I demand an end to the apostrophe

The favourite for the Derby this Saturday is called King's Best. The 2,000 Guineas was won by Kings Best. This is the same animal. After much discussion, involving everyone except the horse, it was decided that the omission of the apostrophe was an error and that it should be inserted before the animal could be considered fit to grace the turf at Epsom.

This represents a rare triumph for the grammarians, going along with the decision of J Sainsbury to rebrand their stores as Sainsbury's rather than Sainsburys. And a fat lot of good that's done, judging by their current profits, which appear to be inferior to those of Barclays, Lloyds, Mothers Pride, Selfridges, Diners Club, Debenhams, Dixons and all the other apostrophe-free zones.

On the other hand, my new personal organiser (this is a machine, not an employee) has instructions on how to record the date of Sarahs birthday, but no apostrophe at all. And usual big business policy is counter-balanced by the widespread use of the greengrocers' apostrophe, which sneaks into everything from apple's to yam's. One of our local pubs recently ran a pool tournament and invited "lad's and dad's, mum's and son's, uncle's and niece's, aunt's and nephew's" - which may be a record.

This is widely presumed to be the fault of modern education, which is far more concerned with genitals than genitives. Children are taught about the "comma in the air" (which I thought was a type of butterfly), but the correspondence I get suggests teachers are at least as confused as the greengrocers.

It is an ancient problem. "One not uncommonly sees outside an inn," complained the Dean of Canterbury in 1864, "that fly's and gig's are to be let. In a country town blessed with more than one railway, I have seen an omnibus with 'Railway Station's' painted in emblazonry on its side."

The dean assumed, like the modern pedants, that there is such a thing as correct usage, when what we have is usage. The apostrophe was introduced from France (like rabies), in the mid-16th century, and has caused nothing but trouble ever since. Its original function, according to a manuscript of 1551, was "taking away a voel sound at the end of a word, by the convenience of the following voel beginning another word". The example given was "writ th'articles plaine t'understand", which is what we always strive to do on the Guardian.

Shakespeare (or his printers) was all over the shop with his apostrophes, and the Authorised Version had "my mothers house". Swift and Addison hated the habit of using the apostrophe to shorten what Addison called the preterperfect tense: "drown'd, walk'd, arriv'd, for drowned, walked, arrived, which has very much disfigured the tongue and a tenth part of our smoothest words into so many clusters of consonants".

It was the late 17th century before any regularity came into the apostrophe's use in the genitive singular. Confusion reigned then as now about the genitive plural. And place names were and are shambolic: St Albans, St Neots and Golders Green, but St John's Wood, Pratt's Bottom and Land's End (further confused by the clothing company, Lands' End). Earl's Court is next to Barons Court. And what about singular names ending with an "s"? Do they take an extra "s" or not?

"Greek names with more than one syllable are always written with an apostrophe alone when they end with a s word: Socrates' teaching, Xerxes' expeditions," Sir Ernest Gowers ordained in 1946. Why? Was this a dying wish? "Crito, I owe a cock to Aesculapius. Get it sorted, and, by the way, make sure no one ever spells my name with an extra s after the apostrophe."

What's the point of it all? Literate people get offended when they see the apostrophe used in what they regard as an incorrect place. But it is simply being used in an unfamiliar place, which jars the sensibility of anyone accustomed to reading books and newspapers. The rules governing the apostrophe are incoherent, illogical and of dubious provenance. Why did whose replace who's? Why should one form of its take an apostrophe and not the other?

Bernard Shaw had the answer 100 years ago. Do away with the apostrophe. It serves no purpose. Someone will argue that it is necessary to distinguish between words that otherwise have the same spelling. But this is complete can't, and I wont have it. The sense of the sentence will always provide the necessary meaning.

Teachers and children would no longer have to worry about the wretched thing. Guardian sub-editors could coast through the day. Greengrocers, if they did dare use an apostrophe, would be prosecuted. This threat worked to force them away from pounds and ounces. Let's get through Ep'som next weekend, then ban it. The apo'strophes days done!

matthew.engel@guardian.co.uk