Not quite. It can mean possessive as well. Though it's not the preferred way of using it. It has a somewhat special status in terms of the possessive. Nevertheless...
There are several way's of expressing , er, it.
One of the definitiions of the Webster's (notice the apostrophe?) Third New International Dictionary; still the standard in these matters, has as one of the expressions of its:
it's \\"\\ adj [by alter.] its
In it's/its Guide to Punctuation we find:
An apostrophe and s are usually added to a noun to indicate ownership or a relation analogous to ownership. ...a survival of the es ending in Old and Middle English,...
in addition
An apostrophe either with or without s forms the possive case of singular nouns ending in an s or z sound.
There is a fair amount more.
The point being that while "it" is a special case, it's perfactly ok, though not a "modern" usage.
It's is "it is." The apostrophe signifies missing letter(s).
Its means "belonging to it." Even though this is a possessive form, there is no apostrophe, because it is a pronoun -- just like there is no apostrophe in her, his, or your.
Also, the fork goes on the left, the spoon and knife on the right.
It's is "it is." The apostrophe signifies missing letter(s).
Its means "belonging to it." Even though this is a possessive form, there is no apostrophe, because it is a pronoun -- just like there is no apostrophe in hers, his, or yours.
Also, the fork goes on the left, the spoon and knife on the right.
fork = 4 letters
left = 4 letters
spoon = 5 letters
knife = 5 letters
right = 5 letters.
Cute, but if you look it up in the proper dictionary (by that I mean one like the one I use, that bothers with this) you will find that what I said is correct.
Cute, but if you look it up in the proper dictionary (by that I mean one like the one I use, that bothers with this) you will find that what I said is correct.
I'm not being cute. I'm being accurate. Correct. Right. Well-read, well-informed. The fact is, it's is a contraction of "it is" and its is a possessive pronoun. Its, her, his, your, my -- all possessive pronouns.
Also, every dictionary I just looked in (Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition; Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary; The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) all say the same thing.
I'm not being cute. I'm being accurate. Correct. Right. Well-read, well-informed. The fact is, it's is a contraction of "it is" and its is a possessive pronoun. Its, her, his, your, my -- all possessive pronouns.
Also, every dictionary I just looked in (Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition; Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary; The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) all say the same thing.
Collegiate dictionaries or their equivalent, whether on the web or not, are not complete.
The Webster's Third New International Dictionary, along with the Oxford's Dictionary of the English language are considered to be the standards.
The definition of the word "it" in the Third International, would take up several pages in any of the others you have cited. And they do not possess the Guides either, except in some very abbreviated form.
I did say that it was not the modern usage. I really don't know what more you expect.
I did say that it was not the modern usage. I really don't know what more you expect.
First of all, sorry about this long digression, but really, how much is there to say about an update that hasn't come out yet.
Anyway, melgross, my problem was your conclusion: "The point being that while "it" is a special case, it's perfactly ok, though not a "modern" usage."
a) it is not a special case. Just like every other possessive pronoun, there is no apostrophe.
b) it is not perfectly okay. In fact, it is wrong. Writing in Old English is not correct in modern English. Besides, the quotes you gave supporting your argument do not, in fact, support your argument:
Quote:
An apostrophe and s are usually added to a noun to indicate ownership or a relation analogous to ownership. ...a survival of the es ending in Old and Middle English,...
in addition
An apostrophe either with or without s forms the possive case of singular nouns ending in an s or z sound.
The explanation of where the possessive apostrophe derived from (Old/Middle English "es") does not relate to possessive pronouns, nor does the explanation about nouns ending in s or z sounds. The whole point of this discussion is that all possessive pronouns (not nouns) do not use apostrophes.
So, since I only have three dictionaries and the entire world wide web at hand, but I don't have your dictionary here, and you don't provide any relevant quotes from your dictionary, it is screamingly clear to me that you are, unfortunately, wrong. Perhaps I'm wrong -- maybe you read through the guide to punctuation too quickly and quoted the wrong section -- but I doubt it. However, if I am wrong, I'd love to be proven wrong, not told to look it up in a book that you have but I don't.
That's very good, but you need the actual dictionary.
I'll repeat again:
It's not considered to be modern usage. The online definition only contains the modern usage.
I never said that it was the preferred usage. It is possessive, as the definition that I quoted from the Third International shows. It's = its.
It just isn't used much any more, so you won't find it where there are space limitations, or in a web definition which is giving commonly accepted definitions.
It's like the word regardless. That's accepted. Irregardless is used as well. It isn't wrong. But it's isn't preferred. Many dictionaries won't have it. Some do, and they say to use respective.
Enough already. This is getting silly, and we're off topic anyway.
The point being that while "it" is a special case, it's perfactly ok, though not a "modern" usage.
It's about as ok as spelling lose, loose. It isn't right and never has been. It is an exception where you drop the apostrophe for possessive. Just because a large proportion of the population go uneducated in this day and age doesn't make using an apostrophe correct for possessive with it.
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
The Webster's Third New International Dictionary, along with the Oxford's Dictionary of the English language are considered to be the standards.
