Apostrophe'lyps: Things I dont wish to, and wont do anymore. I aint gonna.
Our's is a living language, obviously. It grows, bends, and flexes. We gain words and lose them. Some are retired. Some are disdained and mocked, falsely labeled and unfairly maligned as improper or incorrect. And then, we have punctuation; which is equally used, misused, over-used or used when unnecessary, out of habit. One of the greatest offenders is the oft misunderstood apostrophe.
This highbrowed Devil, possessor of all things, well...Im done wasting it where it is no longer needed. Separation or combination of the possessive and the plural is a worthy use, indeed. However, I feel it is wasted in a few areas, ignored in one specific instance, and forgotten where it might be of great utility.
You, keen observer that you are, may already have noticed the uses of this little beastie, which I no longer wish to indulge. I find that the most common places, wherein I see and use the apostrophe are in the words "don't", "won't" and "I'm". Im not gonna' bother any more. Im also not gonna' bother on things like gonna or wanna. And slightly more controversial, Im dropping it from cant. I know it looks a little funny at first, but please read and consider my logic.
The apostrophe's purpose, above all, is to communicate, while saving time and ink. Back in the days before print, when armies of monks hand copied everything, the use of the apostrophe was not limited to contractions and possessives. One would use it to stand in for any missing letter or letters, provided it was made obviously clear what it was standing in for. If a scribe took a letter, or made a fast copy of something to be transcribed or later, this little device was an essential ingredient in their personal shorthand.
Later, as movable-type printing presses took over for the monks, printings were charged by the letter, the word and the page. So an apostrophe could save money and time.
The reasoning behind my decision about "don't" and "won't is because we no longer use the words dont and wont. On the rare occasions one might, context will serve differentiate which word you are reading, which is also my argument for "can't".
While we are at it, BTW, I'm going to liberally use "ain't" but without. And if you are of the camp which says the "ain't" aint no word. It is as much a word as wont. So if you refuse to allow aint, I insist you drop wont, as well.
While I am at it, typing BTW saves time and space. Saying "bee-tee-double-you, instead of "by the way" is actually less efficient. One might say "Bee-tee-dubs", which is doubly efficient, as it also helps the rest of us recognize them as the Twats they are. That could save me countless hours I might otherwise have spent conversing with a human time-suck. And I only speak from experience on this. Nearly every time someone says "bee-tee-dubs" to me, the attached information is incorrect, frivolous, irrelevant, or utterly useless.
Understand, that mostly, I am joking. Not about how I will use english, but more in regards to my disparaging remarks about it's use and abuse by others. It's really all just flavour. AndRemember, above all, language is a means to share, and collaborate, and pass ideas. Sometimes this needs to be efficient or concise, or legally binding. Other times it is pass time, diffuse tensions, tell a story, woo a lover, decry injustice, or make us laugh. I think we all hope to be understood, so make that the goal. If I know what you meant, need or want, good enough. I will smile and do my best. If I'm unsure, I will ask for clarification in as polite a manner as I can. The inner monologue will usually remain as inner, and we will get along fine. There is no greater waste of time than unnecessary conflict. And time is short. I would rather enjoy it.
Peace and Blessings.
Dan B
Comments
Post a Comment