Reflexive pronouns are those words with ‘self’ in them. Myself. Yourself. Himself. Herself. Themselves.
Think of reflex angles: they’re the ones that go back on themselves. Reflexive pronouns are exactly the same: you need them only when you are referring back to yourself. (See what I did there?)

‘He bought that book for himself’ or ‘I would like one of those for myself’.

‘Please join Mike and me for dinner next Saturday’ is perfectly correct: no need at all for ‘Mike and myself’. (If you’re thinking that should be ‘Mike and I’, see my post about when to use ‘me’ or ‘I’.)

I find the incorrect use of ‘yourself’ particularly butt-clenchingly awful when used by someone who is trying to sell me something.
‘Is this something that would interest yourself?’
Urgh! Even if you were offering me Daniel Craig in his skin-tight, wet shorts, I would be too busy grinding my teeth (and attempting to unclench my butt) to show any interest. Probably.

Some people use reflexive pronouns because they think it makes them sound more intelligent. It doesn’t. It makes them sound pompous.

And what’s more, they’re pissing Ann Hawkins off – and no one wants to do that!
So, watch yourself!

Unless the city has started hoarding its tourists in cupboards and refusing to allow them to leave, I would imagine my friend was referring to ‘hordes’.

It’s not a surprising error. Indeed, it’s not a confusion I’d ever considered before noticing it on that Facebook status and, until fairly recently, I was probably making the same mistake.

I’ve seen perfectly competent writers slip up with such cringe worthy offerings as ‘I poured over the document’ and ‘She gave her ascent to my proposal’. Is it any wonder, though, when the English language is full of bizarre (bazaar!) words that sound the same but mean something entirely different?

Other words I’ve noticed causing a lot (or ‘alot’ as is seen a lot) of confusion are:

Bated/ baited (‘I await with baited breath.’ Really?)
Alter/ altar (‘My altar ego’)
Bear/ bare (‘I can’t bare this place’)
Precedence/ president (‘This has set a president for future negotiations’)
Envelop/ envelope (‘We need to envelope the company ethos …’)
Stationery/ stationary (‘Teachers need to check their stationary supplies’)

The ‘stationary’ example above was found in a respected newspaper’s education supplement, which just shows how easily it’s done.

Please share any vocabulary confusions you’ve noticed recently.

It has been news for some time now that this year has seen a fall in the number of teacher training applications, and I read this morning that you blame the media for its negative portrayal of teachers and teaching.

I agree that the media has made a bad situation much worse, but it has merely propagated the views of the government – particularly those of your predecessor, Michael Gove, who appeared to have a genuine dislike of the teaching profession (remember ‘the blob’)as well as very little idea of what is involved in state education.

You have said many things that make me, and many others who care about education, wonder how genuinely you really care or understand what is involved in teaching and learning; however, it has been noticed that, unlike Gove, you are more inclined to admit mistakes (your vote against gay marriage being just one) and this gives hope to some that perhaps you will listen to, and take seriously, the views of those with actual teaching experience.

First, let’s look at the real problem with teacher numbers: the fact that existing teachers are leaving the profession in droves.

It is commendable that you now seek the highest quality graduates to enter teaching: only the best should be good enough to teach the next generation. But what are you doing to persuade those existing well qualified teachers, who are completely disillusioned with the current tick-box system, to want to stay – or even return?

That would have the biggest and most immediate positive impact on the quality of our schools. I have a 2:1 from the University of Cambridge and enjoyed a very successful ten-year teaching career (until I no longer felt able to dupe pupils, parents and employers into believing that state education actually equates to real learning) but nothing is being done to persuade me that a return to the classroom would be worth the effort, and I am just one of so many who feel the same.

The majority of teachers enter the profession because they have positive ideals about education and the ways in which children learn effectively. Yes, there is a handful who have no business being in a classroom, but that is true of every profession. The majority really are there for the best of reasons: to teach. Yet increasingly they are prevented from doing the very thing for which they have been trained, all because the system is run by those who do not understand pedagogy, or who have a personal agenda (Gove) or who see teachers as scapegoats for society’s ills. It’s all about money and targets and tick boxes. It’s no longer about the pupils.

Just to give you one of hundreds of examples of which I am aware: I tutor a ten-year-old boy who is dyslexic. He has a wonderful vocabulary, an understanding of concepts way beyond his years and is one of the most articulate and intelligent young people I have ever had the pleasure to meet. His mother has tried just about everything to get help for him, but because he is meeting the expected average levels, there is no funding to help him.

