Quote:
Originally Posted by barryem
I think Cinisajoy has it right. Not only do rules change but we've just gone through a century or two where rules became more rigid. Linguists like to say that grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive. When I was a kid learning grammar my teachers would have kicked me out of school for suggesting that. Of course I hadn't heard about that then either.
Today we like to think of the right way to write things but in earlier times the right way wasn't so important. I think in the past couple of decades we've begun to move away from that rigid way of looking at things.
I can't really document any of this. I'm no linguist. But I have a lot of spare time and it's one of the things I like to read about here and there; mostly layman's stuff. The idea that grammar is descriptive gets repeated a lot.
I read Mackinlay Kantor's "Spirit Lake" when I was younger and I remember that he used no quote marks at all in that large novel full of dialog. At first I found that confusing but I soon got used to it and it was a fine read. I think that was written in the 1950's and I'm surprised his publishers let him do it, but there it was.
I read recently that there's a lot of discussion about doing away with the apostrophe in English. So much so that a lot of people think it's already on it's way out. The reason isn't because it's not needed anymore but because it's misused in so many ways. I think what they're suggesting isn't that we quit using apostrophes as much as that we abandon the rules covering it.
Barry
|
Well now most typewriters in the 1800's didn't have italics. You had a choice of one font.
Now if I remember right on titles, it went from quotations to underline to italics as the word processor evolved.
As to apostrophe usage they do serve a purpose.
My father's dying has a different meaning than my fathers dying.
Note yes I am well aware the second one needs an are in the middle to be correct.