Re: No diacritics in English

John Swindle wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:38:54 +0000 (UTC), naddy@xxxxxxxxxxxx
(Christian Weisgerber) wrote:

John Swindle <jcswindle@xxxxxxx> wrote:

. . . (I'm thinking of the apostrophe that's supposed to distinguish the
written forms of some homophones like "its" and "it's".
That apostrophe is not inserted to distinguish homophones, it's
simply a matter of analogy: "it's" is a contraction like "he's" or
"I'm", "its" is a pronoun like "his" or "her".

You're right. The written distinction between "its" and "it's" is
nonetheless hard for many native speakers to remember. Besides the
analogies you mention, there's the competing analogy with possessive
nouns in apostrophe-s.

Prompting my view that the apostrophe in English (in nearly all cases, but triumphantly in this case) serves no linguistic purpose, but only the social purpose of enabling the educated elite to recognise each other - and more importantly, those who are not. In this it is of course a rule of etiquette.

Colin
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: No diacritics in English
    ... To be consistent with the rest of our spelling system, ... That apostrophe is not inserted to distinguish homophones, ... are in free variation, because nobody can keep them straight. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: No diacritics in English
    ... That apostrophe is not inserted to distinguish homophones, ... language, it certainly does. ... I don't deny that the different spellings correspond to different meanings, and *can* be helpful for distinguishing them. ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: No diacritics in English
    ... That apostrophe is not inserted to distinguish homophones, ... there's the competing analogy with possessive ... are in free variation, because nobody can keep them straight. ...
    (sci.lang)