Sure, but not deliberate ones created by grammarians who know better.
Joel Send a noteboard - 06/10/2011 05:40:58 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.
No, that is the ruleS. Two of them. In direct contradiction. One of them only applied to a single word. It is not the "contraction rule" or the "possessive rule," but the "it's/its" rule. Far worse, it exists, not to make the language richer, more versatile or, heaven forbid, easier to understand, but because... well, because someone said we should ignore the rule we observe in ALL OTHER CASES, and other people, for reasons known but to them and God, accepted that decision.
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.
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."
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.
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.
English, like every language of which I am unaware, has irregular verbs, but not because a group of scholars and/or writers somewhere intentionally did it that way to screw up the language and frustrate non-native speakers for all time. We get beef from cows, not beeves, because Harold lost at Hastings, not because some Medieval usage panel made an arbitrary decision to mess up the language. It does not make English any more "interesting" or "versatile," only more "confusing." Contradictions are not "the heart" of the language; the heart of the language is (ironically) a lot closer to the language I am trying to learn now, combined with the difficulty of defending a tiny island when using bronze swords against iron ones and iron ones against steel ones. I love English, too, but it is VERY screwed up owing to nearly 2000 years of invasion after invasion periodically upsetting its stability with whole new lexicons and grammars, so that it has been bastardized by Gaelic, Welsh, Latin, Norse, Danish, Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman just to name the ones of which I am aware. I pity people learning English as a second language; the only saving grace is that English is far less prone to noun declensions (and I can think of none for modifiers) than most other languages.
I say, "stood" for the same reason I say, "sat:" they are irregular verbs; I recognize but do not relish that and live with the consequences, but irregular verbs are most definitely a bug rather than feature in any language (I understand French is notorious for them.) Imagine my delight to learn that, while English verbs are conjugated in at least two ways in the present tense alone (and the oft used state of being verb in THREE,) Norwegian only has a single conjugation for each tense of each verb. There is no risk of embarrasing errors like "I sits" or "he go." No language is perfect though; there are FOUR possible ways a "regular" (and I use the term very loosely) Norwegian verb can be conjugated in the past tense. Neither oddity makes either language more versatile or interesting; the need to say, "I am/you are/he is," is just two more things to remember; the ability to say, "I/you/he is" would be FAR more versatile. Though I do wish Norwegian did not conjugate the present tense AND form plurals with the same "er," but I guess I will get used to distinguishing between verbs and nouns based on context.
In the case of the apostrophe, it is clear from context that I am deliberately omitting them in possessives, but that does not require and thus there is no reason to think I ignore the rule about nouns ending with "s;" the need to avoid ambiguity as well as the existence of the rule itself gives strong reason to think I continue to observe it.
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.
Not at all, and I have no problem with necessary exceptions to established standards, nor contradictory ones that are so ancient and integral to the language that few but scholars know why they exist. Establishing a single aberrant and needless exception just for the heck of it, however, is not only pointless but confusing. It adds nothing to the language except counterproductive complication, which is a very good reason to maintain a uniform standard. Hence it is not the consistency that is foolish here, but the inconsistency.
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.
Standarization is highly desirable when it removes nothing and adds something, and undesirable when it does the opposite. In this case the standardization makes it easier to communicate without sacrificing a thing. For native speakers of several other Germanic languages, dropping the possessive apostrophe altogether makes English easier to learn because the rule for possessives is "same as in my language." THAT is versatility.
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.
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.
Grammar junkies
05/10/2011 06:46:31 PM
- 1025 Views
I'm not always sure that I'm correct, but....
05/10/2011 07:04:13 PM
- 716 Views
I didn't see any errors
05/10/2011 07:24:27 PM
- 698 Views
Must ... have ... grammar.
05/10/2011 07:53:34 PM
- 884 Views
For you and Tom as well, the same question about question eight.