I know that this boy is capable of so much more than he is able to show and that, with appropriate help, he would be amongst the highest performing pupils in his school. As it is, school is a miserable place for him just now. He is taken out of IT, DT and art lessons – those lessons for which he is able to demonstrate his talents – so that he can sit with a teaching assistant to do more reading and writing in order to keep him within that magical national average.

His teachers are not happy about this situation, but what can they do? Their future careers depend upon not allowing this boy’s statistical data to drop below its current level: of course they will do everything to make sure they tick all those Ofsted boxes and ensure that their school meets its targets and does not slip down the league tables.

Teachers know that teaching in the UK is no longer about learning, and an increasing number of parents are now seeing the full picture; this would explain the increase in the number of parents looking to home school their children.

More than the media, I blame the target and league table culture, as well as Ofsted’s arbitrary and ever changing criteria, for the decreasing number of good quality teachers. Children’s learning needs to be back at the top of the educational agenda, and pretty damned fast!

No quality graduate with any self respect would consider teaching in today’s educational climate: indeed, my daughter – who is very well qualified and would make an excellent teacher – has seen the effect the ‘profession’ has had on me and many of my former colleagues and refuses to even consider it. Such a waste.

If you want good quality graduates to apply – and I agree that they should be of excellent quality – you will need to reconsider the way in which existing teachers are treated, and also how they are portrayed: by you, by the government and by the media.

Yours sincerely

Kathy Salaman

PS Did you notice that I didn’t mention pay, pensions, working hours or working conditions?

Since the introduction of school league tables, we have a situation whereby school is set against school. Schools should be able to work together to do that for which they exist: ensure a nation of well-educated people (whether that’s academic, sports, drama, music, art or technology). But when league tables are introduced, so is the idea that every school has to fight to be better than the others: to become one of the schools in the Premier League. Just like football.

But education cannot work when treated as a series of football games. It cannot work when targets are introduced – especially when the criteria for those targets have been set by those who know nothing about education; nothing about the daily lives of the pupils in a school; nothing about the daily slog that dedicated teachers endure to help their pupils feel that sense of achievement and self esteem. Good teachers know that, for pupils, this sense will be the difference between understanding a concept and giving up completely.

Imagine a school finds a good way of ensuring its pupils understand algebraic equations: how great it would be to share that with other schools. All pupils – whichever school they attend – would have the opportunity of sharing in this success. But a system in which schools are in competition with other schools does not allow this. Instead, the successful school will keep this knowledge to itself for fear of giving other schools the opportunity to catch up or overtake. This alone will not ensure the innovative school comes out on top, but it might help keep at least one of the other schools down.

To compound this situation, we now have performance-related pay. We are not only in a situation where schools are in competition with one another, but one where teachers within the same school – the same department, even – will be loath to share experience, skills and knowledge with colleagues.

School budgets are limited, so not every teacher in a school – or in a department – can be paid the rate for which excellent performers are entitled. It makes sense now for teachers to protect their own needs. Suddenly within a school it is no longer every pupil who matters: just the pupils whom each teacher teaches. Every teacher needs that higher level salary to ensure their own families have food on the table and can afford that annual holiday. Why risk giving a colleague a helping hand?

This does not sit comfortably with most teachers: they know that, ultimately, the pupils will suffer. But what are they to do? We all want to be rewarded financially for our hard work, and why should teachers be any different? Introduce competition and humans will want to ensure that they do not become the loser.

Is this really what we want education to become in this country? Because it’s already more than half-way there.

Performance-related pay and school league tables are based on arbitrary concepts that cannot be measured fairly. Unlike a football match, it is not always clear who is putting in the most work and dedication. Indeed, the teacher who puts all pupils first will be the loser. Every time.

As The Good Grammar Company and a self-confessed word nerd, I was invited into my local radio station to talk about the new words, and then by BBC Radio 5 Live. I suspect they were hoping to hear me say how appalled I am that such colloquial terms should make their way into our illustrious language, but although there’s a part of me that balks at modern slang, I can see the value in recording it. Never in the history of language have we had such an opportunity to record aspects of speech as well as written language, and if social media has done one thing for us it’s provided a crossover between the two modes of language use.

Today, everyone can be a writer, no matter how ‘poor’ their language skills, and what would at one time have been uttered to friends and lost forever is now in the public domain, providing hard evidence about the evolution of our language and its users.

One point I wanted to make on the Radio 5 interview was that many of the ‘on trend’ words have not made the list. Some should have been flagged, with ‘photo bomb’ being just one example. After all, ‘selfie’ was the word of 2013.

