In the latter days of the last World War, Lancelot Hogben published a series of books, Primers
for the Age of Plenty: a fairly optimistic title considering that rationing
still had a ways to go. Hogben and his writers looked towards a new world order
in the basics of education. Mathematics for the Millions, Science for
the Citizen, The Loom of Language, and History of the
Homeland, would educate the masses. More than that, they aimed to
simplify complex matters for the man in the street, (as he still was).
In The
Loom of Language, author Frederick Bodmer writes about a matter that,
fifty years later, still concerns letter writers to the Listener,
and often concerns the Otago Daily Times' Prester John, that is, the misuse
of the apostrophe. Bodmer's solution to the problem was radical. 'As much as I think the English language is the greatest, I wonder if it isn't
time to take up the proposals made by language reformers such as Bishop
Wilkins, George Dalgarno, H G Wells, G B Shaw' - and Bodner - 'and rid ourselves
of something that is, after all, only a visual aspect of English.'
English
as she is spoke doesn't contain a single apostrophe.
Apostrophes
are completely silent partners when English flows from our mouths. Can you
imagine the difficulty we'd have if we had to speak any of the apostrophised
words I've already written?
Let(apostrophe)s
face it, the apostrophe is atrophied, and it(apostrophe)s only because we are
used to it(no-apostrophe)s appearance on the page that we consider it at all.
If we've changed our laws to accommodate adultery, de facto relationships,
illegitimacy and abortion, why are we still fussing about whether apostrophes
have any validity?
It's
plain that the majority of schoolteachers have either given up the battle to
get apostrophes in their right places - or don't know the difference
themselves. Consider the endless examples appearing in every sphere:
"it's" when "its" is meant; shop's for two shops; CD's;
tomatoe's (good grief).
The
first example is the notorious one - I have a computer manual of some hundred
pages of "it's" when they mean "its." (We could blame the
spellchecker, except that it should recognize both forms.)
Is
this battle worth fighting? Couldnt we read English perfectly well without
apostrophes? Wouldnt we get used to their absence soon enough? (Did you?)
Banning
the apostrophe entirely would ensure our eyes would at least cease to be
offended by apostrophes in the wrong places. (These potatoe's wer'ent old, its
obvious.)
And
since we understand spoken language without apostrophes, how often would we get
caught out by the written version? "My cant is my wont," would be
acceptable with or without apostrophes, although it's a phrase we'd be fairly
unlikely to find.
The
possessive use of the apostrophe - "Jenny's department's dealings,"
or "Ruth's budget's bites," or "Winston's brother's voters' choice," - is an
antique visual convention. None of these phrases, if we were to use them in
speech, would lose their sense. (Since these phrases have political overtones,
however, I'd prefer not to use them at all.)
If
apostrophes are invisible in conversation, what do they add to the printed
page? Without them, what would we lose except a certain "look" that
we know to be English?
Agreeing
to changes in the language doesn't always happen by word of mouth: legislation
is an alternative. China revolutionized its language by decree; France tries
constantly to keep its language "pure," and prior to WWII, Norway's
Government changed the nation's spelling and grammar three times in forty
years.
However,
since our Government will be having such a time tackling consensus, couldnt we
show them how its done? We could start by agreeing to delete the apostrophe.
************
Jenny, Ruth and Winston were all politicians; Winston Peters, now in his seventies, still is.
No comments:
Post a Comment