Google+, Google’s answer to Facebook, has been generating a ton of buzz in its brief invitation-only phase. That’s about all I know about it; I’ve intentionally been avoiding investigating further. It doesn’t have FarmVille, so what’s the point? But I’m on Twitter too much to avoid Google+ entirely. I’d been getting 140-character updates about its importance or awesomeness from a variety of sources, but what finally got me to look into it was an update from an unexpected quarter: Ben Zimmer, with a tweet about the morphology of +1.
The +1 button on Google and Google+ is basically a generalization of Facebook’s “Like” button, indicating “what you like, agree with, or recommend on the web.” The trouble is that users are going to want to use +1 in more general contexts, treating the word* +1 as a stand-alone noun, verb, and so on. This already happened with Facebook’s Like, and there it was a pretty seamless process, since the new meaning of like could piggy-back on the morphology of the existing word like, resulting in likes, liked, liking, etc.
+1 doesn’t have this same ability, at least in text. Plus-one exists as a word in English, referring to “A person who accompanies another to an event as that person’s nominated guest, but who has not been specifically invited” (OED) — e.g., your date for an event. This word has its morphology basically worked out (plus-ones is used in the OED’s first attestation, back in 1977, and here’s an example of “plus-oned the alloys”, whatever that means). The trouble, though, is that the word isn’t written plus-one; it’s written +1. The pronounced forms are all worked out, but the written form is unestablished.
Credit is due to Google for recognizing this and wanting to establish the conventions. In their +1 help, they explain their spelling conventions, in which the morphologically complex forms are formed with apostrophes — +1’s, +1’d, +1’ing — rather than the plain forms +1s, +1d, +1ing. In so doing, they raised the hackles of some grammarians, so let’s look at each of the forms individually to try to explain the choice.
+1’s. Apostrophe-s is a standard way to pluralize nouns with strange forms, such as letters, numerals, acronyms, or abbreviations. This introduces ambiguity with the possessive form, but it avoids other ambiguities (such as pluralized a looking like the word as) and often looks better (I think Ph.D.s looks weird). Thus we see mind your p’s and q’s, multiple Ph.D.’s, and Rolling 7’s and 11’s. +1 ends in a numeral, so it’s not unusual to write it as +1’s instead of +1s, although either is acceptable. (For more on apostrophes in plurals, see this old post.)
+1’d. Apostrophe-d for the past tense is not as common as apostrophe-s for the plural, but it’s certainly not unheard of. Fowler’s Modern English Usage favors it for words ending in a fully pronounced vowel — forming mustachio’d instead of mustachioed, for example — in order to avoid a strange collocation of vowels clogging the end of the word. However, this appears to be a minority position; mustachioed generates about 35 times more Google hits than mustachio’d.
Apostrophe-d used to be a more general suffix, up until around the middle of the 19th century (judging by the Corpus of Historical American English). In Middle English, the -ed suffix was always pronounced with the vowel, and in Early Modern English, the vowel was optional in some words where today it is obligatorily omitted. If you’ve ever heard someone described as learned, pronounced /learn-ED/ instead of /learnd/, you’ve seen one of the few remaining vestiges of this alternation. With variation, it was useful to have different written forms to indicate whether the vowel was pronounced or not.
I first learned of this reading a Shakespeare play in which certain words were written as, for instance, blessèd, with an accent indicating that the second e was to be pronounced so that the meter of teh line was correct. To clarify cases where the vowel was not to be pronounced, poets and playwrights would sometimes vanish the e into an apostrophe. This edition of Hamlet, for instance, includes both drowned and drown’d on the same page when different characters are talking about the death of Ophelia:
Queen: Your sister’s drown’d, Laertes.
Clown: Argal, she drowned herself willingly.
But historical usage is dead, so perhaps the more relevant comparision is looking at other numerical verbs. The only one that’s coming to my mind is 86, meaning to eject or reject something. Looking around, I see both 86’d and 86ed used, with 86’d appearing to be a bit more common. The Wikipedia entry for 86 only has 86’d attested, and there’s also a book titled 86’d. At the very least, 86’d is an acceptable variant, and seemingly the more common as well. In that case, it’s not surprising that Google would choose +1’d over +1ed or +1d.