Given you obviously haven't looked in the Oxford dictionary I will tell you it doesn't agree with you. It says quite specifically in fact it's = contraction and its = possessive. It's as a possessive is not a modern usage, it is not a historical usage, it is an incorrect usage.
To quote the Oxford:
Quote:
The apostrophe in it?s never denotes a possessive. The confusion is at least partly understandable since other possessive forms (singular nouns) do take an apostrophe + s, as in the girl's bike or the president's smile.
It's about as ok as spelling lose, loose. It isn't right and never has been. It is an exception where you drop the apostrophe for possessive. Just because a large proportion of the population go uneducated in this day and age doesn't make using an apostrophe correct for possessive with it.
Given you obviously haven't looked in the Oxford dictionary I will tell you it doesn't agree with you. It says quite specifically in fact it's = contraction and its = possessive. It's as a possessive is not a modern usage, it is not a historical usage, it is an incorrect usage.
To quote the Oxford: Could it be any more definite?
You are wron about my not having looked in the Oxford. I don't have it here (all twenty= volumns), but you also haven't looked at the Third International.
That's very good, but you need the actual dictionary.
I don't have it. I was really hoping you could quote any relevant information from the actual dictionary.
Quote:
It just isn't used much any more, so you won't find it where there are space limitations, or in a web definition which is giving commonly accepted definitions.
It's like the word regardless. That's accepted. Irregardless is used as well. It isn't wrong. But it's isn't preferred. Many dictionaries won't have it. Some do, and they say to use respective.
Actually, the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition says of the word irregardless:
Quote:
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: ir-i-gärd-ls
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usageIrregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
The same source, which contains exhaustive usage notes on all such confusing words, is adamant about it's/its.
You haven't provided one bit of evidence that it's is a viable spelling of the possessive form of "it". Claiming that it's not modern is one thing, but claiming that old/middle English usage makes it okay is not valid. Those are fundamentally different languages than English. The English of 200 years ago isn't modern, but it's still the same English language we speak today. Old and Middle English are not. However, I haven't seen any evidence that "it's" was considered valid as a possessive pronoun 200 years ago either.
You also started this whole thread with this sentence:
Quote:
I argue with some editors about the its it's its' thing as well. The " ' " implies possesive. Most times there's no problem with using the " ' ", but some editors think that it isn't "modern".
That shows a complete ignorance of the topic. First of all, its' is never okay. And this isn't an editorial option... I dare you to find one legitimate editor who would allow "it's" as a possessive. And yes, the apostrophe implies possessive for nouns, but, as discussed ad nauseum, not for pronouns. Which is where your confusion (and many others') comes from. [and yes, others' is correct. The possessive of the plural noun others -- many others' confusion -- although I would gladly debate the use of confusion vs. confusions in this example]
It's about as ok as spelling lose, loose. It isn't right and never has been. It is an exception where you drop the apostrophe for possessive.
Thank you for the supporting evidence from Oxford's. One issue I have, though, is that, in fact, "its" is not an exception. You do not drop the apostrophe for possessive. Its is a possessive pronoun, a word in its own right, like his, her, your, and their.
Code:
Pronoun Possessive Prounoun
------- -------------------
Him His
Her Her
You Your
Them Their
It Its
Us Our
As you can see, many possessive pronouns don't even end in "s". Its looks like an exception, but it's just a unique word, like her or his.
(or is it IT'S, I can never remember, but, then again, I have so much trouble getting the whole "which is left and which is right" thing memorized too, so its not too surprising)
It's interesting in hypnosis, when you're working with arm catalepsy (having an arm levitate while the person watches their arm raise) that the right hand to do first is the left hand, which means that the right hand is the only hand left.
:-)
edit: damn, is this an "its" discussion or a left hand right hand thing?
Comments
Originally posted by alternapop
"it's" is NOT possesive. "Its" is.
"it's" = it is
Not quite. It can mean possessive as well. Though it's not the preferred way of using it. It has a somewhat special status in terms of the possessive. Nevertheless...
There are several way's of expressing , er, it.
One of the definitiions of the Webster's (notice the apostrophe?) Third New International Dictionary; still the standard in these matters, has as one of the expressions of its:
it's \\"\\ adj [by alter.] its
In it's/its Guide to Punctuation we find:
An apostrophe and s are usually added to a noun to indicate ownership or a relation analogous to ownership. ...a survival of the es ending in Old and Middle English,...
in addition
An apostrophe either with or without s forms the possive case of singular nouns ending in an s or z sound.
There is a fair amount more.
The point being that while "it" is a special case, it's perfactly ok, though not a "modern" usage.
Originally posted by alternapop
"it's" is NOT possesive. "Its" is.
"it's" = it is
It's easy to remember, and it's not arbitrary:
It's is "it is." The apostrophe signifies missing letter(s).
Its means "belonging to it." Even though this is a possessive form, there is no apostrophe, because it is a pronoun -- just like there is no apostrophe in her, his, or your.
Also, the fork goes on the left, the spoon and knife on the right.
fork = 4 letters
left = 4 letters
spoon = 5 letters
knife = 5 letters
right = 5 letters.
Originally posted by dak splunder
It's easy to remember, and it's not arbitrary:
It's is "it is." The apostrophe signifies missing letter(s).
