The Good Grammar Company has been in the news quite a lot recently, and all because of the humble apostrophe. It’s three weeks since I was first asked for my view on Cambridge City Council’s decision to omit apostrophes from future road signs and, as I’m widely quoted as saying, I don’t think, educationally or historically, that it’s a sensible decision. Furthermore, as was proved later, there was no truth in the council’s claim that apostrophes were confusing for emergency services.
For me, this began as a slightly tongue-in-cheek opportunity to raise awareness of the language pedantry that exists. Whether or not we agree with all those grammar and punctuation rules, there are plenty of situations in which it’s a good idea to follow the accepted conventions. However much we believe that the possessive apostrophe may one day be obsolete (and I do believe that it will) misusing it now in something such as a job application can undermine your credibility, so it is important to understand its use.
The reaction to the reports, which appeared online, in national newspapers, on BBC radio programmes and on local TV news, was more emotive than I had imagined. I have lost count of the supportive emails I’ve received, and even the few that challenge my views have been written, for the most part, in a professional and discursive manner. However, it’s the handful of nasty, personal insults that immediately come to mind when I’m asked to comment on the public’s reaction to the reports.
Some of those entering into this language debate appear to have forgotten a few common-sense facts:
• We didn’t all learn the same ‘rules’ in the same way: what we learn depends on who teaches us and how
• Even the experts debate amongst themselves, disagreeing on many points
• Journalists edit quotes, so not everything I said to qualify my responses appeared in the reports, with some quotes placed out of context
So, if anyone reading this took the trouble to contact me personally to tell me I’m too pedantic, or that I’m not pedantic enough, or to share their thoughts whilst typing one handed (make of that what you will!) using a standard of writing I would expect from a five-year-old, I hope this will help to calm you down.
If you didn’t contact me but have been puzzled by the fuss, I hope this post is useful.
And if you work for the council, check out the workshops on my website.
The latest furore came about following complaints from residents of Worts’ Causeway. Cambridge News reported that there are three signs indicating Worts’ Causeway, and these are Worts’ Causeway, Worts Causeway and (shudder) Wort’s Causeway.
Within a few minutes of my reading the article and sharing it on Twitter, there was a call from a reporter who wanted to know my opinion on the issue, so I shared my views based on what I had just read.
Worts’ Causeway had been named for a certain Sir William Worts. The report didn’t say whether or not the land on which Worts’ Causeway is situated was part of the land owned by William Worts, but the council spokesperson admitted, ‘…we agree the correct form of usage is Worts’ Causeway…’ which suggests that it probably was. Furthermore, as one of the signs does indeed proclaim Worts’ Causeway, my initial conclusion was reinforced.
So, my understanding (and I used the phrase ‘my understanding’ with the reporter, admitting that there was more than one possibility) is that Worts’ Causeway had been named after Sir William Worts, who, one might assume, was the owner of that land. As ownership is conferred upon one in writing using the apostrophe, it would seem that one is necessary here.
If this is indeed the case, there are two options: Worts’ Causeway or Worts’s Causeway.
According to R L Trask in The Penguin Guide to Punctuation, published in 1997 (one of the first texts I used when I began learning about grammar and punctuation) the rule that follows should apply. (Remember, even experts disagree on this, but many have learned this rule and stick to it.)
If the name had been Thomas or James instead of Worts, that extra ‘s’ would have been fine as, when you say “Thomas’s” you can hear the extra ‘es’ syllable. The same applies when you say “James’s”. But with “Worts”, you don’t hear “Wortses”. So, something belonging to Worts will be Worts’.
Incidentally, some very respected writers go a step further when conferring ownership by using Thomas’ and James’. This convention has been accepted for quite a few years, with many writers agreeing that the alternative looks messy. Yet another example of how language does evolve, whether we like it or not.
I’ve included a link to an argument put forward by Mark Shea, the author of the BBC College of Journalism’s guide to punctuation, which illustrates this point nicely (even though many, including me, don’t necessarily go along with his final decision: yet another example of how opinion is divided).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/blogcollegeofjournalism/posts/Doubting-Thomass-apostrophe-Teacher-knows-best
In my workshops, I arm delegates with the various ‘rules’, whether or not I would apply them myself. Once these rules are understood, it is much easier to make the decision regarding their use. If one knows that one is writing to a pedant, one may be pedantic. (See how pompous that looks? But some prefer that convention.) However, if you acknowledge that some of the rules are based on long-forgotten social conventions, rendering them unnecessary for your purpose and readers, you will know how acceptable it is to dispense with them.
After all, how many of us were taught to put a full stop after St or Mrs? And how many of us still do?
If you’re interested in learning more about how to use apostrophes, The Good Grammar Company is running a workshop on 20th February in Cambridge.
Visit http://www.thegoodgrammarcompany.com/events.html to book.
or sign up with Eventbrite on http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/have-fun-learning-how-to-use-apostrophes-tickets-10526578279?aff=estw