Well I just wanted to see how many people think the apostrophe is a totally unnecessary when it comes to contractions.

Its a simple vote yes or no, just keep in mind this applies only to contractions.

I personally feel that the apostrophe as far as its use in contractions, its a waste of ink and computer memory. >:-(

As a complete Grammar Nazi, I'd have to say that the apostrophe is definitely necessary.

Then again, I am pretty obsessive-compulsive in general, so...

I think the only grammatical rule that really might be completely abolished would be the rule of not ending sentences in prepositions... No one really follows the rule any more, and even when they do, it just sounds so awkward...

Plus, what would happen to "its" and "it's"? It'd become impossible to tell the two apart...

I say yes.

They give you a certain feeling of division, so you know with a quick glance that you have "2 words in 1" giving an emphasis to the existence of the contraction.

Apostrophe FTW!!!!

[img]http://www.freewebs.com/majormarmot/hypnosis%2Dss.gif[/img]
THIS POST DOES NOT EXIST......IT'S ALL IN YOUR IMAGINATION

Well effectively it's (it is) and its (possive it) would switch places. But unfortunately that might cause some errors when it comes to well retrofitting (thats the best word I can think of) the language.

For the most part its easy enough to tell a contraction apart by context alone, and even swapping the homophone contractions we currently have and using them incorrectly rarely causes confusion.

I'm a proofreader (or was...I retired...), so I vote "yes"

A just ruler amongst tyrants

Two hundred years too late. Try to get rid of it now, and your sentence just looks sloppy and juvenile. Nor will it flow as easily.

i dont really care either way....
so i'll just say, no.

Well with this current generation more frequently using computers to communicate textually, I see that more and more people are starting to leave them out, I think its death is rather inevitable at this point, though I guess my title seems a bit too strong, since outright abolishing it from contractions would probably cause a number of issues.

wups haha i clicked no b/c i assumed from the title that the poll would be "should we abolish the apostrophe?" ^^' anyways add one to yes and subtract one from no and you get what the score should be : )

[img]http://i17.tinypic.com/7wh7xx1.jpg[/img]

I think that we put the apostrophe into contractions for a reason. After all, we didn't have to.

It reminds us that they are separate words; furthermore, it maintains the etymology of the word better. This is why I argue against respelling English phonetically: If we do that, we lose the ability to trace a word's origins nearly as effectively. When "bated breath" (from "abated") turned into "baited breath" (which is how too many people spell it these days), it quite literally lost the source of its meaning; it is now a term with no logical origin. In other words, nobody, looking at that term without knowing it already, would have a damn clue what it describes--or rather, they'd get it wrong: "Baited? So it's being drawn out?" But bated breath, to an educated reader, would make sense.

Of course, nobody's educated these days; that's why people propose damaging the language further than just text messaging and IRC chat already have. It's there for a reason, leave it there.

Furthermore, English is a touch unique in that it is a language rooted, to a point, in a great deal of other languages pushed together, as opposed to the development of most other languages: one language slowly changes over time into the other, and may branch out. This is one reason why we have so rich a vocabulary, and why so many words have subtle variations in meaning that cannot be effectively translated into other languages without use of even more words. When we lose the roots of words, we start to forget things like that. Changing things around like that would all too literally bastardize the English language. So don't.

Apostrophes are there for a reason. Let's leave them there.

I am the God of Freedom. I am not revered, I have no shrines; and you have never before heard of me nor will you ever hear of me again.

dude, what's wrong with you. Apostrophies rock. They make big, clunky words and multiple word phrases shorter. It's cool.

Sarcasm just doesn't work over the internet.

Well those shorter words would technically be even shorter without the apostrophe in them.

Quote from Pseudopadoz

I think that we put the apostrophe into contractions for a reason. After all, we didn't have to.

It reminds us that they are separate words; furthermore, it maintains the etymology of the word better. This is why I argue against respelling English phonetically: If we do that, we lose the ability to trace a word's origins nearly as effectively. When "bated breath" (from "abated") turned into "baited breath" (which is how too many people spell it these days), it quite literally lost the source of its meaning; it is now a term with no logical origin. In other words, nobody, looking at that term without knowing it already, would have a damn clue what it describes--or rather, they'd get it wrong: "Baited? So it's being drawn out?" But bated breath, to an educated reader, would make sense.

Of course, nobody's educated these days; that's why people propose damaging the language further than just text messaging and IRC chat already have. It's there for a reason, leave it there.

Furthermore, English is a touch unique in that it is a language rooted, to a point, in a great deal of other languages pushed together, as opposed to the development of most other languages: one language slowly changes over time into the other, and may branch out. This is one reason why we have so rich a vocabulary, and why so many words have subtle variations in meaning that cannot be effectively translated into other languages without use of even more words. When we lose the roots of words, we start to forget things like that. Changing things around like that would all too literally bastardize the English language. So don't.

Apostrophes are there for a reason. Let's leave them there.

What he said

Listen here
Livin just to keep from dyin
[img]http://imagegen.last.fm/TheDarkTen/recenttracks/imgooley.gif[/img]

Contractions, right? Like "we'll" and "can't"? Oops, I mean "well" and "cant". A couple of days ago one of my English exercises was adding missing punctuation, and a sentence made absolutely no sense to me because the punctuation mark I was supposed to add was an apostrophe in "we'll". And it looked to me like "well". No thanks, dude. I'm keepin' it.

They say it's the thought that counts, but then they tell you, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions......"

Will no one scanlate Takahashi Miyuki?! T_T

Im not sure how much of or how important the etymology of the basic pronouns and simple verbs that we turn into contractions actually are though. Knowing the roots of words definitely makes for a much easier understanding of the language when faced with words you dont know, but there is very little practical value in knowing the etymology of the simple words that are formed into contractions.