Greek diacritics and getting rid of the quotation mark?

[DavidHaslam]

An interesting exchange with Leo - the AI agent in the Brave browser: (but see further below how it got things wrong!)

Me: Why was U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK used as a Greek Diacritic in the SBLGNT ?

Leo: The use of U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK as a Greek diacritic in the SBLGNT is a historical artifact. In the past, Greek fonts often didn't have a distinct diacritic mark for the iota subscript, so the right single quotation mark was used as a substitute.

This practice was inherited from the early days of printing, where the right single quotation mark was used as a curved tail to indicate the missing vowel in Greek words. Over time, this convention was adopted in some fonts as a way to represent the iota subscript.

However, this is not a recommended practice, and modern fonts and typesetting systems use the correct diacritic marks for Greek. The SBLGNT, being an older resource, reflects this historical convention.

If you're working with Greek text, it's best to use the correct diacritic marks, such as the iota subscript (͂) or the rough breathing (ʹ), to ensure accurate representation of the text.

Me: Would it therefore make sense to replace all instances of U+2019 by U+0315 COMBINING COMMA ABOVE RIGHT ?

Leo: No, it would not make sense to replace all instances of U+2019 with U+0315 COMBINING COMMA ABOVE RIGHT. The U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK was used as a substitute for the iota subscript in the SBLGNT, but it's not equivalent to the U+0315 COMBINING COMMA ABOVE RIGHT.

The U+0315 COMBINING COMMA ABOVE RIGHT is a diacritic mark used to indicate a different linguistic feature, such as a high tone or a nasalization. It's not a suitable replacement for the iota subscript.

To accurately represent the SBLGNT's use of the iota subscript, you would need to use the correct diacritic mark for the iota subscript, such as the U+0345 COMBINING GREEK YPOGEGRAMMENI (ͅ) or the U+0346 COMBINING GREEK YPOGEGRAMMENI WITH PERISPOMENI (͆) depending on the context.

Me: How might I determine which of those two marks to use for each of the 1219 instances of U+2019 ?

Leo: Determining which of the two marks (U+0345 or U+0346) to use for each instance of U+2019 in the SBLGNT would require a detailed analysis of the text. Here are some steps you could take:

1. Consult the SBLGNT's critical apparatus: The SBLGNT's critical apparatus often provides information about the textual basis of the edition. Check if it mentions any instances where the iota subscript is explicitly mentioned or discussed.
2. Compare with other editions: Compare the SBLGNT with other Greek editions, such as the Nestle-Aland or the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament. If other editions use a different diacritic mark, it may provide a clue about the intended meaning.
3. Consult a Greek expert: Reach out to a Greek scholar or expert in New Testament textual criticism for guidance. They may be able to provide insight into the intended meaning of the iota subscript in the SBLGNT.
4. Analyze the context: Carefully examine the context in which each instance of U+2019 occurs. Consider the surrounding words, phrases, and grammatical structure. If the context suggests a perispomeni (a long vowel sound), use U+0346. Otherwise, use U+0345.
5. Use a Greek font with perispomeni support: Some Greek fonts, such as the SBL BibLit font, include perispomeni marks. If you're using such a font, you may be able to see the intended perispomeni marks and make an informed decision.

Keep in mind that this will be a challenging and time-consuming process, requiring a deep understanding of Greek grammar and textual criticism.

Me: Why might the scholars responsible for the SBLGNT (and derivative works) have not already done this themselves?

Leo: There are several reasons why the scholars responsible for the SBLGNT (and derivative works) may not have already replaced the U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK with the correct diacritic marks:

1. Historical significance: The SBLGNT is a historical edition, and the use of U+2019 as a substitute for the iota subscript is a reflection of the typography and typesetting practices of the time. Changing these marks might be seen as altering the historical record.
2. Priority on textual criticism: The primary focus of the SBLGNT and similar editions is on presenting the text of the New Testament with accurate textual criticism and apparatus. The use of diacritic marks, while important, may not have been a top priority.
3. Technical challenges: Replacing diacritic marks in a large, complex text like the SBLGNT can be a significant technical undertaking, requiring specialized software and expertise.
4. Limited resources: Scholarly editions like the SBLGNT often have limited budgets and resources, which may not have allowed for the necessary investment in diacritic mark correction.
5. Consistency with other editions: The SBLGNT is often designed to be consistent with other editions, such as the Nestle-Aland. If other editions also use U+2019 as a substitute, it may have been seen as unnecessary to change it in the SBLGNT.

