http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/its.html
http://www.serendipity.li/errors.html#its
It seems our education system isn't as bad as we think ( regarding english lessons ) !
http://www.serendipity.li/errors.html#its
It seems our education system isn't as bad as we think ( regarding english lessons ) !
Hmmmm, I don't see any mention of "Joe his" on those links.....🙂
The links merely state that the correct rule now is for "its" to be the possessive of "it", instead of "it's".
However, nowhere in my posts #37 or #40 do I call that into question.
What I did say in those posts, and say now, is that I consciously use the older form-"it's"-instead of generally accepted present form-"its".
The older and logically consistent form-"it's"-would fit right in with all the other possessives in the English language. This is something the present form-"its"-does not do.
And considering the state of the language, we need all the simple and easily followed rules we can get. 🙂
I also opined that I feel justified in doing this because to revive an older accepted form is not the same as making up a new term.
The links merely state that the correct rule now is for "its" to be the possessive of "it", instead of "it's".
However, nowhere in my posts #37 or #40 do I call that into question.
What I did say in those posts, and say now, is that I consciously use the older form-"it's"-instead of generally accepted present form-"its".
The older and logically consistent form-"it's"-would fit right in with all the other possessives in the English language. This is something the present form-"its"-does not do.
And considering the state of the language, we need all the simple and easily followed rules we can get. 🙂
I also opined that I feel justified in doing this because to revive an older accepted form is not the same as making up a new term.
Hi keltic,
I'm guessing those of us that grew up with a mom who as an English major in university, agree with your grasp of the i-t-s word. It's funny though that the rule for possessive, changes to meet the needs of the words that have already used up those "apparent rule" slots. Apostrophe tends to mean possessive until you run into the "its" problem. It with the apostrophe should mean "it is" whereas with other words the apostrophe can't mean " __ is".
This is just one of the many things that bugs me about the language.
I hope it"s' okay 😀
Mind you I do like those who can use the apostrophe on the outside of an S'.
This thread is good, Martha told me so, from her cell
Back to the "ough"
How about
Bough - bow
Cough - cof
Slough - slew
and same spelling:
Slough - sluff
I thought the purpose of language was enable easier communication. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Cal
I'm guessing those of us that grew up with a mom who as an English major in university, agree with your grasp of the i-t-s word. It's funny though that the rule for possessive, changes to meet the needs of the words that have already used up those "apparent rule" slots. Apostrophe tends to mean possessive until you run into the "its" problem. It with the apostrophe should mean "it is" whereas with other words the apostrophe can't mean " __ is".
This is just one of the many things that bugs me about the language.
I hope it"s' okay 😀
Mind you I do like those who can use the apostrophe on the outside of an S'.
This thread is good, Martha told me so, from her cell
Back to the "ough"
How about
Bough - bow
Cough - cof
Slough - slew
and same spelling:
Slough - sluff
I thought the purpose of language was enable easier communication. Perhaps I'm wrong.
Cal
sorry keltic... I don't follow your logic.
It seems that your position is that since possessives use apostrophes, it's should be the possessive form?
What about the following possessives:
Their/theirs
Your/yours
Our/ours
His
Hers
Mine
And... drum roll please... its. As far as the possessive form of pronouns go, the spelling of its without an apostrophe is perfectly consistent. Nouns get 's, pronouns don't. Simple rule.
On the other side of the coin, what does adding an s to make something plural have to do with its and it's? Neither is plural. In fact, I don't think you can have more than one it... without it becoming them, which is why we have a different pronoun just for that case.
However, the it's form certainly is consistent with other words like it... namely contractions. "That is" can be shortened to "that's" just as "it is" can be shortened to "it's." No contradiction there. Follows the same rule as can't, I've, haven't, etc.
What would you propose that we do? Make it's the only possessive pronoun with an apostrophe and its the only contraction without? Hardly seems logical, but maybe thats just me. 😉
BTW, this topic brings up something I've always wondered about (that being the topic of spelling like we pronounce, or pronouncing like we spell at least). You can shorten "I would" to "I'd" and you can shorten "would have" to "would've." I know people around this area say "I'd've" all the time... but I'm certain I've never heard any mention of a double contraction in the English language. Why not?
It seems that your position is that since possessives use apostrophes, it's should be the possessive form?
What about the following possessives:
Their/theirs
Your/yours
Our/ours
His
Hers
Mine
And... drum roll please... its. As far as the possessive form of pronouns go, the spelling of its without an apostrophe is perfectly consistent. Nouns get 's, pronouns don't. Simple rule.
