A solid word defense peppered with apostrophes
JUNE CASAGRANDE
A TV commercial for a fast-food chain trumpets they’re “open ‘til
midnight or later.” A department store circular I got in the mail
says of its one-day sale, “Don’t stop ‘til they turn out the lights.”
A cable TV program is titled “Shop ‘Til You Drop.” And an ad in my
newspaper tells me that a furniture store is offering “free interest
‘til January.”
Yes, ‘tis the season when retailers everywhere double up their
conspiratorial efforts to make “‘til” look as legitimate as “‘tis.”
(‘Tis also the season when newspaper editors across the country send
out memos to their staffs warning them to lay off the hackneyed plays
on “‘Tis the season,” but this time they lose.)
The problem in the examples above, besides the fact that it makes
no sense to finance furniture (buy a $100 futon, do without a dining
set for a while) is that there’s no such thing as “‘til.” Bizarre as
it seems, the short version of “until” is actually “till.” Two Ls. No
apostrophe.
Quite honestly, it seems to me that this mistake reflects pretty
well on the person making it. I mean, someone who gets the concept of
contractions and apostrophes and shortened words would easily look at
“until” and think it makes much more sense to just lob off the “un”
and replace it with an apostrophe.
I thought that for years. It just doesn’t make sense to add
letters when you’re shortening a word. Yet, in this case, that’s how
it’s done. Logic is no help here. You have to know the rule. And now
you do.
Since I’ve been writing this column, I make mental notes of
interesting mistakes and language choices I see in the media and
elsewhere. A note about relying on mental notes: Not smart. Only in
the last week have I had the brilliant idea to begin writing down
these examples.
So here’s another fabulous observation, completely unrelated to
the “till” thing except that it’s also recorded in my new little
notebook. It’s from a Thursday L.A. Times article.
“Anxious troops awaiting deployment to Iraq peppered Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld with questions Wednesday ...”
Peppered? I’ve heard of “peppering one’s speech with adjectives”
but to pepper someone with questions? Really?
So I open my American Heritage Dictionary -- one I’ve had since
college so I suspect it won’t be up-to-date on the increasingly
popular use of “pepper” as a verb.
And, turning to the page with the word pepper, I immediately see
why I should never be too quick to criticize The Times copy editors.
“pepper: -tr. V. --pered, -pering, -pers. 1. To season or sprinkle
with pepper. 2. To sprinkle liberally; dot. 3. To pelt or shower with
small missiles. 4. To make lively and vivid with wit or invective, as
a speech or article.”
I suppose that No. 2 supports The Times’ use of the word because
one could argue that the troops liberally sprinkled Rumsfeld with
questions. (Yeah, a bit of a stretch, I know.)
I don’t think definitions three or four support their use,
however. They didn’t actually drop any small missiles on Rumsfeld
(more like major bombshells). Nor did they make Rumsfeld lively or
vivid, which is what definition No. 4 would require.
But, defensible as the sentence may be, allow me to say: Yuck. Bad
choice.
And that’s the last invective you’ll get from me -- till next
week.
* JUNE CASAGRANDE is a freelance writer. She can be reached at
All the latest on Orange County from Orange County.
Get our free TimesOC newsletter.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Daily Pilot.