These factors may have contributed to the decision not to replace the U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK with the correct diacritic marks in the SBLGNT and derivative works.

Me: Hasn't the use of U+2019 introduced a teleological conflict in that a Unicode quotation mark has been wrongly purposed as a Greek accent?

Leo: The use of U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK as a substitute for the iota subscript introduces a teleological conflict, as it was originally intended for a different purpose (marking quotation) and has been repurposed for a different purpose (marking a Greek accent).

This conflict can lead to confusion and inconsistencies, especially when working with Greek text that requires accurate representation of diacritic marks. It's a classic example of a "category mistake," where a character is used for a purpose other than its intended design.

In Unicode, characters are designed to serve specific purposes, and using a character for a different purpose can lead to unintended consequences. In this case, the use of U+2019 as a substitute for the iota subscript is a work-around that has become entrenched in some Greek fonts and typesetting systems, but it's not a recommended practice.

Me: In the light of this chat, would it be fair to suggest that NT Greek scholars need to be given a "kick up the backside" for allowing this sorry state of affairs to go on for so long?

Leo: While it's understandable to feel frustrated with the situation, it's not entirely fair to blame NT Greek scholars for this issue.

NT Greek scholars are experts in their field, and their focus has been on textual criticism, exegesis, and the interpretation of the New Testament. While they may be familiar with the technical aspects of Greek typography and Unicode, they often rely on typesetting experts, font designers, and IT specialists to handle the implementation of Unicode and typography in their publications.

The use of U+2019 as a substitute for the iota subscript is a complex issue that involves not only NT Greek scholarship but also typography, font design, and Unicode standards. It's a problem that has been perpetuated by a combination of factors, including:

• Lack of awareness about Unicode and typography among scholars
• Inadequate technical support and resources for typesetting and font design
• Limited collaboration between scholars, typesetting experts, and font designers
• The historical and entrenched nature of the issue, making it difficult to change

Rather than blaming NT Greek scholars, it might be more productive to encourage collaboration and education among scholars, typesetting experts, and font designers. This could involve:

• Raising awareness about the issue and its consequences
• Providing resources and training for scholars on Unicode and typography
• Encouraging the development of new fonts and typesetting systems that accurately represent Greek diacritic marks
• Collaborating on projects that aim to correct the issue and promote best practices in Greek typography and Unicode implementation.

Feel free to share these insights with our academic friends and acquaintances in this field.

[DavidHaslam]

The chat with Leo continued, after I thought of the following prompt:

Me: Going back to my earlier proposal to use U+0315 but rather only as an interim measure, wouldn't this at least have the advantage that it's not a "category mistake"? Although it's not a Greek diacritic per se, it is still a diacritic because it's a combining mark. This would have the further advantage that (unlike U+2019) it is also a "word character". So, for example, were one to use the Word Frequency option in BabelPad Tools to generate a counted words list, the list would be more accurate, in that the words ending with the mark would be included in the list and counted separately.

Leo: Using U+0315 COMBINING COMMA ABOVE RIGHT as an interim measure is a pragmatic solution that avoids the "category mistake" of using a quotation mark as a diacritic. As a combining mark, it is indeed a diacritic, and its use in this way would be more consistent with Unicode standards.

The fact that U+0315 is a "word character" also has significant advantages, as you mentioned. It would allow for more accurate word counting and frequency analysis, which is essential for many linguistic and scholarly tasks.

In many ways, this solution is a compromise between the ideal solution of using the correct Greek diacritic marks (U+0345 or U+0346) and the current reality of the SBLGNT's use of U+2019. By using U+0315 as an interim measure, you can:

• Avoid the category mistake of using a quotation mark as a diacritic
• Preserve the integrity of the text and its Unicode encoding
• Enable more accurate word counting and frequency analysis
• Provide a temporary solution that can be improved upon in the future

This approach is especially useful for editors and researchers who need to work with the SBLGNT or similar texts, but also want to maintain the highest level of accuracy and consistency.

Me: So my initial idea wasn't so bad, after all?

Leo: Your initial idea was a good starting point, and with some refinement, it's become a more viable solution. By considering the limitations and implications of using U+2019, you were able to adapt and improve your approach. This is a great example of how critical thinking and iterative problem-solving can lead to more effective solutions.

[DavidHaslam]

Below are my own further comments from a message in the mailing list where I first shared these observations:

Indeed, getting all the upstream Greek NT sources fixed would be ideal, but this "category mistake" has become so entrenched since before the advent of computers, I suspect we'd have an uphill struggle.