On the other side of the coin, what does adding an s to make something plural have to do with its and it's? Neither is plural. In fact, I don't think you can have more than one it... without it becoming them, which is why we have a different pronoun just for that case.
However, the it's form certainly is consistent with other words like it... namely contractions. "That is" can be shortened to "that's" just as "it is" can be shortened to "it's." No contradiction there. Follows the same rule as can't, I've, haven't, etc.
What would you propose that we do? Make it's the only possessive pronoun with an apostrophe and its the only contraction without? Hardly seems logical, but maybe thats just me. 😉
BTW, this topic brings up something I've always wondered about (that being the topic of spelling like we pronounce, or pronouncing like we spell at least). You can shorten "I would" to "I'd" and you can shorten "would have" to "would've." I know people around this area say "I'd've" all the time... but I'm certain I've never heard any mention of a double contraction in the English language. Why not?
RHosch said:
So who recommended adding an "s" to make "it" plural? Not I. I recommended re-adding the apostrophe to "its", which once was there, to keep it consistent with the rule that normally we add an apostrophe to make any word possessive, while we add an "s" or an "es" to make it plural. Just because "it" is one of those words with a unique plural form does not mean we should complicate matters by giving "it" a special possessive form as well.
RHosch said:
How do you figure that because I suggested that we spell the possessive of "it" as "it's", I also suggested that we spell the contraction for "it is" as "its"? What gave you that idea?
I have no problem with spelling the contraction of "it is" as "it's", just as I have no problem with spelling the contraction of "car is" as "car's", (eg, "...car's giving me trouble"). The difference between a possessive and a contraction usually becomes clear by the end of the sentence.
RHosch said:
If you look at your own list, I think you will see that all of those words denote possession already. So they don't need the " 's" form to transform them into possessive words.
"It" is not possessive, just as "table", "chair", "lawn" and most other words are not possessive in their normal form. So "it" should get the same treatment, (the apostrophe and the "s"), to become transformed into a possessive, just like all the other words.
kelticwizard said:
Precisely.
I think perhaps you have overlooked something important... not "all other words" get an 's to make them possessive. All pronouns have special possesive forms. All of them. They becomes their or theirs, he becomes his, it becomes its, etc. Not one of them adds an apostrophe to make the pronoun possessive. Why should "it" be an exception when "it" follows the rule now? Isn't that just complicating things further?
As I said, the rule is pretty simple. Nouns get an apostrophe to make them possessive, pronouns have special forms. No exceptions that I can think of. I prefer that to having a special case for one pronoun but not the others. Or would you also suggest replacing his with he's, her with she's, etc. and having the confusion now over which is possessive and which is a contraction? The forms of its and it's are the way they are now for good reason...
I think I'm going to adopt Hawaiian as my new language. Thirteen letters and all the vowels have only one sound.
Mind you I'd have to go there to learn it. Give up Vancouver weather for Kehei on Maui? Hmmm... tough decision. I'll have to let you know.
Mele Kalikimaka. There that's a start, just the wrong time of year that's all.
Cal
Mind you I'd have to go there to learn it. Give up Vancouver weather for Kehei on Maui? Hmmm... tough decision. I'll have to let you know.
Mele Kalikimaka. There that's a start, just the wrong time of year that's all.
Cal
RHosch said:
That's a great rule for people who have thoughts of "what is the proper pronoun to use in this predicate?" while they speak or write. That might be .0001% of the population.
For the rest of us, "it" is a "thing substitute". You use "it" when you want to refer to something else and want to use a different word. "It" gets substituted for "car", "boat", "book", "wrench", just about anything. And since the possessive for the aforementioned words is "car's", "boat's", "book's" and "wrench's" respectively, using "it's" for the possessive of "it" which is substituting for those words is simple common sense.
Moreover, please take a look at the list of other pronoun possessives you supplied:
Please note that the accepted form is radically different from the subject in question. They evolved away from the rule probably before the rule was ever established, or English was ever spoken in a form we would recognize today. If we followed the normal rule for those words, we would have the following unrecognizable forms:
Them's
You's, (You might hear it, but it is so bad it's considered a joke)
We's
He's
Her's
I's
Aside from "her's", which you do see occasionally, all the other possessives long ago took on forms that are not even remotely close to following any recognizable rule.
"It", on the other hand, with the possessive form "it(')s", has a possessive which, when spoken, follows the same rule all the words follow. This gives us the thoroughly ridiculous situation of having a word following the general rule when it is spoken and departing from the general rule when it is written.
Now I ask you, where is the sense in that?
