Many years ago, slightly after Moses was a boy but before the time your grandparents referred to as “in my day”, writing had no spaces between words.
Itlooksveryoddtous but classic Greek and Latin manuscripts show many examples of this.
There was no punctuation, such as commas, colons, dashes, or question marks. This was a jealously guarded tradition for centuries. Great orators took pride in reading from a scroll but interpreting for themselves where to include pauses, make exclamations, or ask questions.
Non-spaced text was, it must be said, a quite accurate interpretation of speech. If you listen to anyone talking (try it when you listen to the news) you don’t hear spaces, you hear a continual stream of words.
Accurate or not, the written word with no spaces was never easy to read. As writing evolved and became more and more widespread, the interpunct came to be used to separate words.
Interpuncts were (and still are) a punctuation mark.
They·are·single·dots centred on the height of letters, not at the bottom of a line like a full stop. You can see examples in the text on ancient monuments.
In a slow process, lasting from about 600 to 800 CE, the interpunct was replaced by gaps. Spaces were born. Modern writing as we know it came into being.
And thank goodness for that. Spaces are valuable. They ease understanding.
I fear, however, that spaces are under threat. They are being edged out by word contractions. In written English you see more and more contractions such as I’d, haven’t, couldn’t, and it’ll.
These contractions are commonly used in speech, but if you submitted an essay to an old-fashioned English teacher they would have vigorously scored their red pen through words like hadn’t, mightn’t, and it’d. He’s was particularly frowned upon as it could mean he is or he has.
Modern English is more tolerant of mashing words together. Indeed, I use contractions myself when writing. I don’t (there’s one!) mind I’m, I’ll, or weren’t. But, personally, would never write what’ve, what’re, that’re, or that’d. They just do not look right.
There are a few monstrous contractions that should never be seen in anyone’s writing.
It should be regarded as a crime against language to write: should’ve, could’ve, or would’ve.
They look ugly in themselves. But, much worse, when spoken they encourage the mispronunciations: should of, could of, and would of.
And what is spoken often becomes what is written.
Hearing these things is bad enough, if I saw them in print I don’t know if I’d be able to control myself!
Word of the week
Fungible (adjective)
Worthy of being traded for something of equal value. EG: “A good education in language and a pot of gold are fungible commodities”.
Read the latest Oh my word! every Saturday in The Courier. Contact me at sfinan@dctmedia.co.uk