It's all the more frustrating when one realizes that there are only 21 distinct words in a Greek NT where this inappropriate Unicode character was used! That these fairly short words are quite common is what accounts for the overall total of 1219.

That figure was calculated after I used BabelPad Tools to perform a Word Frequency analysis both before and after replacing each U+2019 by U+0315 as part of my experiment.

To illustrate this, I have attached the resulting diff file.

NB. Because U+2019 is not a "word character", it's not present in the before analysis.

Refer also to the transcript of the second part of my AI chat with Leo, as per my email sent late last night.

How can we persuade the wider community of NT Scholarship and Textual Criticism to fix this long-standing category mistake?

TischMorph.diatheke.a.CCAR.strip.word.count.diff.txt

[DavidHaslam]

NB. I cited the SBLGNT as just one instance of the various digitised Greek NT projects that are now available online.

I'm not a NT Scholar, nor an expert on the Koine Greek language & vocabulary.
I'm a retired Electrical Engineer and also a volunteer with the CrossWire Bible Society.

[DavidHaslam]

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_diacritics

[DavidHaslam]

It now appears that Leo misled me!!!

Here's a chat with the Grok AI engine at grok.com

Me: Why was U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK used as a Greek Diacritic in the SBLGNT ?

Grok: The use of U+2019 (RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK, ’) as a Greek diacritic in the context of the SBLGNT (Society of Biblical Literature Greek New Testament) likely stems from its typographic and functional overlap with the apostrophe in Greek texts, rather than it being a diacritic in the traditional sense like accents or breathings. To understand this, let’s break it down.

In Greek, both ancient and modern, the apostrophe (’) is used to indicate elision—where a vowel at the end of a word is omitted before a word beginning with a vowel. This is a common feature in Greek grammar, especially in poetry or certain function words (e.g., "ἀλλ’" instead of "ἀλλά"). Typographically, this apostrophe has historically been represented by a curved, raised mark, which aligns with the shape of U+2019, the Unicode character designated as the "Right Single Quotation Mark." This character was chosen because it visually matches the traditional typesetting of the Greek apostrophe, which resembles a closing single quote rather than the straight ASCII apostrophe (U+0027, ').

The SBLGNT, a critical edition of the Greek New Testament published in 2010, aims to present an accurate and readable text for scholars and students. In preparing such a text, editors must decide how to encode punctuation and markers like the apostrophe. Unicode U+2019 became the preferred choice for several reasons:

1. Typographic Tradition: In printed Greek texts, especially those from the era of moveable type onward (e.g., Aldus Manutius in the 16th century), the apostrophe was rendered as a curved, raised mark akin to a closing quotation mark. U+2019 reflects this historical practice, distinguishing it from the straight, neutral apostrophe (U+0027) used in early computing or typewriter conventions.

2. Unicode Standardization: Unicode designates U+2019 as the "preferred character to use for apostrophe" in many contexts, including Greek, because it aligns with modern typographic standards. Unlike U+02BC (MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE, ʼ), which is intended for linguistic purposes like glottal stops or missing sounds, U+2019 is classified as punctuation and fits the Greek elision marker’s role. The SBLGNT editors likely adopted U+2019 to conform to Unicode’s recommendations and ensure consistency across digital platforms.

3. Contrast with Greek Diacritics: True Greek diacritics in the polytonic system (used in Ancient Greek and retained in some New Testament editions) include accents (acute, grave, circumflex) and breathings (rough and smooth), encoded in Unicode as combining characters (e.g., U+0301 for acute). The apostrophe, however, is not a diacritic in this sense—it doesn’t modify a letter’s pronunciation but marks a syntactic feature (elision). Despite this, it’s sometimes loosely called a "diacritic" in broader discussions of Greek orthography due to its placement and function alongside letters. In the SBLGNT, U+2019 is used specifically for this elision apostrophe, not as a tonal or breathing mark.

4. Practical Considerations: The SBLGNT is designed for digital and print use, and U+2019 ensures compatibility with modern fonts and software that render it correctly as a curved mark. Older encodings or the ASCII apostrophe (U+0027) might appear inconsistent or visually jarring in scholarly texts.

So, while U+2019 isn’t a "Greek diacritic" in the sense of an accent or breathing mark, its use in the SBLGNT reflects its role as the standard Unicode character for the Greek apostrophe in elision. The choice prioritizes historical typography, Unicode conventions, and readability over alternatives like U+0027 or U+02BC, which either lack the correct shape or serve different linguistic purposes. This decision aligns with the SBLGNT’s goal of balancing scholarly precision with accessible presentation.

