english does not follow consistent rules,it requires far more memorisation than spanish.chinese&japanese involve approx.2000 chracters.&they ain't makin'any more.so you have to memorise the characters AND who knows how many"ways of saying things"to cover all the ideas that have come up since the creation of the language(i.e.train=iron horse)&i don't think it's a coincidence that women's suffrage first developed in countries with an"un-sexed"language(australia,england,u.s.)in most countries,a table is female,a fork is male,etc.in some languages(japanese,arabic)my understanding is that not only do they have male-female nouns-adjectives,but that the language is somewhat different depending on whether the SPEAKER is male-female!is it any wonder that these countries have the most rigid sex-roles?

[ottomun6]

OK, OK!
what dis here forum needs is some of dat real class like. Youz guys get the smokin jackets and I'll git us a whole mess of pipes!! And maybe a couple of dames.
Yeah REAL classy like

[brent]

Originally Posted by glammaman2000

...&i don't think it's a coincidence that women's suffrage first developed in countries with an"un-sexed"language(australia,england,u.s.)in most countries,a table is female,a fork is male,etc...

Close, the first woman to vote, voted in New Zealand, on the North Shore of Auckland. I believe New Zealand was one of the first countries to have gay marriage too. South Africa gets kudos for being the first country to guaranty total equality to gays.

For what it's worth, I too have read the LOTR series, including The Hobbit. I didn't think about language like you guys have mentioned it, so it's cool to think back on that.

I was asked privately to expound a bit about what I had said about High German and aristocratic Russian. I composed a lengthy reply and my computer gleefully ate it. Then I asked a friend, who is a US State Department language expert, about Russian language differences and sent that as my private reply.

As long as this is an off-topic area I don't feel hesitant about sharing the information here too, along with some of my own research results.

You can find a good description of the relationship of High German to other forms of German here: http://www.serve.com/shea/germusa/dialects.htm

My friend's reply to the question "[color=#0000ff]What, if any, is the nature of the differences between the Russian spoken by Russian aristocrats of the 1800's and the common people of the time? Is there truth to the idea that aristocratic form of Russian was severely endangered after the Bolshevik revolution because of lower class people rushing new books into print. Are there pockets of the aristocratic form of Russian still existing in communities of exiled aristocrats in NYC and elsewhere?[/color]
"

Was this: "Formal Russian of the 1800's was patterned on on the Moscow/Petersburg dialect. It favored Petersburg over Moscow and it contained significant imports from French, even in the everyday speech of upperclass, educated people. Village, rural, working people spoke a harsher version of the language with little regularity over the huge expanse of the Russian empire. Peasant Russian looked to the earlier usages of the Orthodox Church and drew upon its liturgical language, Old Church Slavonic. Print materials from 1800 - 1915 reflected the irregular spellings of a range of dialects. Formal documents looked to the old forms of the liturgical works -- Psalms, New Testament -- which contained old letter styles and compounds from Slavonic.
The real shift in language occurred after the Revolution in 1917. The Bolsheviks promptly set up a Language Council to regularize both the spoken forms and the typography. All the older Slavonic letters and spellings were dropped and all consequent typed materials had to be done in the new forms and with the new usages. The Church, which was suppressed in all its forms, lost all right to print anything.
And so, what you are calling 'aristocratic' form of Russian persisted only in the emigre' community, particularly in Paris. France became the largest publisher of Russian books after the USSR. The Orthodox church has restored its printing houses and still publishes classic prayer and liturgical materials in the orthodox typography ... but even they increasingly use modern, or what is called Great Russian, as their standard.
"
You can find more information that you wanted to know about Russian orthography here http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/R/R...rthography.htm

And yes, French was a language of the elite in the court of the Russian Empire for about 200 years from the time of Peter The Great (approx. 1700) to the shooting of the Emperor Nicholas-II and his family in 1917.

There is a marvelous, large but easily readable historical novel of a thousand years of Russian history. "Russka" by Edward Rutherfurd. It sheds light on their unique situation and their point of view. Russia was a Medieval nation of log cabins when Louis XIV was building Versailles in France. Peter the Great started dragging his countrymen kicking and screaming into the modern world. He personally cut their beards and hair, and coats of the aristocrats and clergy. He started many industries and trade schools and sent people to Europe to be eductated. He built ships for his navy with his own hands, he brutally put down rebellions and yes, personally tortured traitors himself. By the Time of Catherine the Great fifty years later Russia was well on the way to greatness.

