# Standardisation of contractions

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standardisation-of-contractions/215707>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [November 28, 2003, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standardisation-of-contractions/215707 "2003-11-28T09:15:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dave\_au](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@dave\_au](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dave_au)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standardisation-of-contractions/215707/1 "2003-11-28T09:15:46Z")

</div>

Hi all,

In an attempt to gain some culture, I have been reading Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carol.

One thing that struck me as interesting (rather than just generally bizarre) is his use of the contration ca’n’t in place of cannot / can not. I have a vague recollection from school of apostrophies being used to indicate places in contractions where letters have been removed, so the ca’n’t contraction seems to make complete sense.

There are a few things that I would like to know about this: Was this a commonly used contraction? (I don’t read a lot of books from the 1800’s). When did it change from ca’n’t to can’t? And finally, what is a good reference for learning more about punctuation and grammar in general? I have to do quite a bit of writing in the course of my job, and I would like to know that I am punctuating properly.

Thanks all.  
Dave T

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\
**Post date:** [November 28, 2003, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standardisation-of-contractions/215707/2 "2003-11-28T12:12:47Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> so the ca’n’t contraction seems to make complete sense.

Not if you consider the “n” to come from “can” rather than “not”…

A google search came up with:

> [@](#):
>
> \<can’t\> for \<cannot\> (according to Peter T. Daniels written \<ca’n’t\> until the 19th century, e.g. in the 1865 edition of Lewis Carroll’s _Alice in Wonderland_),

From [here](http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/13/13-1566.html), and I don’t know who Mr Daniels is…  
[Similarly](http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/l-sounds.html):

> [@](#):
>
> \>\>Lewis Carroll spelled them so in his “Alice” and “Sylie &  
> \>\>Bruno” biologies. He also used “ca’n’t”, and explained in  
> \>\>one of his prefaces that the apostophe that stands in for a  
> \>\>single “o” in so many “-n’t” shouldn’t be used to stand in  
> \>\>for “no” in one other.

It certainly would be considered incorrect, or at the very best charmingly archaic, these days.

Try [http://www.stpt.usf.edu/pms/intro.html](http://www.stpt.usf.edu/pms/intro.html) for some punctuation guidance, although I disagree with this part:

> [@](#):
>
> Finally, the apostrophe is used in one other way. Although the apostrophe is never used to make a word plural, it is used to make letters and numerals plural:
> 
> Although I received C’s and D’s in many of my college classes, I always received A’s in my business classes.
> 
> My sister received straight A’s throughout her college career.
> 
> My score sheet showed that I had six 5’s and three 4’s.

There is no need for those ugly apostrophes. Cs, Ds, As, 5s and 4s are all perfectly clear from context. Occasionally, if there is scope for confusion, you might want to use one, e.g. “A’s are not easy to attain on this course,” but in this instance I would rephrase by using “A-grades” instead.