But there are other words and phrases not available, and this would be one area where the current compilation methods fall short. Words are tracked using the World Wide Web, so when a new term is coined it appears and can be identified, but what about those words that have recently acquired more than one meaning? When the word tracker picks up words that already exist, such as ‘destroy’ or ‘spit roast’, anyone who is unaware of the more salacious connotations of these terms won’t realise that they are, if not new words exactly, new meanings for words.

The ‘spit roast’ term in particular gets my attention. First, as a secondary school teacher in a past life, I once used the term – in its culinary sense – in front of a class of 14 year olds. I was so puzzled and upset by the resulting hilarity in the room that one of my colleagues had to draw me a diagram in the staff room. (Thanks Dave!)

Furthermore, that last term is used in greetings cards (and yes, I did send one to the staff of my former school!) so is obviously widespread enough to have entered the vernacular of the over 16s. So why isn’t it recorded on ODO? I can only assume that the dictionaries’ compilers are as naive as I was before becoming a teacher.

I’m not going to do the job of Urban Dictionary by explaining these terms here (and many more I’ve heard as a teacher. Perhaps that should be the subject of another blog?) but, if the speed at which I was cut off is anything to go by, I think the producers of Radio 5 Live may have thought I was going to go into more detail. The sudden, ‘Kathy, thank you very much indeed’ as soon as I uttered the word ‘destroy’ seemed to indicate that someone sitting opposite the presenter was miming the cut throat action and mouthing, ‘Get her off. Now!’

Oh well. It was exciting while it lasted.

There. I’ve said it! And this brings me to the wonderful ‘Word Crimes’ video from ‘Weird Al’ Yankovic, of which there has been much commentary recently.

I’ve lost count of the number of friends and acquaintances who have taken the trouble to send this link to me, knowing that I have the right balance of humour mixed with outrage at certain ‘word crimes’ to appreciate the spirit in which it was meant.

But there are those, mainly from the descriptivist linguists’ camp, who cannot appreciate the humour. One article in particular, written by Stan Carey, echoes what many linguists of this persuasion believe: this video reinforces the message that those who don’t write properly must be thick, and this isn’t fair.

http://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/the-problem-with-weird-als-word-crimes/

As with other writers who share this point-of-view, Stan Carey doesn’t like to apply the label ‘mistake’ to even the most basic and annoying errors. He argues that these are examples of non-standard language, which is no less valuable than standard English.

I agree with him on many points. Some grammar rules are ridiculous and have no merit other than the fact that they’re based on Latin grammar, the preserve of the privileged old school. I choose to ‘break’ many such rules in my own writing, liberally beginning my sentences with co-ordinating conjunctions and splitting my infinitives. (If you’re a real pedant reading this, I’ll apologise now but I don’t really mean it.) But that’s the difference: I know enough to make choices. I appreciate it when someone takes the trouble to let me know I’ve made a mistake (as long as they’re polite) because I can learn from it. Why should anyone be denied that opportunity?

Along with those linguists who argue that there are no mistakes, Stan Carey writes perfect, error-free blogs; I’d guess that he takes exceptional care when writing for an official purpose. These most vocal supporters of the idea that ‘language should adapt according to its users’ have the knowledge to ensure their writing is beyond reproach but, it would seem, have no problem with the rest of us being deprived of this advantage.

Anyone who knows me or follows me on social media will know that I’m not too pedantic or judgemental. However, I will abandon a book or article that is peppered with comma splices or the misuse of basic vocabulary, such as confusion over the use of ‘less’ and ‘fewer’. I can’t help it: it annoys me because it suggests a lack of consideration for readers. To see such errors on business websites and promotional literature, as well as on everyday letters and emails, leads me to believe – perhaps unfairly – that the people behind the company don’t really care.

And I’m not alone in thinking this. 98% of the business people I have interviewed through various channels claim that they will disregard messages from potential service providers because of basic grammar, spelling and punctuation errors.

Learning the basics of grammar and spelling, such as when to use ‘your’ and ‘you’re’ or understanding the difference between ‘less’ and ‘fewer’ really isn’t that difficult, and most of us would like the security of knowing that we are not making basic mistakes. Telling us it doesn’t matter is untrue and somewhat patronising: it suggests that our writing isn’t that important or that we’re incapable of improving it.

Over the years, respected dictionaries have allowed words to change their meanings. For example, ‘infer’ can now mean ‘imply’ and ‘literally’ can mean ‘figuratively’. The argument is that as long as enough language users are unable to make the distinction and continue to apply terms incorrectly, the incorrect version can become correct.

Why not provide the means to help users correct their mistakes, rather than pandering to ignorance?

