Something just came up at work and I'd love to hear how you all weigh in on this. I'll try to make this as to the point as I can. I work for the Libraries of The Ohio State University. In our main library on the first floor are metal inlays in the floor with various writing systems inscribed in them. They are very unique and are constantly noticed and remarked upon. Since people often wonder what language they are in and we get this question all the time, we created a brochure to explain them. There are 40 of them. In addition to this we created a sign holder for the brochures and the sign says "What's That Say?" by way of introducing the brochures and explaining what the floor inlays are all about.
We just got a call from a clearly agitated professor who is appalled that we have this up in our library since it is grammatically incorrect and is setting such a poor example to every student walking through our building. Mind you, this display has been up for 4 years since we reopened after our renovation and this professor has been in our building many times during that time and has just chosen to mention this now. No one else has seen fit to comment.
Is this a valid concern on his part? My take on it is that since it's basically like an advertisement for the brochure it is ok to word it as one would normally talk – and that is how the students tend to ask about the floor – they actually say "what's that say?" when enquiring. He also goes on to say that the contraction "what's" can only be used to stand for "what is" and since you wouldn't say "what is that say" then it is wrong. But couldn't the contraction also stand for "what does" and the apostrophe stand for the removal of the "doe?" I am curious about that aspect of the issue – now that I've been made to consider it.
One thing that might be a slight factor is that the upset professor is British and could this possibly be a little bit cultural? I have been to England many times and listen to their radio programs quite a lot and watch a lot of British television shows. I am a bit of an Anglophile. They do seem to have more of a tendency to say things in a longer, more drawn out way or a more proper way, where Americans tend to shorten or abbreviate the ways they say things (as a generality). This is something I only have purely anecdotal evidence for but it also ran through my mind as I was mulling this over. Perhaps if this gentleman just doesn't speak in this way then it would sound much more abnormal to him.
I think that most people take this totally as it's intended – as the way people speak – and to point out that many wonder about what languages are in our curious floor inlays. I actually got to design the floor inlays and it was a fascinating project for which I did a lot of research. It is wonderful that so many are interested and curious about them – enough so that we have to print up brochures to explain in full detail what they are.
I'd love to hear what some of you think of this issue.... can "what's" be grammatically correct for "what does?" It just sounds too stilted and formal for a college student to ask "what does that say?" It's not as if the poster needs to conform to a style guide one would use for writing a term paper or thesis.
thanks!
dieverdog said
He also goes on to say that the contraction "what's" can only be used to stand for "what is"
This is the whole problem, right here. Your professor is mistaken. While what's can stand for what is, it can also (as you note) stand for what does, as well as for what has (as in "What's been going on?").
Apostrophe plus s can also, in other contexts, indicate a possessive (and bear in mind the struggle so many have keeping its and it's straight), or even for us (example sentence: "Let's visit the library").
For the purpose of a sign designed to attract the attention of visitors, I have no problem with informal grammar or contractions. As I understand it, an apostrophe can be used just about anywhere to represent omitted letters. For example: 'cause = because, o'clock = of the clock, readin' = reading.
In (informal) English, there are also many un-apostrophed contractions: gotta, wanna, shoulda, gimme. Your professor would likely also object to seeing those in print. I believe acceptance of informal constructions is one of the large differences between American and British English, whether spoken or written.
I think it is good. While it isn't a contraction I would include in any formal writing, it is a real contraction made in speaking American English. As such, it has a proper place in some stylistic writing.
Your prof may feel that your sign is not one of those proper places. I disagree. When he objected, he shouldn't've.
Sidney Greenbaum writes in the Oxford English Grammar: “The contracted form 's is only occasionally found in writing: Who's she take after?, What's he say? It is more common in informal speech.â€
S'long as we're talkin' 'bout informal contractions, why stop at one apostrophe per word? Check out this post at Wordnik suggesting "wouldn't've" as a contraction of "would not have."
And this somewhat more authoritative entry at Wiki suggesting "fo'c'sle" or "fo'c's'le" for "forecastle."
Beyond two apostrophes, I think we'd be approaching what they call "Bandwurmwörter" in German ... literally "tapeworm words" that string together many modifiers as a single word. One example is "Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän" which translates to "Danube steamship company captain." That's 41 letters, and almost beats the English "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" at 45 letters.