On 16.9.8 10:52, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: ~~~~~~
On ~, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:25 AM, chadvellacott@sasktel.net wrote:
(Quotes below, might have minor changes, and might have additionsenclosed 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. (:^)