That, and shields. We LIKE shields. 
' />
There are at least 3, surely. But they don't contradict each other because they apply to different sets of words. There's a rule for the set of words you make possessive using " 's ", there's a rule for the set of words you make possessive using just the "s" with no apostrophe, and there's a rule for the treatment of "its" and "it's".
tl;dr, you're still wrong
What, exactly, makes them "different sets" of words? Different genitive declensions? I am kind of sleepy so you may have to jog my memory about the words (other than "its") that form possessives with "s" but no apostrophe. At present I can only think of zeebs examples, which, as I stated to her, are already possessive pronouns before adding "s," but acquire it when not immediately followed by their object. There are still three rules though, because words that end in "s" form possessives with the apostrophe alone, for obvious reasons. Again, I do not object to new rules when such compelling reasons exist, but creating one for NO reason, particularly if it affects but a single word, is bizarre. If I convince a majority of the public and scholars to spell "fly" with "ie" when referring to the insect, is it a legitimate rule? 
' />There are TWO rules, in direct contradiction. It is consequently impossible to be "right;" being "not wrong" is the only option, and inconsistency is a poor start toward that goal. One of the two rules is unique, arbitrary, unnecessary and confusing, hence I find those same objections to my habit unconvincing reasons to abandon it. The principal differences between that rule and my usage is that the latter is 1) consistent and uniform but 2) less popular. That alone is a rather weak claim to orthodoxy, particular at the expense of clarity and functionality.
There are at least 3, surely. But they don't contradict each other because they apply to different sets of words. There's a rule for the set of words you make possessive using " 's ", there's a rule for the set of words you make possessive using just the "s" with no apostrophe, and there's a rule for the treatment of "its" and "it's".
tl;dr, you're still wrong
What, exactly, makes them "different sets" of words? Different genitive declensions?
I am kind of sleepy so you may have to jog my memory about the words (other than "its") that form possessives with "s" but no apostrophe. At present I can only think of zeebs examples, which, as I stated to her, are already possessive pronouns before adding "s," but acquire it when not immediately followed by their object. There are still three rules though, because words that end in "s" form possessives with the apostrophe alone, for obvious reasons. Again, I do not object to new rules when such compelling reasons exist, but creating one for NO reason, particularly if it affects but a single word, is bizarre. If I convince a majority of the public and scholars to spell "fly" with "ie" when referring to the insect, is it a legitimate rule?
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.
This message last edited by Joel on 07/10/2011 at 02:44:20 PM
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
695 Views
- 05/10/2011 07:24:27 PM
695 Views
Must ... have ... grammar.
- 05/10/2011 07:53:34 PM
881 Views
For you and Tom as well, the same question about question eight.
- 05/10/2011 08:33:39 PM
1105 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
656 Views
Er...yes I meant them as a singular idea... *NM*
- 05/10/2011 08:47:34 PM
423 Views
*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
354 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
672 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
588 Views
- 05/10/2011 09:31:21 PM
588 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
- 05/10/2011 09:00:25 PM
671 Views
You're right of course!
- 05/10/2011 09:13:44 PM
748 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
778 Views
Good poll, especially for this site.
- 05/10/2011 08:11:10 PM
768 Views
Re: Grammar junkies
- 05/10/2011 08:33:06 PM
673 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
339 Views
Is it time for my lecture on superfluous apostrophes again?
- 05/10/2011 09:43:47 PM
631 Views
- 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
612 Views
But contradictions are inherent in the entire English language!
- 06/10/2011 01:25:39 AM
629 Views
Ghoti. Also, this is why Rebekah and don't argue this any more. *NM*
- 06/10/2011 04:44:42 AM
301 Views
*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
629 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
681 Views
- 06/10/2011 02:17:40 PM
681 Views
I disagree.
- 07/10/2011 12:15:14 AM
627 Views
- 07/10/2011 12:15:14 AM
627 Views
How utterly unsurprising 
- 07/10/2011 02:21:38 PM
576 Views
- 07/10/2011 02:21:38 PM
576 Views
"We want to be nothing if not persistent."
- 07/10/2011 02:39:19 PM
623 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
720 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
620 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