Unsurprisingly, I don't really agree with you at all on this point. :p
Nate Send a noteboard - 05/10/2011 10:29:59 PM
I NEVER use apostrophes in possessives (unless the noun ends in "s,") for two reasons:
1) Consistency. Contrary to the practice of centuries, the style for several decades has been, as you know, to spell "its" (the possessive form of "it") with no apostrophe to avoid confusion with "it's" (the contraction of "it is".) I merely observe that practice with all nouns and pronouns rather than in a single anomalous pronoun.
2) The aforementioned practice is sometimes justified on the grounds apostrophes represent elided letters and that none are present in a possessive construction. This is not, strictly speaking, true, because the use of apostrophe plus "s" to form English possessives reflects English forming possessives in "es" about half a millennium ago. Custom gradually elided the "e" with an apostrophe so we use apostrophe plus "s" today despite most peoples ignorance of the cause. Few but language history scholars would now recognize "es" as possessive, and it is consequently quite justifiable to drop the apostrophe altogether for possessives.
In other words, it can be argued that an apostrophe has a rightful place in both "its" and "everyones" AND that it has no place in either, but arguing it belongs in one and not the other is untenably contradictory. As with "its" and "it's" context invariably makes quite clear whether "Mikes" means "the thing belonging to Mike" or "Mike is." So much so that I have consistently avoided apostrophes in forming possessives from the day I joined wotmania yet believe this may be the first time anyone has corrected me for it.
1) Consistency. Contrary to the practice of centuries, the style for several decades has been, as you know, to spell "its" (the possessive form of "it") with no apostrophe to avoid confusion with "it's" (the contraction of "it is".) I merely observe that practice with all nouns and pronouns rather than in a single anomalous pronoun.
2) The aforementioned practice is sometimes justified on the grounds apostrophes represent elided letters and that none are present in a possessive construction. This is not, strictly speaking, true, because the use of apostrophe plus "s" to form English possessives reflects English forming possessives in "es" about half a millennium ago. Custom gradually elided the "e" with an apostrophe so we use apostrophe plus "s" today despite most peoples ignorance of the cause. Few but language history scholars would now recognize "es" as possessive, and it is consequently quite justifiable to drop the apostrophe altogether for possessives.
In other words, it can be argued that an apostrophe has a rightful place in both "its" and "everyones" AND that it has no place in either, but arguing it belongs in one and not the other is untenably contradictory. As with "its" and "it's" context invariably makes quite clear whether "Mikes" means "the thing belonging to Mike" or "Mike is." So much so that I have consistently avoided apostrophes in forming possessives from the day I joined wotmania yet believe this may be the first time anyone has corrected me for it.
You said yourself, to random thoughts, that grammatical rules are all about consistent ability to effectively and accurately communicate. Changing conventions for a specific effect is one thing, but you can't really change them just because you don't like them, even though nobody else has adopted your change, and expect to be considered right.
In fact, there is an example right here in your very own writing where you left out the apostrophe and the context does not solve the meaning. You say, "despite most peoples ignorance of the cause." Do you mean ignorance that belongs to people, or ignorance that belongs to peoples? Because those are different words with different meanings, the latter being a plural form referring to multiple groups of distinct people. Unless we know about your "unless the noun ends in s" qualifier, which because you are using a set of rules that are not commonly accepted we would have no reason to, there is no way to pick out your exact meaning.
That is the trouble with using a rule set that is different from the one everyone else is using. It's like using a different form of chess notation that you've invented. It doesn't matter if you use it consistently or if it makes sense; all the other chess players are going to tell you it's wrong. And they're going to be right.
I do have some sympathy for your stance, because of the "it's vs its" convention. However, what you are arguing is that the apostrophe is not needed because context makes the meaning clear. But the exact same is true when you do use the apostrophe. Context makes it clear whether "everyone's" means "everyone is" or "belonging to everyone".
Given that context makes it clear in either case, what is the point of using a non-standard, non-accepted, this-is-my-personal-rule version when using it in the accepted way is just as understandable (and one could argue much more understandable because it follows the rules that people expect when they read something and does not lead to conversations like this)?
The only answer is that you have an idea you like and you're stubborn about it. Which, okay. No one can stop you. But you can't expect to be considered right about it, because grammatical conventions say that you are not, and that's what grammar is all about — it is a set of conventions that allow people to communicate accurately, and if you step outside of those conventions you are, by definition, no longer being grammatical.
Warder to starry_nite
Chapterfish — Nate's Writing Blog
http://chapterfish.wordpress.com
Chapterfish — Nate's Writing Blog
http://chapterfish.wordpress.com
This message last edited by Nate on 05/10/2011 at 10:32:21 PM
Grammar junkies
05/10/2011 06:46:31 PM
- 1003 Views
I'm not always sure that I'm correct, but....
