Apostrophe Protection Society

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

An online deep dive into the Apostrophe Protection Society quickly broadens into a wider look at how English punctuation norms are taught, enforced, and broken in everyday writing. Commenters trade examples of egregious signage (“METER’S TAKES QUARTER’S ONLY”), argue over rules like “less” vs. “fewer” and possessives ending in “s,” and explore the history and Unicode quirks of the apostrophe itself. Underneath the grammar jokes is a recurring tension between prescriptivists who see such standards as essential for clarity and education, and others who view many of these rules as arbitrary pedantry in a language that is constantly evolving.

Overall reaction to the Apostrophe Protection Society

  • Many find the society charming, funny, or nostalgically pedantic; others think the “war is lost” or apostrophes just aren’t that important.
  • Several commenters share delight at seeing blatant errors called out (e.g., parking-lot signs, “Mattresse’s”), while others roll their eyes at the fuss.
  • Some explicitly argue that the cognitive friction comes from existing rules: as long as conventions exist, violations distract readers.

Prescriptivism vs. Descriptivism

  • One camp defends strict rules (its/it’s, less/fewer, “would have” vs “would of”) as markers of clarity, education, and respect for readers.
  • Another camp argues that many “rules” (e.g., less vs fewer, split infinitives, some apostrophe uses) are arbitrary, changing, and often not genuinely confusing in context.
  • A linguistics perspective is cited criticizing “grammar-nerd” shaming and emphasizing descriptive views of language.
  • Some note that language norms also function as social and class markers, differentiating groups.

Specific usage debates

  • Less vs. fewer:
    • One side insists on the mass vs. count-noun distinction and finds “less people” grating.
    • Others see “less” encroaching on “fewer” in prestigious outlets and consider the distinction mostly pedantic, since “more” doesn’t mirror it.
  • Possessives ending in s:
    • Strong disagreement over “James’s” vs. “James’ ”; style guides are invoked for both, and accents/pronunciation influence preferences.
    • Historical origins are debated (Germanic genitive vs. “his” contraction).
  • Plurals with apostrophes:
    • The APS-style view rejects apostrophes for simple plurals, but some were explicitly taught forms like “123’s” and “ABC’s,” especially for numbers and acronyms.
    • Other languages (Dutch, German) treat apostrophes in plurals differently, leading to cross-language interference.

Typography, Unicode, and implementation

  • Multiple complaints about “smart quotes” producing the wrong character or direction, especially at word starts and in German.
  • Unicode’s recommendation of U+2019 for apostrophes is noted; some dislike curly quotes or prefer neutral quotes/backticks.
  • Commenters point out inconsistent quotation and apostrophe styling on the APS site itself, which undermines its authority.

Broader reflections and anecdotes

  • Several humorous or exasperated anecdotes about bad signs, shock sites, laminated notices, and software rejecting names with apostrophes.
  • A minority suggests abolishing apostrophes entirely, given limited utility and widespread confusion; others insist they remain worth protecting.