 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / May 2009How is " its' " used?
ITS' I saw this in the paper today - don't recall the sentence, but I started to wonder if there IS an obscure use of this word. Or is it merely a typo? > ITS' > > I saw this in the paper today - don't recall the sentence, but I > started to wonder if there IS an obscure use of this word. Or is it > merely a typo? It is an error. Not knowing how the person who typed it thought it should be spelled, I can't say if it was a typo.  SignatureMark Brader "[It] was the kind of town where they spell Toronto trouble TRUBIL, and if you try to correct them, msb@vex.net they kill you." -- Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid >> ITS' >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >It is an error. Not knowing how the person who typed it thought it >should be spelled, I can't say if it was a typo. Not necessarily. If written as the unattributed OP did in the body of his/her article above, it could be a (somewhat odd but still legitimate) possessive form of the acronym "ITS" (as in "Intelligent Transportation Systems" or the "Incompatible Timesharing System"). I'd still prefer "ITS's". If written as in the subject heading, you are correct, that's just an error. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > ITS' > I saw this in the paper today - don't recall the sentence, but I > started to wonder if there IS an obscure use of this word. Or is it > merely a typo? Nowadays ITS and IT'S seem commonly misused, thus are well- documented. (Scholars seem uncertain whether the cause should be identified as defective grammar instruction or indifference.) Because ITS/IT'S are common errors, some investigators have attempted to derive a systematic typology of their misuse. This attempt is a wild goose chase: we have no reason to suppose misuse follows some (undiscovered) set of language rules just as correct use follows known rules. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >Because ITS/IT'S are common errors, some investigators have >attempted to derive a systematic typology of their misuse. This >attempt is a wild goose chase: we have no reason to suppose >misuse follows some (undiscovered) set of language rules >just as correct use follows known rules. This makes no sense. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness > >Because ITS/IT'S are common errors, some investigators have > >attempted to derive a systematic typology of their misuse. This [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This makes no sense. Apologies if I failed to write clearly. The request is regularly repeated in this NG for a typology of error, viz. an evidence-based pattern that explains why people make certain types of mistake in English. This is a wild goose chase. we have no reason to suppose misuse follows some (undiscovered) set of language rules just as correct use follows known rules. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >Apologies if I failed to write clearly. >The request is regularly repeated in this NG for a typology [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >misuse follows some (undiscovered) set of language rules >just as correct use follows known rules. What evidence do you have that suggests it does not? Seriously: you write as if there were evidence that all of these errors can be explained by mere free (random) variation among language users. Have you studied this, or are you simply making an unsupported /a priori/ assertion without any consideration of fact? -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness On 23 May, 00:07, tweeny90...@mypacks.net wrote: > ITS' > > I saw this in the paper today - don't recall the sentence, but I > started to wonder if there IS an obscure use of this word. Or is it > merely a typo? "Yesterday I drank six glasses of gin and it; the gin and its' flavours were each subtly different." (I didn't invent this example, and would not argue with anyone who said it was contrived!) > On 23 May, 00:07, tweeny90...@mypacks.net wrote: > > ITS' [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (I didn't invent this example, and would not argue with anyone who > said it was contrived!) Nothing wrong with a contrived example per se. Something wrong with a contrived example that is itself wrong. For your offered example to be right, the "it" can't be the standard neuter singular pronoun, in which case the example doesn't answer trhe question. Or else gin and it" was intended as a unitary phrase, but that wouldn't pass unless it was either hyphenated or enclosed in quotation marks. Then you'd have "gin and it"' or gin-and-its', and in either case you don't have a plain its'. Nice try, tho. SignatureBob Lieblich Who has been known to contrive a few examples himself >> On 23 May, 00:07, tweeny90...@mypacks.net wrote: >> > ITS' [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > be right, the "it" can't be the standard neuter singular pronoun, in > which case the example doesn't answer trhe question. Indeed--shirley the "it" in "gin and it" means Vermouth, which is Italian, hence "it" for short. One might argue that it should be "gin and It". > Or else gin and > it" was intended as a unitary phrase, but that wouldn't pass unless it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nice try, tho. SignatureLes (BrE) Andrew Bull: >> "Yesterday I drank six glasses of gin and it; the gin and its' >> flavours were each subtly different." >> (I didn't invent this example, and would not argue with anyone who >> said it was contrived!) Bob Lieblich: > Nothing wrong with a contrived example per se. Something wrong > with a contrived example that is itself wrong. It's not wrong. > For your offered example to be right, the "it" can't be the standard > neuter singular pronoun... It's a noun, short for "Italian vermouth". Google "gin and it": it's a form of the mixed drink you probably know as a martini, in which [wait for it] the it's the martini part. > Or else ["]gin and it" was intended as a unitary phrase... Yes. > but that wouldn't pass unless it was either hyphenated or enclosed > in quotation marks. No, you're only thinking that because it's unfamiliar to you. The example was fine. Compare: "I bought one turkey sandwich and two ham and cheeses. The ham and cheeses' packages are different, but the sandwiches seem to be the same." SignatureMark Brader, Toronto, msb@vex.net non-resident pedant My text in this article is in the public domain. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.