05/10/2011 07:04:13 PM
- 695 Views
I didn't see any errors
05/10/2011 07:24:27 PM
- 674 Views
Must ... have ... grammar.
05/10/2011 07:53:34 PM
- 861 Views
For you and Tom as well, the same question about question eight.
05/10/2011 08:33:39 PM
- 1077 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
- 634 Views
Er...yes I meant them as a singular idea... *NM*
05/10/2011 08:47:34 PM
- 414 Views
Use them together, and only together, for fifteen years and we can discuss this again. *NM*
05/10/2011 09:32:30 PM
- 344 Views
That makes sense as far as it goes.
05/10/2011 09:02:42 PM
- 665 Views
But do you actually regard them that way?
05/10/2011 09:08:36 PM
- 655 Views
Yeah, pretty much.
05/10/2011 09:25:18 PM
- 613 Views
No, Joel. You're just wrong. Again. Get used to it. We have.
05/10/2011 09:31:21 PM
- 566 Views
I can live with being wrong, at least in the sense of technical error.
05/10/2011 10:06:30 PM
- 661 Views
Let's just pare this down to the bare bones.
06/10/2011 01:37:30 AM
- 520 Views
He made a mistake that I did not recognize as a mistake because I read his words as he intended.
06/10/2011 04:43:39 AM
- 673 Views
You bring up a point that I was researching the other day
05/10/2011 08:53:40 PM
- 711 Views
You guys mean a hyphen, not a dash.
05/10/2011 09:00:25 PM
- 654 Views
You're right of course!
05/10/2011 09:13:44 PM
- 725 Views
I frequently am.
05/10/2011 09:16:38 PM
- 731 Views
So I've noticed.
05/10/2011 09:19:38 PM
- 648 Views
Achtung! Grammatik! :insert Nazi-saluting smiley as the Wehrmacht marches by:
05/10/2011 08:10:45 PM
- 753 Views
Good poll, especially for this site.
05/10/2011 08:11:10 PM
- 743 Views
Re: Grammar junkies
05/10/2011 08:33:06 PM
- 652 Views
People should talk in a way that can be understood, else they are not communicating.
05/10/2011 09:17:37 PM
- 693 Views
Re: "everyone's". ~winky~ *NM*
05/10/2011 09:22:18 PM
- 329 Views
Is it time for my lecture on superfluous apostrophes again?
05/10/2011 09:43:47 PM
- 609 Views
Unsurprisingly, I don't really agree with you at all on this point. :p
05/10/2011 10:29:59 PM
- 677 Views
I do not really think I am "right" on this one so much as "not wrong."
06/10/2011 12:01:36 AM
- 589 Views
But contradictions are inherent in the entire English language!
06/10/2011 01:25:39 AM
- 608 Views
Ghoti. Also, this is why Rebekah and don't argue this any more. *NM*
06/10/2011 04:44:42 AM
- 292 Views
Sure, but not deliberate ones created by grammarians who know better.
06/10/2011 05:40:58 AM
- 609 Views
I'm going to listen to the others.
06/10/2011 06:17:18 AM
- 635 Views
Like I say, I appreciate exceptions when justified (and again, only claiming to be "not wrong." )
06/10/2011 07:26:18 AM
- 530 Views
But you are wrong
06/10/2011 02:17:40 PM
- 661 Views
I disagree.
07/10/2011 12:15:14 AM
- 608 Views
How utterly unsurprising
07/10/2011 02:21:38 PM
- 555 Views
"We want to be nothing if not persistent."
07/10/2011 02:39:19 PM
- 602 Views
Doesn't matter.
07/10/2011 03:12:14 PM
- 650 Views
Perhaps not, but it should, and I am not above being a lone voice crying in the wilderness.
08/10/2011 05:17:35 PM
- 696 Views
What.
06/10/2011 06:17:41 PM
- 704 Views
Those cases are not the same, because those words are already possessive in their own right.
06/10/2011 10:52:06 PM
- 697 Views
if you have trouble understanding my post it is more likely do to typing skills than grammar
05/10/2011 09:31:42 PM
- 612 Views
Likely so; I have the same problem, but usually when writing by hand.
05/10/2011 09:53:08 PM
- 596 Views
#1) I do not use NetSpeak while playing games, texting or using social media.
05/10/2011 11:34:12 PM
- 607 Views
What about NateSpeak? *NM*
06/10/2011 04:01:08 PM
- 307 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
- 307 Views
I freebase split infinitives on a regular basis.
06/10/2011 01:53:36 PM
- 534 Views