If the word, in it's present state of usage, is close enough to sound like it is following the general rule, then we should be logically consistent and have it follow the general rule when it is written. Really, it is the only sensible way. 🙂
I simply don't see the advantage of making a special case for its so that it conforms to your ideal of not breaking "the rule" that nouns follow, only to make it break a different rule that pronouns follow.
If you really want to "fix" the situation, without having any apparent special cases, then you should simply promote the creation of a completely new form of it for the possessive case. He becomes his, them becomes theirs, it becomes ???
In that way, there is no longer a confusion between its and it's, because there would no longer be an its. If you are concerned with this being awkward, I would agree, but at least it would create consistency for this particular case.
If you really want to "fix" the situation, without having any apparent special cases, then you should simply promote the creation of a completely new form of it for the possessive case. He becomes his, them becomes theirs, it becomes ???
In that way, there is no longer a confusion between its and it's, because there would no longer be an its. If you are concerned with this being awkward, I would agree, but at least it would create consistency for this particular case.
Chicken or egg?
You know, discussions over what is correct or incorrect in language according to the "rules" are quite interesting.
I'm not a linguist myself, but I do find language issues entertaining. I used to be a language fascist myself, but I've come to the conclusion that any rules on language and spelling are simply after the fact constructs. The rules are generally in place rather as something that tries to explain and classify existing behaviour, than as a "legal" device.
Language changes according to patterns that serve to simplify and clarify, and at the same time to create unity within smaller communities, in contrast with the greater number of people who are purposely excluded.
It can be observed that the degree of coherence between spelling and pronounciation depends on how long the language has been written. Thus, English has a spelling which is very odd in places, harking back to how it sounded back in the days of Chaucer, whereas Finnish, for example, is incredibly regular (I'm told - I don't understand Finnish myself).
So if you find spelling or grammar strange, all you have to do is change it. Chances are others will find it annoying or peculiar. It may or may not improve comprehension. Who knows - in 100 years you might be considered a forbearer of modern language!
Rune
You know, discussions over what is correct or incorrect in language according to the "rules" are quite interesting.
I'm not a linguist myself, but I do find language issues entertaining. I used to be a language fascist myself, but I've come to the conclusion that any rules on language and spelling are simply after the fact constructs. The rules are generally in place rather as something that tries to explain and classify existing behaviour, than as a "legal" device.
Language changes according to patterns that serve to simplify and clarify, and at the same time to create unity within smaller communities, in contrast with the greater number of people who are purposely excluded.
It can be observed that the degree of coherence between spelling and pronounciation depends on how long the language has been written. Thus, English has a spelling which is very odd in places, harking back to how it sounded back in the days of Chaucer, whereas Finnish, for example, is incredibly regular (I'm told - I don't understand Finnish myself).
So if you find spelling or grammar strange, all you have to do is change it. Chances are others will find it annoying or peculiar. It may or may not improve comprehension. Who knows - in 100 years you might be considered a forbearer of modern language!
Rune
Re: Chicken or egg?
Sounds like we'll have to start a movement there Rune.
Some of the other things that bother me are the extension of words.
Obliged has become obligated.
Using new words because the old ones don't seem good enough.
Impact used to be called effect.
Mispronunciation such as:
Kilometer now being KLO-mitter instead of kill-O-meter.
Pronounced the first way makes it sound like a measuring device, not a measure.
You don't sat KLO- gram you say kill-O-gram
Enough for now
Cal
runebivrin said:
Sounds like we'll have to start a movement there Rune.
Some of the other things that bother me are the extension of words.
Obliged has become obligated.
Using new words because the old ones don't seem good enough.
Impact used to be called effect.
Mispronunciation such as:
Kilometer now being KLO-mitter instead of kill-O-meter.
Pronounced the first way makes it sound like a measuring device, not a measure.
You don't sat KLO- gram you say kill-O-gram
Enough for now
Cal
RHosch said:
The advantage is as follows😛eople don't think in terms of nounds and pronouns. If you went into a shopping center or supermarket, set up a stand and offered $10 to anyone who passes by who can give a decent definition of a pronoun, by the end of the day I doubt you'll be down 50 bucks.
People think in terms of things, not pronouns. And "it" is a thing, therefore when we make it a poissessive we follow the same rule for possessives that applies to all the other things, namely " 's".
It is quite ridiculous to try to apply consistency to possessive pronouns anyway, as they come incredibly inconsistent right out of the box. If possessive pronouns were consistent we would have the following list of pronouns followed by their possessives:
Them/Thems
You/Yous
Us/Uss
Him/Hims
Her/Hers-hey, one actually works!
Mine/Mes
So out of the list of possessive pronoluns you supplied, one out of six is consistent.