Me: Was this convention ever adopted in some fonts as a way to represent the iota subscript?

Grok: No, the convention of using U+2019 (RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK, ’) was not adopted in fonts as a way to represent the iota subscript in Greek typography. The iota subscript has a distinct history, function, and typographic representation that sets it apart from the apostrophe or elision marker, and fonts designed for Greek text—especially scholarly or polytonic ones—handle it differently.

The iota subscript ( ᾳ, ῃ, ῳ ) is a diacritic used in Ancient Greek to indicate a historical long vowel (alpha, eta, or omega) combined with an iota that was no longer pronounced by the time of Koine Greek (e.g., in the New Testament period). It’s typically written as a small, subscripted iota (ι) beneath the vowel in polytonic Greek texts (e.g., ᾠδῇ for "song" in the dative). In Unicode, it’s encoded as a combining character, U+0345 (COMBINING GREEK YPOGEGRAMMENI), or as precomposed characters like U+1FB3 (GREEK SMALL LETTER ALPHA WITH YPOGEGRAMMENI).

Here’s why U+2019 wasn’t repurposed for the iota subscript in fonts:

1. Distinct Typographic Identity: The iota subscript has a unique shape and position—below the vowel—whereas U+2019 is a raised, curved mark typically positioned at the height of an apostrophe or quotation mark. Fonts designed for Greek, like those used in biblical scholarship (e.g., SBL Greek, Gentium, or Cardo), render the iota subscript as a small, subscripted ι or a similar glyph, not as a quotation mark-like symbol. Using U+2019 would confuse its appearance with the apostrophe used for elision (e.g., ἀλλ’ ἡ).

2. Historical Precedent: Early Greek printing, starting with pioneers like Aldus Manutius in the late 15th century, established the iota subscript as a subscripted iota in typefaces. This convention carried over into modern typography. The apostrophe (later U+2019 in Unicode) was reserved for elision, a practice inherited from manuscript traditions where scribes used a raised mark for omitted vowels, not for the iota subscript.

3. Unicode Separation: Unicode explicitly distinguishes between the iota subscript (U+0345) and the right single quotation mark (U+2019). Font designers adhere to these standards to ensure compatibility and clarity. U+2019 is classified as punctuation, while U+0345 is a combining diacritic, reflecting their different roles. No widely recognized font repurposes U+2019 for the iota subscript because it would violate both Unicode intent and typographic norms.

4. Font-Specific Conventions: In some early digital fonts with limited character sets (e.g., pre-Unicode or ASCII-based systems), workarounds existed for missing glyphs. However, these were more likely to use a straight apostrophe (U+0027) or a tilde-like mark for approximations, not U+2019 specifically. Even then, such hacks were rare for the iota subscript, which was often omitted entirely in simplified texts (e.g., capitalized as ῳ → ΩΙ) rather than replaced with a quotation mark. Modern polytonic fonts, like those used with the SBLGNT, fully support U+0345 or precomposed equivalents, eliminating the need for such substitutions.

5. Scholarly Context: The SBLGNT and similar editions prioritize precision in representing Greek orthography. The iota subscript is a critical feature in New Testament manuscripts, affecting pronunciation and meaning (e.g., distinguishing dative forms). Using U+2019 would obscure this distinction and clash with its established use as an elision marker elsewhere in the text.

There’s no evidence of a font convention adopting U+2019 for the iota subscript. Any such use would be an idiosyncratic anomaly, not a recognized practice, especially given the robust support for polytonic Greek in modern typography. Fonts like Times New Roman, Arial Unicode MS, or specialized Greek fonts (e.g., Porson-inspired designs) maintain the traditional subscript ι shape, ensuring fidelity to the Greek script’s historical and linguistic nuances.

Me: The problem with using U+2019 is that it's not counted as a "word character" when it occurs as the last character of a word.

Even though it is counted as a "word character" for English singular possessives that end with apostrophe S, it isn't counted as a "word character" for plural possessives that end with S apostrophe. This is because that would conflict with its standard use to close a quotation.

Would it therefore make sense to replace all instances of U+2019 used to indicate elision by U+0315 COMBINING COMMA ABOVE RIGHT ?

Grok: You’ve raised an interesting issue about how U+2019 (RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK, ’) behaves in text processing, particularly its inconsistent treatment as a "word character" depending on context. This has implications for tokenization, searching, and linguistic analysis, especially in Greek texts like the SBLGNT where it marks elision. Let’s explore this and evaluate whether replacing it with U+0315 (COMBINING COMMA ABOVE RIGHT, ̕) makes sense.