+1’ing. Lastly, we have the present participle. There isn’t a historical component to this usage like there was for the past tense. The apostrophe-ing form is attested for 86, appearing in the book Repeat Until Rich, but 86ing without the apostrophe looks to be a little bit more common on the web as a whole.** The trouble is that 86(‘)ing just isn’t well-attested in either form. Unlike the plural and past tense, there isn’t much of a precedent for apostrophe-ing, and in fact there doesn’t seem to be much of a precedent for the present participle of a numeral in general. I think that the choice to include the apostrophe in the present participle was made strictly for consistency’s sake; I doubt many people would prefer the paradigm +1’s, +1’d, +1ing to the more consistent one they chose.
The future. Of course, it doesn’t really matter what Google says, just as it doesn’t really matter what Strunk & White or Fowler or I or any other language commentator says. Language is what people do with it. Personally, I suspect that the apostrophes will disappear fairly quickly. Even in typing this, I kept on being annoyed that I had to send a finger out in search of an apostrophe. When you’re writing something often, you want to toss out unnecessary stuff — Facebook is a good example of this; when I first ended up on it back in 2004, you still had to type thefacebook.com to get to it, but that unnecessary the was quickly lost. As people become more familiar and comfortable with +1 and its inflected forms, the need (and the desire) for the apostrophes will ebb, and I think we’ll see +1s dominate. In fact, even typing +1 is kind of a pain (I keep accidentally typing +!), so I wouldn’t be surprised to see plus-ones, or even pluses, eventually become the standard.
—
*: I’m going to call +1 a word in this post, though you may find it more of a phrase. The key point is that it has a specific meaning that is not a simple sum of its component morphemes (plus and one), and that makes it word-like for my purposes.
**: 86’ing doesn’t appear in the Google N-grams corpus, suggesting it appeared less than 40 times in a trillion words. 86ing appears there with 962 hits.
19 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 8, 2011 at 10:20 am
Stan
Very helpful and interesting. I haven’t stuck my nose into +1 yet, but it’s inevitable that I will, and I’m curious to see how the attendant jargon will develop. It’s an awkward terminology whether apostrophes are used or not. If pluses and plussed, etc. emerge – and they probably will – there’s bound to be single-s/double-s confusion as well.
July 8, 2011 at 2:13 pm
johnwcowan
I realize this isn’t your main focus, but just to clarify the current situation: The few remaining forms that have syllabic -ed (other than after [t] and [d], where it is regular) are no longer participles. They have become deverbal adjectives that preserved the older pronunciation after their originating verbs lost it.
Such adjectives are now very rare. Searching the CAAPR pronouncing dictionaries, I find only six roots: aged, beloved, blessed, crabbed, (ac)cursed/cussed, (un)learned. All of these except beloved directly compete with the extant and monosyllabic participles. There is also a monosyllabic adjective unlearned directly from participial learned.
Finally, there is legged, which according to the OED is directly from the noun leg rather than via the denominal verb leg; it’s now mostly used in compounds like bare-legged, crook-legged, two-legged, four-legged, etc.
July 8, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Dan M.
I look forward to when the verb “+1” becomes spelled “plus”, even rarely, and adds another layer to the utter confusion as to the meaning of “nonplussed”.
July 8, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Kári Tulinius
One more for John Cowan’s list… I was falling asleep while listening to BBC film critic Mark Kermode reviewing Malick’s Tree of Life when he says unashaméd. That woke me right up. You can hear it here. Latest episode, at about 37:57.
July 9, 2011 at 12:22 pm
John Lawler
Whatever the origin of the apostrophe, it’s become standard for strange-form noun suffixes, and this is a strange-form verb suffix. One sees the logic of Google+’s decision right away. And users will.
I’d argue for +1’ed against +1ed anyway; 1 looks way too much like l and I (that’s lowercase Ell and and uppercase Eye, for those of you without a serif font), and needs to be distinguished from them in writing.
But worrying about the spelling before the pronunciation has had a chance
to set generally results in spelling conventions that date pretty fast. As you point out, it doesn’t matter what anybody says, individually; it only matters what everybody winds up saying, eventually.
July 10, 2011 at 3:04 am
Indignant Desert Birds » Sunday Morning Reading Material Second Sunday in July 2011- The dream is alive but sleeping Edition
[…] launched Google+ last week. It’s a great service, but an incredibly awkward name. When Google had to create a style guide to help people figure out how to grammatically incorporate […]
July 10, 2011 at 10:37 am
Michael Gisinger
I hate plurals with an apostrophe. While I can understand it when using individual letters (I got all A’s in Geography), I’d prefer dropping the periods in acronyms and abbreviations and not using an apostrophe (PhDs). That whole Ph. D.’s construct is jut obnoxious.
