[Arm-netbook] possessive "it's"

[Christopher Havel]

English is a remarkably inconsistent PITA, isn't it...?

Could be worse, though. Esperanto.

;)

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:02 AM, <chadvellacott at sasktel.net> wrote:

> On 16.9.8 10:52, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> ~~~~~~
>
>> On ~, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:25 AM,  <chadvellacott at sasktel.net> wrote:
>>
>>>      (Quotes below, might have minor changes, and might have additions
>>> enclosed by {}, and ~ for omissions.)
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~
>
>> But am I right to understand, that you pay the factory(s) at the same
>>> time,
>>> and each factory produces it's things as one batch?
>>>
>>
>>   produces it is things.... no it doesn't "produce it is things" - that
>> doesn't make any sense.  it might produce *its* things...
>>
>> and each factory produces its things as one batch?
>>>
>>
>>   ah, now we're using the relative pronoun "its", instead of the
>> contraction of the two words "it" and "is" with an apostrophe, the
>> sentence makes sense.
>>
>> ~~~~~~
>
>>
>> l.
>>
>>    [No offense intended.  (:^) ]
>
>    Those who live in glass houses, should not throw stones.
>    "its" is _not_ a Relative Pronoun.  Relative pronouns are "who what
> where when why how whom whose".
>    "it" is a Personal Pronoun, like "he she they".  If it has a possessive
> form, then that form is a Possessive Pronoun (like "theirs"), or else a
> Possessive Pronominal Adjective (like "their").
>    I guess that thou meant the concept of Possessive Pronoun, _not_
> Relative Pronoun.
>
> ===============================
>
>      One general rule in English- with _other_ words (like "crayon") to
> which an "s" has been added at the end-
>    (like "Crayons color things.") if no apostrophe, then plural.
>    (like "crayon's tip") if apostrophe _before_ the "s", then possessive.
>    (like "crayons' case") if apostrophe _after_ the "s", then plural _and_
> possessive.
>
>      This general rule conflicts with another common use of apostrophe-s
> (using it to mean "is" or "has").  How resolve?
>
>    Thou seem to propose that "its" is possessive.  My small
> "Oxford"-dictionary said that, as did "The Elements of Style" written by
> "Strunk" and "White".
>    But, I am not aware of any _other_ English word becoming possessive by
> mere "s" withOUT an apostrophe.  So to decide that "its" is possessive,
> seems an unreasonable dogmatic "exception" to the general rule above.
>    English usage has many UNreasonable "exceptions" to it's rules.  So,
> English seems unreasonably difficult to learn as a second language.  (This
> is not "sour grapes".  English is my first language, and I did _not_ have
> special trouble with it in school.)
>    Are we unwilling, to abandon arbitrary "exceptions" so that others can
> more-easily learn _our_ _first_ language and communicate with _us_?  Then
> we must look like "arrogant" snobs who try to keep "proper" English
> difficult enough to "exclude" the riff-raff.  Especially since
> native-English-speakers, on average, seem to not try as hard to learn
> someone _else's_ language.
>
>        So, if we use such contractions, then how interpret apostrophe-s?
> With _most_ words, it does not work to use mere "s" for possessive, because
> we use that for plural!  (Even with "it", to switch to "they" for plural,
> means losing the neuterness of "it".  Babies are not "its"!)
>      (a) Often, context clears up the ambiguity.
>    This is of course how thou, Luke, was able to understand me.  Thou
> evaluated two possible interpretations.  Thou remarked that one "doesn't
> make any sense", while with the other interpretation, "the sentence makes
> sense".  As thou demonstrated, my meaning was adequately clear in context,
> regardless of apostrophe.
>      (b) For some ambiguous uses, it might help to ask, "If the writer
> meant this possible interpretation, then could he have easily made his
> words more clear?"
>    If a person means "it is", then that is nearly as easy to say and type,
> as "it's".  (With typing on a "QWERTY", the difference is merely- thumb
> down on space-bar and next middle-finger sliding forward to "i", versus
> little finger awkwardly stretching outward to apostrophe.)
>    If a person means "belonging to it" or "owned by it", those obviously
> require more additional work than "it is" requires.
>
>      These guide-lines seem adequate, to enable writers and readers, to
> clear up the ambiguity of apostrophe-s, for _practically_all_other_
> relevant words.  So, it seems (selfish) capricious "special pleading", if
> we choose to make an "exception" for "it".
>
>    I do not presume that I shall change any one else's mind on this.
> (But, considering all of the significant evidence that I am aware of, I
> will not change on this.)
>
>    I could have silently continued using "it's" for "belonging to it".
> But since thou prodded me, I thought it'd be less annoying if I replied
> with an "explanation".
>
>    No offense intended,
>    Chad.  (:^)
>
> _______________________________________________
> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
> Send large attachments to arm-netbook at files.phcomp.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/pipermail/arm-netbook/attachments/20160909/82be3ea3/attachment-0001.html>