Russia was a great Empire and major world power during the 1800's and if not for the self-serving and totally out of touch advice given to the weak Emperor Nicholas-II by the "mad monk" Rasputin, the quickly rising middle class might have forced changes to transform their society into a parliamentary monarchy similar to England. One with a parliamentary body and a revered but limited soverign. It's a facinating history. Russia was a slave economy for 500 years yet they freed their slaves before the United States did.

Most of us (Americans) only know the Russians as the "enemy" USSR during the approximately 60 years from the days of Stalin to the breakup of the USSR in the 1990's, but they have more than a thousand years of history and rich culture of their own that deserves to be re-learned and remembered.

[muscl32]

I was actually taught that when using colloquialisms such as ain't, wanna, gonna, etc. it is actually an option to use apostrophes in the following context:

"I'm not 'gonna' follow your rules, or anyone else's, for that matter," Bush said to the U.N."
or
"Kerry is 'da bomb'. My vote counts too," the 'gangsta' said to his constituents.

The fact is, however, that our society is losing alot of formal punctuation in an effort to communicate more rapidly. As my teachers explained it, this trend began during the latter part of the industrial age, with secretaries typing more than sixty words per minute, and declining to continue an 'artform' based on victorian letter writing styles, and continued during the information age with our instant chat and emoticons.....
It's all good, though, in my opinion....
My only challenge is to get my point across to the other person at the end of the line. If I've done that, then my goal is reached.

Getting the point across is the point! Punctuation is a part of the process.

The basis for the formal technical definition of communication is: "An exchange of mutually understood symbols". It's easy to exchange symbols but unfortunately the The "mutually understood" part is the problem. If people are not taught the meaning of punctuation then it looses its importance and value.

Punctuation is there for a reason. It identifies where importance is to be placed, it identifies relationships between phrases, it is part of the process of making the written word less ambiguous. The spoken word is full of subliminal video and audio cues about the meaning intended by the speaker. These are totally missing in written prose without punctuation.

Without trying to be elitist, I suggest that written communication cannot be clear without punctuation. Yes, one can impart simple ideas with unadorned text but a properly puncuated text gives the extra measure of clarity that helps avoid misunderstandings of ideas more complex than required by mundane day to day experiences.

Punctuation, like words themselves, changes as we evolve as a culture. I have no problem with changing punctuation rules as long as the rules are documented and taught. However, I would object strenuously to declaring punctuation an archaic mechanism to be blithely ignored by the unsophisticated and lazy.

[brent]

Originally Posted by LeatherGryphon

...

Without trying to be elitist, I suggest that written communication cannot be clear without punctuation.
...
I have no problem with changing punctuation rules as long as the rules are documented and taught. However, I would object strenuously to declaring punctuation an archaic mechanism to be blithely ignored by the unsophisticated and lazy.

So who is going to teach these rules? Being educated mostly in America, during the era of Reagan's severe education cuts, I am just happy that I know how to use an semicolon! (God, now I hope I've been doing it right after making that claim.) I think that complaining about punctuation is by it's nature elitist. It's like saying, "Ha, ha! I'm from Canada; I'm educated, and have access to a doctor! Ha, ha to all you people born South of our boarder!" I don't want to be rude, but that's how it comes off to me. Also, this isn't the North American Wide Web, or the English-Speaker's Wide Web, it's the World Wide Web. I've seen posts here from all over the world, and I don't want nonnative English speakers to be discouraged from posting. Also, if Apple didn't put spell-check into Safari, you'd be too busy complaining about my spelling to worry about punctuation...

That's just my 2?...

[brent]

OK, I know you live in Florida, not Canada, so I have no idea where that little rant came from. (Actually I thought it was posted by the Magus, because I'm insane & stupid today.) I think I have some issues about not having many education opportunities, and that's for me to work on. However, I don't need my grammar constantly scrutinized while I'm going through it.

[glammaman2000]

no te preocupes.(spanish!)don't worry about it.it's just that those of us that learned PROPER english,with some effort,are pissed that it doesn't mean shit,now.(LG!you're correcting other people's grammar!you must be alive!congrats!)songs notwithstanding;one of the messages of Tolkien's books is:language shapes thought.easy language=lazy minds.rigorous language=strong minds.foul language=debased minds.elevated language=artful minds.discuss.

[brent]

Originally Posted by glammaman2000

...
one of the messages of Tolkien's books is:language shapes thought.easy language=lazy minds.rigorous language=strong minds.foul language=debased minds.elevated language=artful minds.discuss.

