Active Users:710 Time:28/09/2024 02:00:22 AM
But contradictions are inherent in the entire English language! - Edit 1

Before modification by Nate at 06/10/2011 01:29:10 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.

Return to message