Sir – Nicholas Lawrence recommends abolishing the apostrophe (Letters, September 15).

Messrs Moreton and Augarde, in last week’s letters, have already offered fine arguments to counter this, so I hope this letter will be enough to convert any remaining doubters.

Aesthetically, anyone who values the English language, and loves reading and writing, as so many of us do, should oppose this niggardly, puritanical, proposal, which seems to me like banning the final flourish of the artist. In any case, languages evolve, they do not change by dictate.

From a utilitarian standpoint, this idea also makes no sense. Take the sentence: “The class’s behaviour is problematic.” Should this be rendered “classs” with three “s”s and no indication of pronunciation? Or take: “The boy’s marbles should be confiscated.” Without the apostrophe, “boys” could refer to one boy or a whole class of boys. If the marbles belonging to all the boys were meant, then this would be conveyed accurately thus: “The boys’ marbles should be confiscated.” And of course “boys” could be just a plural.

Foreigners, for whom the apostrophe, signifying the genitive (or possessive) case, makes understanding written English so much easier, will lose one of their signposts.

Mr Lawrence seems to want us to forsake not only the beauty but the precision of our language, apparently because he is unable or unwilling to understand a few simple grammatical rules which have been understood by millions of people, and all our best writers, in the past. We must retain our marbles, and our apostrophes, and not “dumb down” our language in this way.

Ken Weavers, Headington