English Grammar Question

You haven't cited the OED; I have.

The OED's authority for NOT using apostrophized in my original sentence; the Times wasn't omitting any letters.

OK, please see the online Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English link I provided at #17. Now I've got the writer's cramp. Hope you're happy.

the Times wasn't omitting any letters

Are you suggesting that the OED sanctions "apostrophize" for contractions but not for possessives? In my opinion this simply doesn't square with the history of the language; the apostrophe used to form English possessives stands in place (usually or always--I don't know) of an "e."

On the other hand, there's far less authority for "apostrophectomy," but as VinnyD and shilgia know (or knew--I'd've guessed they done fergit), that didn't stop me.

CK

Edited by: chriskean1

the apostrophe used to form English possessives stands in place (usually or always--I don't know) of an "e."

Not historically. You're right that in Middle English the possessive of (say) "king" would generally have been written "kinges". I think Caxton would have printed it that way. But sometime in the sixteenth century people somehow came up with the idea that the possessive -s was short for "his" and you started seeing things like "the king his majesty" for "the king's majesty". If they had stopped and thought for a minute, you'd think they would have realized that we also say "the queen's/queenes majesty" and that that idea couldn't be right, but it stuck for a while and people started writing and printing the possessive with an apostrophe -- which did have the advantage of distinguishing possessives from plurals.

So it does indeed substitute for missing letters, although not for missing letters that were ever actually there.

I was just assuming "apostrophized" in your use was a joke. I should have looked it up.

#16 --

From 889's Economist link:

Try to avoid using Lloyd's (the insurance market) as a possessive; it poses an insoluble problem.

That problem is that Lloyd's means "of Lloyd" not "of Lloyd's", and as 889's other link suggests, "Lloyd's's" is not an acceptable solution. And that problem also exists in the case of St. Vincent's. It means "of St. Vincent" not "of St. Vincent's". You seem to think that the word "Hospital" is understood after St. Vincent but that won't work here. 889's sentence would then refer to "St. Vincent's Hospital reputation" which ain't grammar neither.

I believe Macy's still is R.H. Macy & Co. Lloyd's was, I believe, Lloyd's Coffee House. I don't know about Sotheby's.

You haven't cited the OED; I have.

Huh? Are you talking about your links in #14, or Chris's link in #17? Or are you confused?

But sometime in the sixteenth century people somehow came up with the idea that the possessive -s was short for "his"

Thanks for that, VinnyD. "Somehow" presumably refers to the ever-active folk-etymological impulse out there. I'd be interested in something scholarly on the subject, as a little quick research indicates that there may not be broad agreement on the progression you give (or at least on how much emphasis to put on the "king his" stage). Beyond the two items cut-and-pasted below, I have seen some accounts that fail to mention the "king his" phase entirely (wikipedia for example), and others such as this one that fail to mention the original "kinges."

The passage below is from this paper:

The use of the apostrophe to denote possession has its origins in Old English, which frequently attached the genitive singular ending –es to nouns. Hook (1999), points out that 60% of all nouns in Old English formed their genitive cases in this manner (p. 44); it is therefore not surprising that the current genitive ending –s has survived in Modern English. The apostrophe could be viewed as a way in which to mark the deleted vowel –e of the –es possessive ending, “derived from the Old English strong masculine genitive singular inflection” (Blockley, 2001, p. 35). Adrian Room (1989, p. 21) provides support for this view, citing the Old English word for stone, stän, whose genitive form was stänes.

Hook (1999) maintains, however, that the apostrophe is “a mere printer’s gimmick, doubtless born of the mistaken notion that the genitive ending was a contraction of his” (p. 44). An invention of mortals, the apostrophe has indeed been subject to human error. The –es genitive ending, often spelled and pronounced –ies or –ys in early Middle English, was confused as early as the thirteenth century with his, the possessive of he, so that Shakespeare could later write ‘the count his gally’, and even expressions like ‘my sister her watch’ appeared (qtd. in Hook, 1999, pp. 44-45).

The unstressed pronunciation of the genitive –es seemed to have caused many speakers to believe they were saying his. This usage presumably caused pronunciation problems and gender confusion with a noun such as woman or girl, or a plural noun like winners, but nevertheless was quite common (Hook, 1975, p.160). The apostrophe became a sort of “compromise” to indicate either the missing –e in the genitive ending –es, or the hi of the mistaken possessive indicator his (Hook, 1999, p. 45).

This writer suggests the "his" form is more likely to have come later:

One occasionally hears that "John's dog" is an abbreviation for "John his dog". It is more likely that the derivation went in the opposite direction, i.e.: Johnes hund => John's hound => Johnny's dog => John 'is dog with the "John his dog" form coming into use only briefly before disappearing from modern English.

Apostrophes seem to be as troublesome to pin down historically as they are, for some, in current usage. I suppose part of the problem is that they have no spoken equivalent, precisely because they indicate an absence without a pause. They are not like commas or periods (or even parentheses), which can ordinarily be gleaned from spoken English.

CK

VinnyD, #23, "It means "of St. Vincent" not "of St. Vincent's". You seem to think that the word "Hospital" is understood after St. Vincent but that won't work here. 889's sentence would then refer to "St. Vincent's Hospital reputation" which ain't grammar neither."

If the name of the hospital is "The Hospital of St. Vincent", your first sentence is absolutely correct. But if the name of the hospital is "St. Vincent's Hospital", you are wrong, as it would NOT be "St. Vincent's Hospital reputation", but "St. Vincent's Hospital's reputation". I thought that I had explained the "implied" word thing adequately, but obviously I was wrong.

I thought that I had explained the "implied" word thing adequately,

And I thought I had.

but obviously I was wrong.

Me too.

If the name of the hospital is "The Hospital of St. Vincent", your first sentence is absolutely correct. But if the name of the hospital is "St. Vincent's Hospital", you are wrong, as it would NOT be "St. Vincent's Hospital reputation", but "St. Vincent's Hospital's reputation". I thought that I had explained the "implied" word thing adequately, but obviously I was wrong.

The fact that "Hospital" may be implied does not mean that it changes the grammar of the sentence as if it were actually there. You're right that it wouldn't be "St. Vincent's Hospital reputation," but that doesn't mean that you can't take away the "Hospital" part, as you're suggesting in #12:

BUT as a stand-alone sentence it would be incorrect to just imply "Hospital".

Incorrect by whose standards? It is true that the whole issue can be avoided by writing it out, but that doesn't mean that writing "St. Vincent's" to mean "St. Vincent's Hospital" is wrong the moment you want to talk about "St. Vincent's (Hospital's) reputation."

(I guess Vinny was right to give up on this discussion in #27, but argh.)

All of which explains why The Economist terms the problem "insoluble."

And why it seems time to apostrophate this discussion.

(But not before noting that the "Rules for compositors & readers at the University Press, Oxford" (1936) contains an index entry, "spacing of apostrophied words.")