Active Users:370 Time:26/06/2024 08:20:19 PM
I do not really think I am "right" on this one so much as "not wrong." Joel Send a noteboard - 06/10/2011 12:01:36 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."
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. ;)

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.

True, a given usage can only be considered correct when generally adopted (the history of both "its" and usage panels illustrates that well.) With regard to effective communication, however, I do not believe dropping possessive apostrophes in general impairs communication any more than does dropping them in a single case.

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.

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."

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.

Actually, I agree context clarifies meaning equally well for "it's/its" and other pro/nouns--and there's the rub. There are but two reasonable bases for affirming "its:"

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.

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.

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.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Grammar junkies - 05/10/2011 06:46:31 PM 1002 Views
I'm not always sure that I'm correct, but.... - 05/10/2011 07:04:13 PM 694 Views
I didn't see any errors - 05/10/2011 07:24:27 PM 674 Views
Re: I didn't see any errors - 06/10/2011 03:14:07 PM 551 Views
You mean ... - 06/10/2011 03:58:32 PM 602 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 633 Views
That makes sense as far as it goes. - 05/10/2011 09:02:42 PM 664 Views
But do you actually regard them that way? - 05/10/2011 09:08:36 PM 654 Views
Yeah, pretty much. - 05/10/2011 09:25:18 PM 612 Views
Re: Yeah, pretty much. - 05/10/2011 09:29:33 PM 489 Views
OK then. - 05/10/2011 09:59:50 PM 651 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 652 Views
You're right of course! - 05/10/2011 09:13:44 PM 724 Views
I frequently am. - 05/10/2011 09:16:38 PM 729 Views
So I've noticed. - 05/10/2011 09:19:38 PM 647 Views
I like telling people, too. - 05/10/2011 09:34:50 PM 635 Views
You can use charmap. - 05/10/2011 10:21:32 PM 682 Views
Re: You guys mean a hyphen, not a dash. - 06/10/2011 01:15:02 PM 602 Views
Mmm, dashing. - 05/10/2011 09:02:53 PM 640 Views
Emdashing is an entirely different form of punctuation. - 05/10/2011 09:07:36 PM 691 Views
Achtung! Grammatik! :insert Nazi-saluting smiley as the Wehrmacht marches by: - 05/10/2011 08:10:45 PM 753 Views
I love this bit. - 05/10/2011 08:26:52 PM 758 Views
Bring back the BSG! - 05/10/2011 08:55:32 PM 673 Views
Re: your 2nd irritating error for question 2 - 06/10/2011 04:12:49 PM 622 Views
Good poll, especially for this site. - 05/10/2011 08:11:10 PM 742 Views
Re: serial comma. - 05/10/2011 08:31:58 PM 640 Views
Maybe I was being a little anal there. - 05/10/2011 08:35:33 PM 601 Views
Same here - 05/10/2011 08:43:34 PM 537 Views
I think it's conventional to use a comma before "etc". - 05/10/2011 08:55:11 PM 615 Views
Re: Grammar junkies - 05/10/2011 08:33:06 PM 652 Views
Re: Grammar junkies - 05/10/2011 08:49:43 PM 705 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 608 Views
You mean your lecture on "superfluous" apostrophes. - 05/10/2011 09:53:31 PM 561 Views
As have I. Multiple times. *NM* - 05/10/2011 09:55:08 PM 295 Views
I am not stubborn, just true to my convictions. - 05/10/2011 09:56:39 PM 815 Views
Unsurprisingly, I don't really agree with you at all on this point. :p - 05/10/2011 10:29:59 PM 675 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
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 633 Views
Like I say, I appreciate exceptions when justified (and again, only claiming to be "not wrong." ) - 06/10/2011 07:26:18 AM 529 Views
But you are wrong - 06/10/2011 02:17:40 PM 661 Views
that is OK he is very good at being wrong *NM* - 06/10/2011 03:43:23 PM 353 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 601 Views
Doesn't matter. - 07/10/2011 03:12:14 PM 649 Views
What. - 06/10/2011 06:17:41 PM 701 Views
You called? - 05/10/2011 08:53:54 PM 660 Views
Grammar schmammar! - 05/10/2011 09:01:47 PM 738 Views
Wongy tip #77 - 05/10/2011 11:15:12 PM 600 Views
#1) I do not use NetSpeak while playing games, texting or using social media. - 05/10/2011 11:34:12 PM 606 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
A timeless classic. - 07/10/2011 01:53:36 AM 576 Views
Re: Grammar junkies - 06/10/2011 01:17:28 AM 629 Views
Yes. - 06/10/2011 06:53:46 AM 562 Views
I forgot about "of" for "have." - 06/10/2011 07:31:11 AM 600 Views
I try - 06/10/2011 09:18:29 AM 655 Views
I freebase split infinitives on a regular basis. - 06/10/2011 01:53:36 PM 533 Views
The split infinitive is not grammatically incorrect. - 06/10/2011 02:04:34 PM 558 Views
I wish more people knew this. - 06/10/2011 07:38:46 PM 550 Views
Junky Grammar. - 06/10/2011 04:24:01 PM 544 Views

Reply to Message