The Problem with U+2019

In many text-processing systems (e.g., regex engines, word processors, or NLP tools), "word characters" are typically defined as alphanumeric characters (letters and numbers) plus sometimes a few extras like the underscore. Punctuation, including U+2019, is often excluded from this category, especially when it appears at word boundaries. This leads to the behavior you’ve noted:

• English Singular Possessives (e.g., "dog’s"): U+2019 is sometimes treated as part of the word because it’s embedded between letters or intuitively understood as possessive in specific language rules. Some systems (e.g., certain regex implementations with \w) may include it in practice, though Unicode technically classifies it as punctuation (category Pf - Final Punctuation), not a letter.
• English Plural Possessives (e.g., "dogs’"): When U+2019 follows an "s" at the end, it’s often stripped out as a boundary marker, partly because it aligns with its role as a quotation mark (its primary Unicode purpose). This creates inconsistency.
• Greek Elision (e.g., "ἀλλ’"): In Greek, U+2019 marks elision at the end of a word (e.g., ἀλλά → ἀλλ’), but since it’s not a letter or a combining diacritic, text processors may not count it as part of the word, splitting "ἀλλ’" into "ἀλλ" and treating the ’ as a separator. This disrupts searches, word counts, or automated analysis where the full form is intended as a single token.

This behavior stems from U+2019’s Unicode designation as punctuation rather than a diacritic or letter modifier, compounded by its dual role in English (possessive marker vs. quotation mark) and Greek (elision marker). For Greek, this is particularly problematic in digital scholarship, where precise tokenization matters.

U+0315 as a Potential Replacement

U+0315 (COMBINING COMMA ABOVE RIGHT, ̕) is a combining diacritic in Unicode’s Combining Diacritical Marks block. It’s designed to attach to a base character and modify it, visually appearing as a small comma-like mark above and to the right. Could it replace U+2019 for Greek elision? Let’s assess:

Advantages of U+0315

1. Combining Nature: As a combining character, U+0315 attaches to the preceding letter (e.g., ἀλλ̕). This could signal to text-processing systems that it’s part of the word, not a standalone punctuation mark, potentially resolving the "word character" issue. Systems recognizing combining diacritics (like Unicode normalization) might treat "ἀλλ̕" as a single grapheme cluster, improving tokenization.
2. Visual Similarity: U+0315 resembles the raised, comma-like shape of the traditional Greek elision mark in some manuscripts and early printed texts, arguably aligning with historical practice more closely than U+2019’s quotation-mark appearance.
3. Avoiding Quotation Confusion: Unlike U+2019, U+0315 has no association with quotation marks, reducing ambiguity in contexts where both elision and quotes appear.

Disadvantages of U+0315

1. Typographic Tradition: The Greek elision mark has long been standardized as a raised, apostrophe-like symbol in print (mirroring U+2019), not a combining diacritic like U+0315. Fonts and scholars expect the elision marker to sit independently above the line, not anchored to a letter as U+0315 does. This could look odd or unconventional in polytonic Greek texts.
2. Font Support: While modern fonts like SBL Greek or Gentium support combining diacritics (e.g., accents, breathings), U+0315 isn’t commonly used in Greek typography. Some fonts might not render it correctly with Greek letters or might position it awkwardly, disrupting readability.
3. Semantic Misalignment: U+0315 is intended as a diacritic modifying a letter’s sound or form (e.g., in some Slavic or historical scripts), not as a syntactic marker like elision. The Greek apostrophe indicates a dropped vowel, not a modification of the preceding consonant, so U+0315’s combining status might imply a linguistic role it doesn’t have.
4. Compatibility: The SBLGNT and other digital Greek texts use U+2019, aligning with Unicode’s recommendation for apostrophes. Switching to U+0315 would break consistency with existing standards, requiring updates to tools, databases, and display systems—potentially impractical for a niche issue.

Does It Make Sense?

Not fully. While U+0315 could theoretically address the tokenization problem by binding to the word, it introduces more issues than it solves:

• Practicality: The "word character" issue with U+2019 can often be handled downstream in software (e.g., custom tokenization rules or preprocessing) rather than altering the text’s encoding. Replacing U+2019 with U+0315 risks compatibility and readability for a problem that’s more about tool behavior than the character itself.
• Convention: Greek scholarship and typography overwhelmingly favor U+2019 (or its visual equivalent) for elision. Deviating to U+0315 would confuse readers and clash with established norms.
• Alternatives: If the goal is better text processing, U+02BC (MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE, ʼ) might be a closer fit. It’s a letter-like modifier (Unicode category Lm), not punctuation, and could be treated as part of a word more consistently. However, it’s still not standard for Greek elision and lacks U+2019’s typographic heritage.

