Active Users:405 Time:08/03/2026 04:32:27 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 1142 Views
I'm not always sure that I'm correct, but.... - 05/10/2011 07:04:13 PM 836 Views
I didn't see any errors - 05/10/2011 07:24:27 PM 821 Views
Re: I didn't see any errors - 06/10/2011 03:14:07 PM 699 Views
You mean ... - 06/10/2011 03:58:32 PM 787 Views
Must ... have ... grammar. - 05/10/2011 07:53:34 PM 1014 Views
For you and Tom as well, the same question about question eight. - 05/10/2011 08:33:39 PM 1299 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 786 Views
That makes sense as far as it goes. - 05/10/2011 09:02:42 PM 823 Views
But do you actually regard them that way? - 05/10/2011 09:08:36 PM 805 Views
Yeah, pretty much. - 05/10/2011 09:25:18 PM 766 Views
Re: Yeah, pretty much. - 05/10/2011 09:29:33 PM 649 Views
OK then. - 05/10/2011 09:59:50 PM 811 Views
You bring up a point that I was researching the other day - 05/10/2011 08:53:40 PM 858 Views
You guys mean a hyphen, not a dash. - 05/10/2011 09:00:25 PM 818 Views
You're right of course! - 05/10/2011 09:13:44 PM 883 Views
I frequently am. - 05/10/2011 09:16:38 PM 891 Views
So I've noticed. - 05/10/2011 09:19:38 PM 804 Views
I like telling people, too. - 05/10/2011 09:34:50 PM 798 Views
You can use charmap. - 05/10/2011 10:21:32 PM 849 Views
Re: You guys mean a hyphen, not a dash. - 06/10/2011 01:15:02 PM 746 Views
Mmm, dashing. - 05/10/2011 09:02:53 PM 799 Views
Emdashing is an entirely different form of punctuation. - 05/10/2011 09:07:36 PM 871 Views
Achtung! Grammatik! :insert Nazi-saluting smiley as the Wehrmacht marches by: - 05/10/2011 08:10:45 PM 914 Views
I love this bit. - 05/10/2011 08:26:52 PM 899 Views
Bring back the BSG! - 05/10/2011 08:55:32 PM 835 Views
Re: your 2nd irritating error for question 2 - 06/10/2011 04:12:49 PM 771 Views
Good poll, especially for this site. - 05/10/2011 08:11:10 PM 924 Views
Re: serial comma. - 05/10/2011 08:31:58 PM 801 Views
Maybe I was being a little anal there. - 05/10/2011 08:35:33 PM 774 Views
Same here - 05/10/2011 08:43:34 PM 679 Views
I think it's conventional to use a comma before "etc". - 05/10/2011 08:55:11 PM 754 Views
Re: Grammar junkies - 05/10/2011 08:33:06 PM 814 Views
Re: Grammar junkies - 05/10/2011 08:49:43 PM 874 Views
People should talk in a way that can be understood, else they are not communicating. - 05/10/2011 09:17:37 PM 864 Views
Re: "everyone's". ~winky~ *NM* - 05/10/2011 09:22:18 PM 397 Views
Is it time for my lecture on superfluous apostrophes again? - 05/10/2011 09:43:47 PM 773 Views
You mean your lecture on "superfluous" apostrophes. - 05/10/2011 09:53:31 PM 716 Views
As have I. Multiple times. *NM* - 05/10/2011 09:55:08 PM 380 Views
I am not stubborn, just true to my convictions. - 05/10/2011 09:56:39 PM 966 Views
Unsurprisingly, I don't really agree with you at all on this point. :p - 05/10/2011 10:29:59 PM 858 Views
I do not really think I am "right" on this one so much as "not wrong." - 06/10/2011 12:01:36 AM 778 Views
But contradictions are inherent in the entire English language! - 06/10/2011 01:25:39 AM 767 Views
Sure, but not deliberate ones created by grammarians who know better. - 06/10/2011 05:40:58 AM 779 Views
I'm going to listen to the others. - 06/10/2011 06:17:18 AM 786 Views
Like I say, I appreciate exceptions when justified (and again, only claiming to be "not wrong." ) - 06/10/2011 07:26:18 AM 677 Views
But you are wrong - 06/10/2011 02:17:40 PM 812 Views
that is OK he is very good at being wrong *NM* - 06/10/2011 03:43:23 PM 410 Views
I disagree. - 07/10/2011 12:15:14 AM 755 Views
How utterly unsurprising - 07/10/2011 02:21:38 PM 734 Views
"We want to be nothing if not persistent." - 07/10/2011 02:39:19 PM 782 Views
Doesn't matter. - 07/10/2011 03:12:14 PM 794 Views
What. - 06/10/2011 06:17:41 PM 861 Views
You called? - 05/10/2011 08:53:54 PM 850 Views
Grammar schmammar! - 05/10/2011 09:01:47 PM 884 Views
Wongy tip #77 - 05/10/2011 11:15:12 PM 748 Views
#1) I do not use NetSpeak while playing games, texting or using social media. - 05/10/2011 11:34:12 PM 752 Views
What about NateSpeak? *NM* - 06/10/2011 04:01:08 PM 366 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 387 Views
A timeless classic. - 07/10/2011 01:53:36 AM 724 Views
Re: Grammar junkies - 06/10/2011 01:17:28 AM 777 Views
Yes. - 06/10/2011 06:53:46 AM 714 Views
I forgot about "of" for "have." - 06/10/2011 07:31:11 AM 753 Views
I try - 06/10/2011 09:18:29 AM 808 Views
I freebase split infinitives on a regular basis. - 06/10/2011 01:53:36 PM 683 Views
The split infinitive is not grammatically incorrect. - 06/10/2011 02:04:34 PM 771 Views
I wish more people knew this. - 06/10/2011 07:38:46 PM 708 Views
Junky Grammar. - 06/10/2011 04:24:01 PM 706 Views

Reply to Message