Active Users:1483 Time:16/12/2025 02:14:44 AM
But contradictions are inherent in the entire English language! Nate Send a noteboard - 06/10/2011 01:25:39 AM
Because, frankly, the contradictory usage of "its" makes it impossible to say ANY general usage is correct; whichever general rule one affirms is contradicted, either by "its" or by the possessive form of every single other noun that does not end in "s."


It ... what? Contradictions in the English language make it impossible to say that any general usage is correct? The language is full of contradictions. They're everywhere. But there is still a standard. It may be different for different words, but it's still standard and accepted.

Here's your general rule for you: use it's when you mean "it is", and use "its" when you mean "belonging to it". Here's another general rule for you: use "everyone's" whether you mean "everyone is" or "belonging to everyone". There, that was easy.

Because that's the rule. That's what we use when we write. It doesn't matter if there's not an overall god-rule for the use of an apostrophe; there's no overall god-rule for the conversion of different forms of English verbs either, but I don't see you trying to convert all of those the same way. If you are concerned with general rules and consistent usage, why don't you write "standed" as the past participle of stand (instead of stood)? After all, the past form of strand is stranded, not strood. According to your logic here, we should be converting them all the same way, not one rule for one and a different rule for another. But we don't, and neither do you. Contradictions are the heart of the entire frigging language, and there's a rule for every one. It's the same with apostrophes. We don't just smooth everything out.

The "noun ending in 's'" qualifier is a standard and generally known rule for possessives: "'S" is not added to possessive forms of words ending in "s" because it looks unnatural and suggests an ambiguous pronunciation (ironically, if possessives were still formed in the full "es" this would be a non-issue, and one could write "the doges paw" as easily as "the octopuses tentacle," though there would like be a convention that forbade writing "the mulees hoof.";) Hence if I had meant "the ignorance of peoples" I would have written "peoples' ignorance" just as is normally done. It is hardly fair to suggest my meaning is ambiguous and therefore unacceptable because it relies on a rule that happens to be the CURRENT one for the possessive of nouns ending in "s."


But that's just it. How are other people supposed to know what rules you're using? You've already thrown one of the currently accepted rules out because it's not "standardized". How are we supposed to know your rules without the Primer to Joel's English? A person reads something of yours and sees no apostrophes for possessive forms. Do you expect them to think, "Oh, he must just be standardizing the apostrophe usage but still using all other rules the same"? Because what they actually think is, "Oh, Joel doesn't know how to use apostrophes, I wonder what else he's messed up."

1) Using apostrophe+"s" creates ambiguous meanings. I do not happen to agree, but it is no more or less likely for "it" than for any other noun or pronoun, so the usage--whatever we decide that is--should be standard in all cases.


Why should it remain standard in all cases? Nothing else in English does. That's part of why it's such an interesting and versatile language. As someone who loves English, I'm almost offended by your insistence that its rules should be standardized. And as I said above, you yourself don't standardize everything. Why standardize this but nothing else? Why standardize it at all when current usage is accepted and the meaning of the different words with different apostrophes is already well-understood by all? Your standardization serves no point but to confuse matters.

2) An apostrophe in the possessive "its" is, unlike the contraction "it's," superfluous because no letters are elided. Again, not strictly true on a historical basis, but generally regarded as such now; however and also once again, the same is as true for all nouns and pronouns as for "its," so the usage--whatever we decide that is--should be standard in all cases.


I trust I don't need to repeat my thoughts on standardization.

The usage of "its" is a settled matter; I am simply attempting to observe a consistent standard. More to the point, I am consciously trying to AVOID the very thing you allege: Adopting arbitrary standards solely on the whim of what suits us at the time. I would be equally happy to revert to apostrophe+"s" for "it" along with all other nouns (in fact, I would prefer it for the historical reasons already stated,) but using one standard for one word and a different one for all others, for no other reason than personal taste, is wholly arbitrary and untenable. Accept that and we might as well accept "ghoti" as an acceptable spelling of "fish" and let people spell every word and construct every sentence however they please with no regard for whether it makes sense to anyone else.


By your logic, the entire English language is "wholly arbitrary and untenable". What you're saying makes no sense at all. There is a consistent set of rules already in place, and it includes the spelling of "fish" and when to use an apostrophe in different words. It has an exception involving the word "its". Big whoop. Everything in our language has exceptions. The rules take the exceptions into account already. Changing one rule in the English language because it's not consistent is the equivalent of desalinizing a cup of sea water because it's salty. It's weird and frankly a little dumb.
Warder to starry_nite