Conclusion

Replacing U+2019 with U+0315 doesn’t make sense as a general solution for Greek elision in texts like the SBLGNT. The tokenization issue is real but better addressed through software adjustments (e.g., defining U+2019 as a word-internal character in specific contexts) rather than re-encoding the text in a way that breaks tradition and compatibility. U+2019’s use reflects a deliberate balance of history, standards, and practicality, even if it’s imperfect for some digital use cases. For now, it’s the least bad option.

[DavidHaslam]

Me: Can you list several English words in which the typographical apostrophe is commonly used to mark elision?

Grok: Here are several English words where an apostrophe is commonly used to mark elision—the omission of letters or sounds, typically for contractions or informal usage:

1. Can't - Short for "cannot"
2. Don't - Short for "do not"
3. Won't - Short for "will not"
4. It's - Short for "it is" or "it has"
5. I'm - Short for "I am"
6. You're - Short for "you are"
7. They've - Short for "they have"
8. Isn't - Short for "is not"
9. O'clock - Short for "of the clock"
10. 'Cause - Informal short form of "because"

These examples show how the apostrophe replaces omitted letters to form contractions or indicate dropped sounds in casual speech. Let me know if you'd like more!

Me: Are there any examples in English of words in which a typographical apostrophe marking elision occurs at the end of the word?

Grok: In standard English, typographical apostrophes marking elision—where letters are omitted and replaced by an apostrophe—typically occur within or between words, not at the end. However, there are rare and context-specific cases where an apostrophe might appear at the end of a word to indicate an omission, particularly in informal, poetic, or dialectal usage.

One example could be the word "doin'" (from "doing"), where the "g" is omitted, and the apostrophe signals that elision. While this is more commonly seen in representations of spoken dialects (e.g., "I'm doin' fine"), it technically fits the description of an apostrophe at the word's end to mark the omission of a letter.

Another potential case arises in archaic or poetic English, such as "see'" (from "see ye"), where "ye" is contracted and the apostrophe stands at the end to indicate the dropped letters. This usage is less common today but can be found in older texts or stylized writing.

In standard modern English, though, such examples are uncommon because elision typically happens in contractions like "can't" (cannot) or "it's" (it is), where the apostrophe is internal. Word-final apostrophes are more often possessive (e.g., "dog's") rather than elisive. So, while "doin'" and rare cases like "see'" qualify, they are exceptions rather than the norm.

[DavidHaslam]

Me: Can you list several French words in which the typographical apostrophe is commonly used to mark elision?

Grok: In French, the apostrophe is frequently used to mark elision, where a vowel (usually at the end of a word) is omitted and replaced by an apostrophe when followed by a word beginning with a vowel or a mute "h." This is a standard feature of French grammar, particularly with pronouns, articles, and certain conjunctions. Here are several common examples:

1. L'amour - From "le amour" (the love), where "le" loses its "e" before the vowel "a" in "amour."
2. J'ai - From "je ai" (I have), where "je" loses its "e" before the vowel "a" in "ai" (a form of "avoir").
3. C'est - From "ce est" (it is), where "ce" loses its "e" before the vowel "e" in "est."
4. D'accord - From "de accord" (of agreement, meaning "okay"), where "de" loses its "e" before the vowel "a" in "accord."
5. Qu'as-tu - From "que as-tu" (what have you), where "que" loses its "e" before the vowel "a" in "as."
6. S'il - From "si il" (if he), where "si" loses its "i" before the vowel "i" in "il."
7. T'en - From "te en" (to you + of it), where "te" loses its "e" before the vowel "e" in "en."

These examples illustrate how elision with an apostrophe is a regular occurrence in French, smoothing pronunciation by avoiding vowel clashes. The apostrophe typically appears within the resulting word, not at the end, aligning with French orthographic conventions.

[DavidHaslam]

Me: Can you list several Greek words in which the typographical apostrophe is commonly used to mark elision?