July 10, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Terrence Lockyer
Another number fairly commonly used as a verb is “69”, of which the participle form without apostrophe appears to be more common.
July 11, 2011 at 11:02 am
Dan Sunstrum
Did you consider the hyphen-ing suffix for forming present participles of strange nouns (i.e. 86-ing)? I feel like I see that more than apostrophe-ing, but maybe I’m imagining it.
July 11, 2011 at 5:52 pm
The Ridger
Are you familiar with the 1712 essay by Jonathan Swift (the whole letter here)?
A Proposal for Correcting, Improving, and Ascertaining the English Tongue, in a Letter to the Most Honorable Robert Earl of Oxford and Mortimer, Lord High Treasurer of Great Britain,
There is another Sett of Men who have contributed very must to the spoiling of the English Tongue; I mean the Poets, from the Time of the Restoration. These Gentlemen, although they could not be insensible how much our Language was already overstocked with Monosyllables; yet, to same Time and Pains, introduced that barbarous Custom of abbreviating Words, to fit them to the Measure of their Verses; and this they have frequently done, so very injudiciously, as to form such harsh unharmonious Sounds, that none but a Northern Ear could endure: They have joined the most obdurate Consonants without one intervening Vowel, only to shorten a Syllable: And their Taste in time became so depraved, that what was a first a Poetical License not to be justified, they made their Choice, alledging, that the Words pronounced at length, sounded faint and languid. This was a Pretence to take up the same Custom in Prose; so that most of the Books we see now a-days, are full of those Manglings and Abbreviations. Instances of this Abuse are innumerable: What does Your Lordship think of the Words, Drudg’d, Disturb’d, Rebuk’t, Fledg’d, and a thousand others, every where to be met in Prose as well as Verse? Where, by leaving out a Vowel to save a Syllable, we form so jarring a Sound, and so difficult to utter, that I have often wondred how it could ever obtain.
July 15, 2011 at 12:32 pm
This Week’s Language Blog Roundup | Wordnik ~ all the words
[…] Grammar wondered is it +1’d or +1ed (or perhaps we should call the whole thing off), while Word Spy spotted elderburbia, “suburbs […]
July 19, 2011 at 1:45 am
-Keith Hale-
There isn’t a +1 link on this post. O_O
So i pasted the URL into a G+ post.
July 19, 2011 at 5:49 am
Laurie
I agree that +1 is just plain awkward. Thanks to The Ridger for posting the piece by Jonathan Swift – very entertaining read.
July 19, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Andy
So, if I’m on Google+ I can be plussed or plus’d.
But if I’m not, I’m just nonplussed.
July 20, 2011 at 4:07 am
Mallika :)
Liked the post.. though I never thought about it.. but I wrote a post on Like vs. +1’s.. And the apostrophe just automatically comes in. I guess it’s just person to person. Google for now is using the apostrophe.. an I’m comfortable with that, so that’s good for me I guess. :D
July 20, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Hannah
I’ve been seeing +1, its antonym -1, shades of meaning in between (+0, -0), and intensifiers (+1000) for years in technical discussions on software lists. These are common modes of expressing agreement or disagreement, either to explicitly expressed technical proposals (“Let’s add feature X to our software system”) or more general discussions (“In general I think this practice is good.” “+1 to that”.).
So I’m pretty sure Google+ didn’t invent it by “generalizing” (??) the Facebook “Like”, but rather inserted this bit of geekspeak for the sake of the (…okay, can you call it “alliterative” if it refers to a symbol?) alliteration.
August 23, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Do you ♥ words with no letters? « Sentence first
[…] and standardise these forms, whose punctuation and morphology were explored in recent articles by Gabe Doyle and Ben […]
August 24, 2011 at 10:01 am
yelahneb
I’ve been calling the practice “one-upping”. As in, “Hey, I one-upped your amusing comment” or “I’m going one-up your excellent blog.” It shifts the original definition of the term from something competitive to something collaborative – or, if you’re a Mario Brothers fan, to simply a form of reward.
September 9, 2021 at 12:12 am
Ss0ng
The great approach to the language and what it is. Especially in “The future” segment.