Chapterfish — Nate's Writing Blog
http://chapterfish.wordpress.com
This message last edited by Nate on 06/10/2011 at 01:29:10 AM
Reply to message
Grammar junkies - 05/10/2011 06:46:31 PM 1126 Views
I'm not always sure that I'm correct, but.... - 05/10/2011 07:04:13 PM 816 Views
I didn't see any errors - 05/10/2011 07:24:27 PM 804 Views
Re: I didn't see any errors - 06/10/2011 03:14:07 PM 681 Views
You mean ... - 06/10/2011 03:58:32 PM 763 Views
Must ... have ... grammar. - 05/10/2011 07:53:34 PM 996 Views
For you and Tom as well, the same question about question eight. - 05/10/2011 08:33:39 PM 1276 Views
Tom can probably give you actual terms and correct rules, but here's my take on it. - 05/10/2011 08:43:47 PM 768 Views
That makes sense as far as it goes. - 05/10/2011 09:02:42 PM 806 Views
But do you actually regard them that way? - 05/10/2011 09:08:36 PM 790 Views
Yeah, pretty much. - 05/10/2011 09:25:18 PM 747 Views
Re: Yeah, pretty much. - 05/10/2011 09:29:33 PM 625 Views
OK then. - 05/10/2011 09:59:50 PM 790 Views
You bring up a point that I was researching the other day - 05/10/2011 08:53:40 PM 841 Views
You guys mean a hyphen, not a dash. - 05/10/2011 09:00:25 PM 803 Views
You're right of course! - 05/10/2011 09:13:44 PM 867 Views
I frequently am. - 05/10/2011 09:16:38 PM 868 Views
So I've noticed. - 05/10/2011 09:19:38 PM 787 Views
I like telling people, too. - 05/10/2011 09:34:50 PM 780 Views
You can use charmap. - 05/10/2011 10:21:32 PM 826 Views
Re: You guys mean a hyphen, not a dash. - 06/10/2011 01:15:02 PM 732 Views
Mmm, dashing. - 05/10/2011 09:02:53 PM 782 Views
Emdashing is an entirely different form of punctuation. - 05/10/2011 09:07:36 PM 847 Views
Achtung! Grammatik! :insert Nazi-saluting smiley as the Wehrmacht marches by: - 05/10/2011 08:10:45 PM 894 Views
I love this bit. - 05/10/2011 08:26:52 PM 879 Views
Bring back the BSG! - 05/10/2011 08:55:32 PM 812 Views
Re: your 2nd irritating error for question 2 - 06/10/2011 04:12:49 PM 747 Views
Good poll, especially for this site. - 05/10/2011 08:11:10 PM 902 Views
Re: serial comma. - 05/10/2011 08:31:58 PM 779 Views
Maybe I was being a little anal there. - 05/10/2011 08:35:33 PM 756 Views
Same here - 05/10/2011 08:43:34 PM 665 Views
I think it's conventional to use a comma before "etc". - 05/10/2011 08:55:11 PM 739 Views
Re: Grammar junkies - 05/10/2011 08:33:06 PM 799 Views
Re: Grammar junkies - 05/10/2011 08:49:43 PM 851 Views
People should talk in a way that can be understood, else they are not communicating. - 05/10/2011 09:17:37 PM 842 Views
Re: "everyone's". ~winky~ *NM* - 05/10/2011 09:22:18 PM 389 Views
Is it time for my lecture on superfluous apostrophes again? - 05/10/2011 09:43:47 PM 750 Views
You mean your lecture on "superfluous" apostrophes. - 05/10/2011 09:53:31 PM 694 Views
As have I. Multiple times. *NM* - 05/10/2011 09:55:08 PM 373 Views
I am not stubborn, just true to my convictions. - 05/10/2011 09:56:39 PM 947 Views
Unsurprisingly, I don't really agree with you at all on this point. :p - 05/10/2011 10:29:59 PM 837 Views
I do not really think I am "right" on this one so much as "not wrong." - 06/10/2011 12:01:36 AM 755 Views
But contradictions are inherent in the entire English language! - 06/10/2011 01:25:39 AM 751 Views
Sure, but not deliberate ones created by grammarians who know better. - 06/10/2011 05:40:58 AM 760 Views
I'm going to listen to the others. - 06/10/2011 06:17:18 AM 770 Views
Like I say, I appreciate exceptions when justified (and again, only claiming to be "not wrong." ) - 06/10/2011 07:26:18 AM 658 Views
But you are wrong - 06/10/2011 02:17:40 PM 792 Views
that is OK he is very good at being wrong *NM* - 06/10/2011 03:43:23 PM 404 Views
I disagree. - 07/10/2011 12:15:14 AM 734 Views
How utterly unsurprising - 07/10/2011 02:21:38 PM 716 Views
"We want to be nothing if not persistent." - 07/10/2011 02:39:19 PM 761 Views
Doesn't matter. - 07/10/2011 03:12:14 PM 773 Views
What. - 06/10/2011 06:17:41 PM 838 Views
You called? - 05/10/2011 08:53:54 PM 833 Views
Grammar schmammar! - 05/10/2011 09:01:47 PM 870 Views
Wongy tip #77 - 05/10/2011 11:15:12 PM 733 Views
#1) I do not use NetSpeak while playing games, texting or using social media. - 05/10/2011 11:34:12 PM 738 Views
What about NateSpeak? *NM* - 06/10/2011 04:01:08 PM 360 Views
I did use that once to tell the story of you and CNRedDragon going to see Ice Princess. *NM* - 07/10/2011 01:46:50 AM 374 Views
A timeless classic. - 07/10/2011 01:53:36 AM 706 Views
Re: Grammar junkies - 06/10/2011 01:17:28 AM 756 Views
Yes. - 06/10/2011 06:53:46 AM 696 Views
I forgot about "of" for "have." - 06/10/2011 07:31:11 AM 738 Views
I try - 06/10/2011 09:18:29 AM 790 Views
I freebase split infinitives on a regular basis. - 06/10/2011 01:53:36 PM 665 Views
The split infinitive is not grammatically incorrect. - 06/10/2011 02:04:34 PM 741 Views
I wish more people knew this. - 06/10/2011 07:38:46 PM 689 Views
Junky Grammar. - 06/10/2011 04:24:01 PM 685 Views

Reply to Message