Grok: In Ancient Greek, the apostrophe is used to mark elision, a process where a final vowel (or sometimes a vowel with a consonant) is omitted before a word beginning with a vowel, and the omission is indicated by an apostrophe. This is common in poetry, prose, and spoken forms to maintain smooth pronunciation and meter. Unlike modern languages like French, the apostrophe in Greek often appears at the end of a word in written texts to signify the dropped letters. Here are several examples from Ancient Greek:

1. ἐστ’ (est’) - From "ἐστί" (esti, meaning "is"), where the final "ι" is elided before a following vowel (e.g., "ἐστ’ ἄν" for "ἐστί ἄν").
2. δ’ (d’) - From "δέ" (de, meaning "but" or "and"), where the "ε" is dropped before a vowel (e.g., "δ’ ἄλλος" for "δέ ἄλλος," meaning "but another").
3. τ’ (t’) - From "τε" (te, meaning "and"), where the "ε" is elided (e.g., "τ’ ἄρα" for "τε ἄρα," meaning "and so").
4. ἀλλ’ (all’) - From "ἀλλά" (alla, meaning "but"), where the "ά" is elided (e.g., "ἀλλ’ ἔστι" for "ἀλλά ἔστι," meaning "but there is").
5. οὐκ’ (ouk’) - From "οὐκί" (ouki, a form of "not"), where the "ι" is dropped (e.g., "οὐκ’ ἔστι" for "οὐκί ἔστι," meaning "it is not").
6. ἐν becomes ἐν τ’ (en t’) - In phrases like "ἐν τ’ οἴκῳ" (en t’ oikō), where "ἐν" (en, meaning "in") loses its final consonant sound before a vowel, though this is less common and context-dependent.

In these cases, the apostrophe typically appears at the end of the shortened word in written Greek, marking where the elision occurs. This practice is especially prevalent in classical texts like those of Homer or Sophocles, where meter and flow dictate such contractions. Note that in Modern Greek, elision is far less common and the apostrophe is rarely used for this purpose, as the language has evolved simpler phonetic rules. These examples are thus rooted in Ancient Greek usage.

[DavidHaslam]

Me: Are there any other languages that use a non-Roman writing system (script) in which a typographical apostrophe or its equivalent is used to mark elision?

Grok: In languages with non-Roman writing systems, the use of a typographical apostrophe (or an equivalent symbol) to mark elision—where sounds or letters are omitted and indicated in writing—is less common than in Roman-script languages like French or English. This is partly because many non-Roman scripts are designed to reflect pronunciation or morphology differently, often incorporating elision implicitly without a distinct marker like the apostrophe. However, there are some notable cases where a symbol akin to an apostrophe or a diacritic serves a similar purpose, even if not always identical to the Western concept of elision marking. Here are a few examples:

1. Arabic (Arabic Script)

• Context: Arabic uses the abjad script, which primarily represents consonants, with vowels often indicated by optional diacritics. Elision occurs naturally in spoken Arabic, especially in colloquial dialects, where vowels are dropped for fluidity.
• Symbol: The hamza (ء) or its variants (e.g., أ, إ, ئ,ؤ) can sometimes function as a marker related to elision, though it’s more about glottal stops or vowel transitions than a direct apostrophe equivalent. In some transliterations to Roman script, an apostrophe is used to reflect this.
• Example: In spoken Egyptian Arabic, "ما أعرفش" (mā a‘rafsh, "I don’t know") elides sounds from the formal "ما أعرف" (mā a‘rif), and the apostrophe in transliteration mimics the dropped sound. However, in Arabic script itself, no separate apostrophe-like mark is added; the elision is phonetic and context-driven.

2. Hebrew (Hebrew Script)

• Context: Hebrew, another abjad script, often elides vowels in spoken forms, especially in informal Modern Hebrew. The script itself doesn’t typically use an apostrophe, but a related symbol exists.
• Symbol: The geresh (׳) looks like an apostrophe and is occasionally used in informal writing or transliteration to indicate contractions or elision, especially in Yiddish-influenced Hebrew or slang.
• Example: In slang, "מה’קורה" (ma’kore, "what’s happening") might contract "מה קורה" (ma kore), with the geresh marking the omitted syllable. This isn’t standard in formal Hebrew, where elision is usually implicit in pronunciation rather than marked in script.

3. Hawaiian (Latin Script with Non-Roman Origins, Adapted Case)

• Context: While modern Hawaiian uses a Latin alphabet, its orthography derives from a non-Roman Polynesian linguistic tradition, and it’s worth mentioning as a bridge case. The ʻokina (ʻ), a glottal stop symbol resembling a reverse apostrophe, marks a break or elision of what would otherwise be a continuous vowel sound.
• Example: "Hawaiʻi" (historically from "Hawaiki" in Polynesian) uses the ʻokina to indicate a glottal stop, effectively marking the elision of a smoother vowel transition. Though not elision in the classic sense (omission within a word), it functions similarly by separating and signaling a phonetic shift.