Yes, yes. I know that language evolves to suit those using it and always has done. I’d hate to see our local dialects disappear into a fog of standard English, but that’s the difference between speech and spoken language. Spoken language is more impulsive and instinctive and we all, whether or not we like to admit it, code change depending on who we’re speaking to. Writing should be the same. If you’re writing quickly for an informal context, by all means break the rules. But you have to know the rules to break them, so why not equip everyone with the knowledge to get it right when it really matters?

No one ever seriously suggests that numbers can mean what we want them to mean. If, suddenly, young people began incorrectly adding six and six to make eleven, there would not be a group of maths experts declaring: ‘They’re not wrong: it’s what it means to them. Hey, lighten up guys: eleven is the new twelve!’ So why do so many language experts suggest we should do this with words?

It would seem that there are still plenty of us who don’t agree with what we view as mistakes. Enough of us see these errors and wince, many feeling the need to point them out in the hope that users will improve. Don’t those of us who want to maintain certain standards count in the ‘Language should adapt to suit users’ scheme?

And one thing’s for sure: those advocating the use of language that was, until recently, considered incorrect will not be insisting that their children fill in their university applications with deliberate ‘non-standard’ vocabulary.

As for the ‘word crimes’ featured in the video, I know many perfectly sane men and women who hanker after improved literacy standards, online and in the business world, but most are forgiving of some of the so-called crimes outlined in the video. I suspect that ‘Weird Al’, for all his claims of being a pedant, feels exactly the same. He is merely saying, in a more entertaining way, what so many of us have been trying to get others to understand: there is a standard and we should maintain it.

Language should not continue to ‘mean what we want it to mean’ because that destroys the whole purpose of it. Language is how we communicate and understand one another. In today’s multi-cultural society, we should be ensuring that our language is easier for others to understand, not more confusing. Surely that’s a more sensible argument for how language should adapt to suit its users?

In this school, those children who struggle with maths, writing or reading will receive appropriate help so that they can begin to enjoy these tasks and feel that they want to do them. These same children will have the opportunity to demonstrate, show off and feel proud of the things at which they excel, whether football, dancing, singing, drama, drawing, cooking, discovering nature, constructing elaborate models or, indeed, maths and English.

In the current system, those children who struggle with so-called ‘core’ subjects such as maths and English are taken out of the more ‘creative’ aspects of the curriculum so that they can do more of the stuff that makes them feel useless and miserable. All this is done in the name of government targets and school league tables: a system that recognises only statistical data and not the individuals behind the numbers.

Just imagine if David Beckham had been taken away from his football training to slog away at extra reading and writing exercises. Would he have been a better adult? Would he have been a better contributor to society? Would he have got a better job and earned more money?

It’s laughable when you think about it. Who decides that one person’s talents are more important than another’s? What is this obsession with everyone acquiring ‘above the national average’ for numeracy and literacy? (And you don’t need to be a mathematician to know what a load of rubbish that claim is!)

What a boring country this would be if everyone was good at the same things: if maths and English were to remain the only important elements of education. What would the country be like with only mediocre music, acting talent, restaurants, sporting ability and art?

There can be no doubt that numeracy and literacy skills are important, whatever one’s occupation. Both are essential for life tasks: understanding correspondence; making oneself understood; working out the best deal offered by supermarkets; or estimating how much carpet to order. But how many occupations require an in-depth knowledge of trigonometry and algebraic equations? Or the ability to write an essay in 45 minutes on a subject about which one knows nothing? Or the key themes in Romeo and Juliet? A few, yes, but not all, and anyone who struggles with maths or English is unlikely to pursue such an occupation.

There is another worrying side to this, however, that is often ignored. We have schools full of truly gifted and talented academic young people who, because of the system’s obsession with targets and league tables, are left languishing. At primary level, we have children who can exceed the highest expectations of that school. We have children whose maths, English and science understanding is beyond that for which their teachers have time to indulge. As long as there are many children struggling to reach the holy grail of level four, there will be potential level six and seven children left to their own devices and not getting that push, just because that would make no difference to the school’s ranking in the league tables.

Similarly in secondary schools we have GCSE students who are reaching those targets set for them when they were eleven years old, but which they could exceed with extra attention. Because these students are already above the magic ‘C’ grade, they are not deemed worthy of the effort. It’s not that teachers don’t want to help: many do and spend their own evenings and weekends – unpaid – working with such students. However, the pressures under which teachers are expected to work, and the amount of data handling and bureaucratic tasks they must now perform in order to hang on to their careers, makes this an impossibility in most cases.

