[Arm-netbook] possessive "it's"

[chadvellacott at sasktel.net]

    I do not have time for this debate now.  I am "swamped" with work.  I need to get other things done.

    Sincerely, Chad.  (:^)

On 16.9.9 10:42, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On ~~, Sep 9, 2016 at 4:02 PM,  <chadvellacott at sasktel.net> wrote:
>
>>     [No offense intended.  (:^) ]
>
>   none taken - we're all learning - let's have some fun with this.
>
>>     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".
>
>   oh!  yes, sorry, you're right - i meant "possessive pronoun".
>
>>     "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.
>
>   yes i did.  let's take a look, google "its" and that comes up with
> two top links one for "its" and one for "it's".  let's look at the one
> for "it's":
>
>    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/it-s
>
> Word Origin
>
> See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
> 1.
>     contraction of it is:   It's starting to rain.
> 2.
>     contraction of it has: It's been a long time.
>
>     Can be confused
>     it's, its (see confusables note at its )
>
> interesting!  i'll use that one in future, i didn't realise that
> "it's" can be a short-hand for "it has".
>
>
>   Definition:
>
> "pronoun, nominative it, possessive its or (Obsoleteor Dialect) it,
> objective it; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs,
> objective them."
>
>   so the word "it" is qualified as a "pronoun", and the word "its" is
> defined as a *possessive* pronoun.
>
>
> the definition in merriam-webster is much less helpful but gives good examples:
>      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/its
>
> this one's i can see it's much more helpful:
>     http://www.myenglishpages.com/site_php_files/grammar-lesson-possessive-adjectives.php
>
> it's also showing that "its" is a possessive pronoun.  i wonder why i
> said "relative pronoun" when in all other instances i've said
> "possessive"?  huh.
>
>
>
>>     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.
>
>   it's explained here:
>   https://www.writingforward.com/grammar/homophones/homophones-its-and-its
>
>
>>     English usage has many UNreasonable "exceptions" to it's rules.
>
>   ahhh! gotcha!  you mean "english usage has many Unreasonable
> "exceptions" to its (possessive pronoun) rules" :)
>
>> So,
>> English seems unreasonably difficult to learn as a second language.
>
>   it turns out that numbers, as an example, in all european languages,
> cause a huge amount of difficulty for children, resulting in
> significantly-delayed development of numerical arithmetic skills.  in
> the far east, numbers are really *really* straightforward: 0-9 have
> their own word, you just read the digits out using those 0-9 words, to
> the point where on the HK stock exchange i heard that people are able
> to communicate at ten numbers *PER SECOND* which is phenomenal.  my
> friend phil also pointed out to me the "flash-card" technique of
> training kids in japan as young as seven and eight to do six-digit
> mental arithmetic, where they're expected to have 100% accuracy on
> something mad like... i can't remember exactly what he said but i
> believe it was in excess of two six-digit sums *per second*.  i may be
> underestimating there so as not to trip any "total disbelief verging
> on bullshit" mental radars.
>
>   in french, the number "98" is *five syllables* with a massive amount
> of physical effort required to morph the mouth between some of the
> syllables!  qua-tre vingt dix huit.  pronounced "ka-tr-uh va-i-ngg
> dee-ss-wh-ee-t" and translated in english "four-twenty ten-eight"!!
>
>    (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_?
>
>   english is the international language for programming, and
> programming is about absolute clarity and precision.  so in this *very
> specific* field... i'd say yes, absolutely.
>
>   *outside* of the world of computing, whilst it just makes people who
> should know better (such as in marketing), it just makes people "look
> dumb".  i've seen both BT *and* Shell as recently as 10-15 years ago
> put up huge signs across all their stores in the UK make basic
> fundamental mistakes with the use of possessive pronouns.
>
>    http://www.copyblogger.com/5-common-mistakes-that-make-you-look-dumb/
>
>   but even if they "look dumb" it's not so critical - it's not so
> important in its level of clarity that a product be marketed in its
> best possible light, but it's clearly important in its level of
> security and effectiveness for a program to be at its most accurately
> specified and actioned, as well as being important that it's
> well-documented.
>
>>     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.)
>
>   *ROTFL* yeah... the hilarious thing is: it's actually more physical
> effort to type the *correct* word "its" than it is to type the wrong
> phrase "it's" :)
>
>>     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.)
>
>   ... and you'd be perfectly within your right to self-determination to
> make such a declaration, and to continue to adhere to it for as long
> as you perceive it to be useful to you.
>
> now, do allow me to summarise what *my* position is (from the above).
> as a hardware engineer in training, and a software engineer, clarity
> and unambiguity is absolute and paramount.  one small mistake in
> hardware can cost $10,000 or even more.  so with that training (and
> level of penalty for not getting it right) comes an in-built "radar'
> for pointing out *any* possible ambiguity, especially in written
> language.  and that's why i really appreciated you pointing out the
> mistake that i made.
>
> l.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
    I do not have time for this debate now. I am "swamped" with work. I need to get other things done.

    Sincerely, Chad. (:^)