That is a good point. I think the thing that got to me, was complaining about something that many of us can't do much about. If some more educated members offered tips/advice on using certain punctuation, or showed me how to improve using some of my previous posts, I'd be OK with that since I'd learn something. Constructive criticism is great, but bitching that people that haven't been exposed to all the rules of punctuation aren't following them does come off snobby to me.

And boy I wish Tolkien would have laid-off the sining.

[glammaman2000]

"there ain't no grammatical errors in a non-lit'rate society"(Marshall McLuhan)LG would know better than i,but i believe that russian wasn't"set"as a language until Pushkin(early 1800's?)kind of like italian&Dante.as people write(&read)less,language"floats"more;& rules are harder to monitor.a modern philologist pointed out that complicated societies have simplified language;&isolated societies develop complex language.this is because complicated societies are always absorbing new immigrants,who learn the simplest form of the new language.even native speakers have to communicate with the new arrivals.there's no point to speaking"correctly"if nobody knows what you're talking about.

[brent]

Also, language does evolve. When I was a kid the word "Ask" was pronounced as it's spelled. Now that's relegated as an archaic term, and it's now exclusively pronounced "Axe". The way it's said has totally changed, yet the spelling has stayed the same. Sometimes the rules don't reflect reality.

What is relegated as an archaic term? Who says it's exclusivley pronounced "axe"? When did this earthshaking event occur? Which crowd have you been hanging out with? Enquiring minds want to know.

[brent]

Originally Posted by LeatherGryphon

... Who says it's exclusivley pronounced "axe"? When did this earthshaking event occur? ...

Well when's the last time you heard the old pronunciation? the 1980's? That's what I thought.

[The Magus]

I'm not sure about down in the states, but "ask" is still the acceptable, and most common, pronunciation up here. Though Futurama turned the "axe/ask" thing into a running gag (Leela mentions the change, and in every episode after that, everyone except Fry really does say "axe")

I think the problem, and why this can be such a tricky subject, is that there are at least two forces at work on English: language's natural drift and a weakening of education systems (from poor funding, violence in schools, poverty, etc).

One isn't bad and the other is.

Incidently, a few weeks ago I saw someone use an apostrophe in a word that didn't even come close to needing it. It was just a normal word (can't remember the word now, though), but they put an apostrophe in front of it. They did it again, later, so it likely wasn't a typo.

[brent]

Originally Posted by The Magus

I'm not sure about down in the states, but "ask" is still the acceptable, and most common, pronunciation up here. Though Futurama turned the "axe/ask" thing into a running gag (Leela mentions the change, and in every episode after that, everyone except Fry really does say "axe")
...

I specifically used that one example since Futurama had touched on it. Although I found the humor to be in the fact that it had changed long before Frey's time. This wasn't just a think Matt Groening just thought up.

I think changes are going to happen as a reaction against the homogenizing that we see on TV.

[glammaman2000]

when was the last time you heard an adverb?quickLY,slowLY,loudLY,softLY?"get it done quick"..."they played the music loud"..it's not even used by network newscasters anymore,&they supposedly speak"standard"english.

[Mdlftr]

What about that old bugaboo, quotation marks? I have been undergoing brain death, slowly (Glam, I threw you an adverb-happy now? ) because I can't remember "the RULE" for when quotation marks are "outside" or inside punctuaion.

For example: "Stop, you ruffian," she cried. Or is it: "Stop, you ruffian", she cried.

Example 2: "Why I Love Working Out," a new book by Art Thor. OR:
"Why I Love Working Out", a new book by Art Thor.

Example 3: "Madame Sin", "Terry", "Cactus Jack" and "Gilroy" are all characters from the comic strip, "Terry and the Pirates," which was popular in the years following World War II.

LG, Glam and all you other proofreaders, have at it!

Stupidly,

[glammaman2000]

it should be"Stop!,you ruffian,"if the punctuation is part of the quote;it should go inside.if there are no exclamaion points,the skank isn't putting up much of a fight.with titles,extraneous punctuation should go outside the quotes.(p.s.,eliminating most capitalisation is a personal affectation.i could drop it if it is annoying.by the by;we seem to have dropped the distinction between CAPITOL{D.C.}&CAPITAL{letters,accumulation of wealth}i can accept the change of language.it's just that i know that,as a child,i learned how to read from signage.so much of it today is misspelled or has bad grammar!it must be very confusing for children.advert-speak is also a factor(nite-lite,reddi-whip)as for"ask,ax".in"olde englisc";light was pronounced"licht".speech changes faster than spelling.

Originally Posted by brent

Well when's the last time you heard the old pronunciation? the 1980's? That's what I thought.

I hear the "ask" pronunciation all the time from the people I'm around.