In this present data-obsessed society, it really is too much to hope that we could have an education system that puts children first; that nurtures the musicians, athletes, sports people, artists, builders, inventors, chefs, gymnasts, dancers and singers on an equal footing with the more academic. We can only dream of a state education system that encourages young people to do what they are good at. Things they enjoy and that make them feel good about themselves. Things in which they can become experts.

But a school that does all this? Well, that would be a start.

But what is grammar?

Many believe that grammar covers everything regarding language, including punctuation; however, grammar is distinct from this. It is the study of sentence structure and word structure and is something that is not taught in the majority of state schools.

The second paragraph of this post is grammatically incorrect: ‘But what is grammar?’ It begins with a co-ordinating conjunction; technically, words such as ‘and’, ‘or’ and ‘but’ should be used to link two clauses of equal importance. However, as many linguists acknowledge (to the chagrin of some grammar pedants) there’s nothing like breaking a few grammar rules to make your writing more lively, engaging and – well – less boring.

The concept of grammar has been lost for many who, like me, did not receive a grammar education at school, so it is unsurprising that some cannot distinguish between grammar and other aspects of language, such as punctuation. Yet grammar and punctuation go hand in hand and one cannot be taught without reference to the other. When teaching commas, for example, teachers need to talk about separating clauses and phrases; when students are unaware of these terms, learning to use commas becomes somewhat tricky.

I do remember learning aspects of punctuation at school, but the value of this went no further than capital letters and full stops. Commas were something we used ‘every time you need to take a breath’ and apostrophes were scattered liberally to any word ending in the letter ‘s’ with no correction. And as for colons and semi-colons …! (Oh yes: we learned what exclamation marks are but not how to use them correctly.)

The British are inclined to sneer at ‘Americanisms’ that find their way into British English, but awareness of grammar and punctuation needs to be pushed. If adopting a National Grammar Day helps to achieve this, I think this is one English lesson that Britain should learn from America.

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

From a business point of view, I don’t follow news about council committee meetings, but perhaps I should. Had I been aware of this in 2011, when the idea of omitting apostrophes from Cambridge signs was first proposed, I would have objected, as would many others. As it was, there was one recorded objection, which I find incredible for a city such as Cambridge.

The council’s justification for this decision is that the use of apostrophes is confusing for many and, more importantly, that the emergency services are impeded by apostrophes in street names.

I would be among the first to support the efforts of the emergency services and would never claim that grammar and punctuation are more important than people’s lives: however, is this really the case? If apostrophes really were a danger to lives, surely the council would be taking steps to change all street signs, not the half-baked idea of omitting apostrophes from new ones whilst leaving the old ones as they are. I would imagine that having some road names with apostrophes and some without would make the issue even more confusing.

Further to this point, I don’t claim to know which kind of GPS systems the emergency services use, but I have one of the most basic satellite navigation models on the market and have never yet been sent to the wrong street because of a misplaced or missing apostrophe. In fact, I don’t bother putting apostrophes into my search. Just type in Scholars Walk or Kings Parade and you’ll still get to the right place, so why remove them from public road signs?

My final point on the emergency services issue is to inform that the claim appears to be unfounded. When Anglia TV asked the question of the police, the answer was clear: apostrophes do not cause confusion for their navigation systems.

From an educational point-of-view, the decision is contradictory. Whilst politicians bemoan the fact that literacy standards in Britain are falling and that our place on world league tables is far lower than it should be, how can they justify what can only be described as ‘dumbing down’? Primary pupils are being put through their paces with the new spelling, punctuation and grammar test, yet the evidence of where apostrophes should be placed is being removed from the public domain. Having taught for many years, I know that most pupils (and their parents) will decide that there is no point learning something that society deems unimportant.

Linked to this last point is Britain’s international credibility. Foreign tourists flock to cities such as Cambridge, as do business people and scholars, especially now we have our own international airport. What impression are we giving our visitors? We hear enough snide comments about Americanisms creeping into the language and how other English-speaking countries are in some way inferior because of the way they use the English language: do council decision makers not realise that other countries will make similar judgements about us?

If the political rhetoric is to be believed, Britain is rapidly losing any international reputation it had and is falling behind other countries on many fronts, including education. Why reinforce that by implementing this ridiculous idea?

I’m afraid that, in my very humble opinion – but one that I know is shared by the majority – the decision to drop the apostrophe from street signs is merely there to appease those who can’t – or won’t – make the effort to understand how our language works. So, let’s make a stand to keep our apostrophes: not just in Cambridge, but throughout Britain.