Another important point mentioned by Schuster is that those who write
standards often require correct use of things like apostrophes for
"possession" without understanding the difficulty of concept. It doesn't
seem fair to require something that does not work as explained and
therefore cannot reliably be taught. Sometimes it cannot be taught because
we don't fully understand how the concept works. Other times, as Nigel has
pointed out about the British requirement for correct use of periods, the
concept cannot be taught to children of the appointed age.

Perhaps the ATEG could gain a little fame, or notoriety, by hectoring the
standards writers on this subject.

Bill McCleary

>The article is interesting indeed--about how frequently  possessive
>apostrophes indicate something other than possession ("his mother's
>request," "a good night's sleep," "today's society"), and about the drift
>toward dropping the apostrophe in public names, such as Starbucks Coffee and
>Pikes Peak.
>
>The Comprehensive Grammar of English (Quirk, et al) suggests that the
>inflected genitive noun usually denotes a close relationship or association
>between two nouns, including but not limited to possession.  Sounds to me
>like a manageable, more accurate, though not flawless way to describe the
>apostrophe, compared to the very limited notion of literal possession.
>
>The Comp. Grammar also suggests that the inflected noun, in contrast to the
>"of" phrase possessive, is semantically associated with words referring to
>people, the human world, and human activity, because close relationship is
>something that is experienced by people.  We would say "someone's shadow"
>but probably not "something's shadow" (more likely, "the shadow of
>something" or "the shadow from something").  Perhaps (my speculation) this
>is part of the reason why commercial and organizational names that become
>fixed as public labels and as a single unit lose their apostrophes. They no
>longer seem like two or more nouns connected in the sphere of human
>activity.  "Pikes Peak" is the name of a place, not a reference to a place
>that is actively associated with a person, as in "George's backyard."
>
>In the article by Schuster, the comment that I found a little chilling was
>that Schuster's experience from a lifetime of textbook writing was that what
>is simple is what sells.  He meant in this case that the "possessive"
>apostrophe, no matter how inadequate a label, is not likely to shift because
>those in the textbook market are accustomed to it. Other aspects of
>conventional grammar are not so simple--think of all the classifications of
>verb tense, pronoun type, etc.  But they are no doubt bogged down as well
>for reasons of familiarity and convention.  I think the more ATEG can learn
>about the marketing of grammar, the better prepared we can be to have an
>impact. Grammar is embedded in a curriculum, in the language arts textbooks
>that make up the curriculum, and in the industry and state boards that
>oversee the textbooks, as well as in the teachers.
>
>Brock Haussamen
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: William J. McCleary [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Monday, April 24, 2000 3:17 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: An article to read
>
>
>This list seems quiet these days. Perhaps we can liven things up.
>
>I'd like to recommend an article: "Language Arts Standards and the
>Possessive 'Apoxtrophe.'" It appears in the April 19 issue of Education
>Week, p. 45. The article shows how few uses of the "possessive apostrophe"
>truly have anything to do with possessing something.
>
>Bill
>
>William J. McCleary
>3247 Bronson Hill Road
>Livonia, NY 14487
>716-346-6859


William J. McCleary
3247 Bronson Hill Road
Livonia, NY 14487
716-346-6859