05/10/2011 08:33:39 PM
- 1107 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
- 657 Views
Er...yes I meant them as a singular idea... *NM*
05/10/2011 08:47:34 PM
- 423 Views
Use them together, and only together, for fifteen years and we can discuss this again. *NM*
05/10/2011 09:32:30 PM
- 355 Views
That makes sense as far as it goes.
05/10/2011 09:02:42 PM
- 691 Views
But do you actually regard them that way?
05/10/2011 09:08:36 PM
- 673 Views
Yeah, pretty much.
05/10/2011 09:25:18 PM
- 636 Views
No, Joel. You're just wrong. Again. Get used to it. We have.
05/10/2011 09:31:21 PM
- 591 Views
I can live with being wrong, at least in the sense of technical error.
05/10/2011 10:06:30 PM
- 682 Views
Let's just pare this down to the bare bones.
06/10/2011 01:37:30 AM
- 541 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
- 694 Views
You bring up a point that I was researching the other day
05/10/2011 08:53:40 PM
- 734 Views
You guys mean a hyphen, not a dash.
05/10/2011 09:00:25 PM
- 671 Views
You're right of course!
05/10/2011 09:13:44 PM
- 749 Views
I frequently am.
05/10/2011 09:16:38 PM
- 749 Views
So I've noticed.
05/10/2011 09:19:38 PM
- 667 Views
Achtung! Grammatik! :insert Nazi-saluting smiley as the Wehrmacht marches by:
05/10/2011 08:10:45 PM
- 781 Views
Good poll, especially for this site.
05/10/2011 08:11:10 PM
- 769 Views
Re: Grammar junkies
05/10/2011 08:33:06 PM
- 676 Views
People should talk in a way that can be understood, else they are not communicating.
05/10/2011 09:17:37 PM
- 716 Views
Re: "everyone's". ~winky~ *NM*
05/10/2011 09:22:18 PM
- 340 Views
Is it time for my lecture on superfluous apostrophes again?
05/10/2011 09:43:47 PM
- 631 Views
Unsurprisingly, I don't really agree with you at all on this point. :p
05/10/2011 10:29:59 PM
- 699 Views
I do not really think I am "right" on this one so much as "not wrong."
06/10/2011 12:01:36 AM
- 613 Views
But contradictions are inherent in the entire English language!
06/10/2011 01:25:39 AM
- 631 Views
Ghoti. Also, this is why Rebekah and don't argue this any more. *NM*
06/10/2011 04:44:42 AM
- 301 Views
Sure, but not deliberate ones created by grammarians who know better.
06/10/2011 05:40:58 AM
- 630 Views
I'm going to listen to the others.
06/10/2011 06:17:18 AM
- 656 Views
Like I say, I appreciate exceptions when justified (and again, only claiming to be "not wrong." )
06/10/2011 07:26:18 AM
- 551 Views
But you are wrong
06/10/2011 02:17:40 PM
- 683 Views
I disagree.
07/10/2011 12:15:14 AM
- 627 Views
How utterly unsurprising
07/10/2011 02:21:38 PM
- 579 Views
"We want to be nothing if not persistent."
07/10/2011 02:39:19 PM
- 625 Views
Doesn't matter.
07/10/2011 03:12:14 PM
- 675 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
- 722 Views
What.
06/10/2011 06:17:41 PM
- 725 Views
Those cases are not the same, because those words are already possessive in their own right.
06/10/2011 10:52:06 PM
- 717 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
- 633 Views
Likely so; I have the same problem, but usually when writing by hand.
05/10/2011 09:53:08 PM
- 622 Views
#1) I do not use NetSpeak while playing games, texting or using social media.
05/10/2011 11:34:12 PM
- 627 Views
What about NateSpeak? *NM*
06/10/2011 04:01:08 PM
- 316 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
- 314 Views
I freebase split infinitives on a regular basis.
06/10/2011 01:53:36 PM
- 561 Views