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

JuneTCN@aol.com.