Bulwark against misuse of grammar
John Richards, who has died aged 97, was a British newspaperman who attracted a flurry of international attention when he founded and later resignedly disbanded the Apostrophe Protection Society, a selfstyled bulwark against the ‘‘barbarians’’ laying waste to a humble yet essential element of the English language.
In the universe of grammatical gadflies – a mantle many of them wear proudly – Richards represented a particularly committed species. A retired journalist, he spent 35 years working for regional newspapers in England, mainly as a reporter. But he also did a stint as a copy editor, purging copy of misspellings, grammatical slips and errors of usage.
Even the most charitable editor can change ‘‘flaunt’’ to ‘‘flout’’ and ‘‘pour over’’ to ‘‘pore over’’ only so many times before exasperation sets in. By the end of his career, Richards was ‘‘fed up with correcting reporters’ copy’’ and told the Wall Street Journal that he ‘‘decided to do something’’ about a common and especially vexing error.
In 2001, he founded the Apostrophe Protection Society. At first, its ranks consisted only of Richards and his son. But when the Daily Telegraph published an article about their quest, Richards said he received 500 letters from around the world, from grammarians who needed no reminding of the proper uses of the apostrophe.
Richards and his most enthusiastic comrades set about collecting photographic evidence, which they posted on their website, of the extent of modern apostrophe abuse: a line declaring that ‘‘Diamond’s Are Forever’’, a store sign advertising ‘‘Lot’s More Toy’s Inside’’, and a body art salon offering ‘‘Tattoo’s’’, a concerning error for an establishment whose primary service was the permanent inking of skin.
More irritating to Richards than the misuse of the apostrophe was its omission. He was particularly dismayed when several English towns, ostensibly to facilitate GPS devices, eliminated apostrophes from the official names of streets and other landmarks, producing such abominations as ‘‘St. Pauls Square’’.
Another disappointment came when the venerable bookseller Waterstone’s became Waterstones. If ‘‘McDonald’s can get it right, then why can’t Waterstones?’’ he told the Telegraph. ‘‘You would really hope that a bookshop is the last place to be so slapdash with English.’’
Punctilious as he may have been, he told the New York Times that there were many grammarians more ‘‘militant’’ than he. ‘‘Dear Sir or Madam,’’ began his group’s standard notice. ‘‘Because there seems to be some doubt about the use of the apostrophe, we are taking the liberty of drawing your attention to an incorrect use. We would like to emphasise that we do not intend any criticism, but are just reminding you of correct usage should you wish to put right the mistake.’’
In 2019, Richards announced – ‘‘with regret’’ – the shuttering of the Apostrophe Protection Society. He was 96 and was ‘‘cutting back’’. Furthermore, he conceded, ‘‘the ignorance and laziness present in modern times have won!’’
‘‘It was inevitable,’’ he told the Scottish Daily Mail. ‘‘The apostrophe is dying.’’ He had perhaps first detected its death rattle when he suggested to a restaurateur the removal of the apostrophe in a sign advertising the sale of ‘‘coffee’s’’.
‘‘I said very politely, ‘It’s not needed. It’s a plural.’ But the man said: ‘I think it looks better with an apostrophe.’ And what can you say to that?’’
John Belton Richards was born in London, and worked at a series of newspapers around southeast England, retiring from the West Sussex Gazette in 1988. His marriage to Helene Roth ended in divorce. Survivors include a son, daughter and grandson.
Richards’ efforts (some copy editors would argue for Richards’s) in behalf of the apostrophe did not go without recognition. In 2001, he received the Ig Nobel Prize for literature, and in 2015 he was featured in a calendar printed by the Dull Men’s Club of Britain.
Hand-wringing discussions about the demise of the apostrophe prompted some to argue that, as a punctuation mark, it had never mattered much anyway. The apostrophe, they contended, packed little to no meaning that was not already obvious in the context of a sentence. By comparison, a comma and a colon could transform the old warhorse of grammar pedantry from, ‘‘A woman, without her man, is nothing,’’ into ‘‘A woman: without her, man is nothing.’’
Confronted with such arguments, Richards trotted out a counterexample. ‘‘Just take the sign outside a block of flats,’’ he once told Slate magazine. ‘‘ ‘Residents’ refuse to be placed in bins’. Remove the apostrophe and you see a very different notice.’’ –