Look-it is a simple fact that these possessives became part of the language while the language was still forming many, many centuries ago. If we could go back in time to the years when these words became accepted, we would not be able to understand the English the people spoke back then, and they would not be able to understand us.
So why should we even bring up consistency with this group of words which are not consistent in so many other ways?
Both "it(')s" and "her(')s" continued into the modern era having a direct relationship to the original pronoun. The modern language goes back well before the 1800s-we expect schoolchildren to read and understand Dickens and Bronte, do we not? Well, "it's" and "her's" were used back then, so they're modern. Why not just keep doing what they so wisely did back in the 1800s, which is to take the only two possessive pronouns which bear a resemblance to the original pronoun, and follow the rule that all the other words follow?
There is no sense in following the "rule" for possessive pronouns-the words are already inconsistent in so many ways anyway. Simply memorize "ours", "his", "their" etc, but let "it's" and "her's" follow the only functioning rule that exists-add " 's" to the end of a word to make it possessive.
kelticwizard said:
Maybe I'm a bit anal, but discussing how language should be written without the capacity to spell correctly is somewhat dubious...
Language is continously forming. There's no point in time when a language is done. It changes to accommodate changes in technology, culture, sociology, topography and any number of other factors. Correct is what agrees with the usage of the majority.
Rune
kelticwizard said:
runebivrin said:
I won't argue with that. As I have spelled the word "pronoun" correctly several times in this discussion, isn't it obvious that was a typo on my part?
I also mistyped "people" and it came out a laughing face. I try not to have typos in my posts, but these things happen.
runebivrin said:
Language is without a doubt changing all the time, but there is much to be said for standardizing usage at a certain time period.
The first dictionaries were by Johnson (1755), and Webster, (1828). Largely as a result, schoolchildren can pick up a book written back in the 19th Century by Dickens, Bronte or Austen and still understand it with little difficulty. That speaks volumes for the concept of standardization, even realizing that the standard will change over time.
By the way, I just had to add this line from Jane Austen's Emma, published in 1815:
They had it right in the 1800s. What went wrong? 🙂
Oh sure, I just couldn't resist the jibe.
I'm the one who put anal in an alligator clip😀
Yes. However, I think there's a difference between having a standard way to spell a particular word, and forcing a general rule on specifics. Language just doesn't work that way, it's much more anarchistic than that. The rules are written to let us spot the irregularities and learn those by heart. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if our memory of language (on an individual plane) evolves from general rules into a very granular ímage of each specific case. What I mean is that when we speak, we for example don't think of regular and irregular verbs. We just know that it's run, ran, ran, go, went, gone and walk, walked, walked. We are able to classify those in general patterns, but the pattern doesn't dictate the word forms. The word forms dictate the patterns.
Which is why children often get this wrong when the learn to speak, and apply the rules indiscrimately until the've spotted the irregularities.
Rune
kelticwizard said:
Classical case of redundancy elimination. There are no plural forms in the third person that denotes gender. So "hers" can't be thought of to imply "a group of women". Thus, the apostrophe fails to serve any distinguishing purpose, and is consequently dropped.
Rune
Here's an interesting pronunciation tidbit.
Canadian and British: Zed
American: Zee
I have wondered about this for some time. Here is what I found after a bit of research through my trusty Reader's Digest:
According to word columnist Howard Richler in Montreal, the Romans called this letter Zeta and over time, Zed became the predominant designation in England even though other variants suchs as Zad, Izzard and Zee, cropped up in British writings well into the 19th century. Both Zee and Zed were exported to America, with Zee dominating in the north and Zed in the south.
The matter was finally decided in the United States when New Englander Daniel Webster wrote in his American Dictionary of the English Language in 1928 (dated noted by Keltic in post #56) that, henceforth, the letter was to be pronouced Zee.
Cal
Canadian and British: Zed
American: Zee
I have wondered about this for some time. Here is what I found after a bit of research through my trusty Reader's Digest:
According to word columnist Howard Richler in Montreal, the Romans called this letter Zeta and over time, Zed became the predominant designation in England even though other variants suchs as Zad, Izzard and Zee, cropped up in British writings well into the 19th century. Both Zee and Zed were exported to America, with Zee dominating in the north and Zed in the south.
The matter was finally decided in the United States when New Englander Daniel Webster wrote in his American Dictionary of the English Language in 1928 (dated noted by Keltic in post #56) that, henceforth, the letter was to be pronouced Zee.
Cal
runebivrin said:
I don't think it works like that. I don't think we use the apostrophe merely to distinguish possession from the contraction. For instance, we still say "The mouse's path across the floor" even though the plural form is "mice". We don't drop the apostrophe.