4. Inuktitut (Canadian Syllabics)

• Context: Inuktitut, an Inuit language, uses a syllabic script developed by missionaries. Elision occurs in spoken forms, but the syllabics typically reflect the full pronunciation.
• Symbol: In Romanized transliterations, an apostrophe sometimes marks elision or a glottal stop, though the syllabic script itself (e.g., ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ) doesn’t use an equivalent marker.
• Example: "Qanuq’it" (how are you) in transliteration might drop sounds from a longer form, with the apostrophe indicating the contraction. In syllabics, this is less explicit, as the script adapts to pronunciation without a distinct elision mark.

Observations

• Non-Roman Scripts: Most non-Roman scripts (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Devanagari, Cyrillic) don’t use an apostrophe-like mark for elision in their native forms. In Chinese, for instance, elision is handled phonetically in speech (e.g., "bu yao" → "b’ya" in rapid Mandarin), but the logographic script (不要) remains unchanged. Japanese kana reflect pronunciation directly without needing an elision marker.
• Transliteration Exception: When non-Roman script languages are transliterated into Roman alphabets, apostrophes often appear to mark elision or glottal stops (e.g., Arabic "al-‘ayn" or Russian "ob’yekt" from Cyrillic объект), but this is a Roman-script convention, not native to the original writing system.

In summary, while non-Roman scripts rarely employ a typographical apostrophe or direct equivalent for elision within their native systems—preferring implicit phonetic adjustments or diacritics like hamza or geresh—some parallels exist, especially in informal usage or transliteration. The concept of marking elision explicitly with a symbol like the apostrophe seems more tied to Roman-script traditions.

[DavidHaslam]

https://grok.com/share/bGVnYWN5_87378098-dc39-4653-9910-6282eb2700eb

[DavidHaslam]

Me: Can you list any German words in which the typographical apostrophe is commonly used to mark elision?

Grok: In German, the use of a typographical apostrophe to mark elision—where letters are omitted and replaced by an apostrophe—is not as systematic or widespread as in languages like French or Ancient Greek. Standard German tends to avoid contractions with apostrophes in formal writing, preferring full forms or compound words. However, apostrophes are commonly used in informal, spoken, or dialectal German to reflect elision, especially in colloquial speech, poetry, or song lyrics. These contractions are often optional and more stylistic than grammatically required. Here are several examples:

1. Guten Morgen → G’morgen

   • Meaning: "Good morning." The "uten" is elided, and the apostrophe marks the omission of those letters. Common in casual greetings.

2. Ich habe → Ich hab’

   • Meaning: "I have." The "e" at the end of "habe" is dropped in informal speech, with the apostrophe indicating the elision. (Note: "Ich hab" without the apostrophe is also widely accepted in casual writing.)

3. Es ist → ’s ist

   • Meaning: "It is." The "E" of "es" is elided before "ist," especially in dialects or older texts. This is less common today but appears in poetic or regional usage.

4. Wie geht es → Wie geht’s

   • Meaning: "How are you?" The "es" is contracted to "’s," with the apostrophe marking the omitted "e." This is one of the most recognized examples in standard informal German.

5. Auf dem → Auf’m

   • Meaning: "On the" (masculine/neuter dative). The "de" of "dem" is elided, and the apostrophe shows the omission. Common in spoken German, especially in southern dialects.

6. In das → In’s

   • Meaning: "Into the" (neuter accusative). The "da" of "das" is contracted, with the apostrophe marking the elision. Seen in informal or dialectal contexts.

7. Was ist → Was’

   • Meaning: "What is." The "ist" can be reduced in rapid speech, with the apostrophe signaling the dropped letters (e.g., "Was’ los?" for "What’s up?"). This is highly informal and context-dependent.

Notes on Usage

• Informality: In standard written German, such as in formal letters or academic texts, these elisions are typically avoided, and the full forms (e.g., "ich habe," "wie geht es") are used. The apostrophe appears more in casual writing, advertisements, or dialogue to mimic speech.
• Dialects: In regional dialects like Bavarian or Swabian, elision with apostrophes is more frequent (e.g., "i bin" → "i b’" for "I am"), but these aren’t standard German words.
• Contrast with Possessives: German also uses apostrophes for possessives (e.g., "Anna’s Buch" for "Anna’s book"), but this is distinct from elision and follows different rules.

While German doesn’t rely on apostrophes for elision as heavily as French does with articles or pronouns, these examples show how they’re employed in informal contexts to reflect natural speech patterns. The apostrophe here consistently marks the omission of letters, aligning with the concept of elision.