Its means "belonging to it." Even though this is a possessive form, there is no apostrophe, because it is a pronoun -- just like there is no apostrophe in hers, his, or yours.
Also, the fork goes on the left, the spoon and knife on the right.
fork = 4 letters
left = 4 letters
spoon = 5 letters
knife = 5 letters
right = 5 letters.
Cute, but if you look it up in the proper dictionary (by that I mean one like the one I use, that bothers with this) you will find that what I said is correct.
Originally posted by melgross
Cute, but if you look it up in the proper dictionary (by that I mean one like the one I use, that bothers with this) you will find that what I said is correct.
I'm not being cute. I'm being accurate. Correct. Right. Well-read, well-informed. The fact is, it's is a contraction of "it is" and its is a possessive pronoun. Its, her, his, your, my -- all possessive pronouns.
Also, every dictionary I just looked in (Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition; Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary; The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) all say the same thing.
As does everyone on the web:
http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=its+%22it%27s%22
:d
Originally posted by dak splunder
I'm not being cute. I'm being accurate. Correct. Right. Well-read, well-informed. The fact is, it's is a contraction of "it is" and its is a possessive pronoun. Its, her, his, your, my -- all possessive pronouns.
Also, every dictionary I just looked in (Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition; Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary; The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition) all say the same thing.
As does everyone on the web:
http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=its+%22it%27s%22
:d
Collegiate dictionaries or their equivalent, whether on the web or not, are not complete.
The Webster's Third New International Dictionary, along with the Oxford's Dictionary of the English language are considered to be the standards.
The definition of the word "it" in the Third International, would take up several pages in any of the others you have cited. And they do not possess the Guides either, except in some very abbreviated form.
I did say that it was not the modern usage. I really don't know what more you expect.
Originally posted by melgross
I did say that it was not the modern usage. I really don't know what more you expect.
First of all, sorry about this long digression, but really, how much is there to say about an update that hasn't come out yet.
Anyway, melgross, my problem was your conclusion: "The point being that while "it" is a special case, it's perfactly ok, though not a "modern" usage."
a) it is not a special case. Just like every other possessive pronoun, there is no apostrophe.
b) it is not perfectly okay. In fact, it is wrong. Writing in Old English is not correct in modern English. Besides, the quotes you gave supporting your argument do not, in fact, support your argument:
An apostrophe and s are usually added to a noun to indicate ownership or a relation analogous to ownership. ...a survival of the es ending in Old and Middle English,...
in addition
An apostrophe either with or without s forms the possive case of singular nouns ending in an s or z sound.
The explanation of where the possessive apostrophe derived from (Old/Middle English "es") does not relate to possessive pronouns, nor does the explanation about nouns ending in s or z sounds. The whole point of this discussion is that all possessive pronouns (not nouns) do not use apostrophes.
So, since I only have three dictionaries and the entire world wide web at hand, but I don't have your dictionary here, and you don't provide any relevant quotes from your dictionary, it is screamingly clear to me that you are, unfortunately, wrong. Perhaps I'm wrong -- maybe you read through the guide to punctuation too quickly and quoted the wrong section -- but I doubt it. However, if I am wrong, I'd love to be proven wrong, not told to look it up in a book that you have but I don't.
:d
How do I know when to put an apostrophe in it's?
The word it's is always short for it is (as in it's raining), or in informal speech, for it has (as in it's got six legs).
The word its means 'belonging to it' (as in hold its head still while I jump on its back). It is a possessive pronoun like his.
You can find that at http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexper...mar/apostrophe
IT'S lame
Originally posted by dak splunder
Also, the Oxford English Dictionary's public website, http://www.askoxford.com/ says this:
You can find that at http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexper...mar/apostrophe
That's very good, but you need the actual dictionary.
I'll repeat again:
It's not considered to be modern usage. The online definition only contains the modern usage.
I never said that it was the preferred usage. It is possessive, as the definition that I quoted from the Third International shows. It's = its.
It just isn't used much any more, so you won't find it where there are space limitations, or in a web definition which is giving commonly accepted definitions.
It's like the word regardless. That's accepted. Irregardless is used as well. It isn't wrong. But it's isn't preferred. Many dictionaries won't have it. Some do, and they say to use respective.
Enough already. This is getting silly, and we're off topic anyway.
Originally posted by melgross
The point being that while "it" is a special case, it's perfactly ok, though not a "modern" usage.
It's about as ok as spelling lose, loose. It isn't right and never has been. It is an exception where you drop the apostrophe for possessive. Just because a large proportion of the population go uneducated in this day and age doesn't make using an apostrophe correct for possessive with it.
Originally posted by melgross
The Webster's Third New International Dictionary, along with the Oxford's Dictionary of the English language are considered to be the standards.
Given you obviously haven't looked in the Oxford dictionary I will tell you it doesn't agree with you. It says quite specifically in fact it's = contraction and its = possessive. It's as a possessive is not a modern usage, it is not a historical usage, it is an incorrect usage.
To quote the Oxford:
The apostrophe in it?s never denotes a possessive. The confusion is at least partly understandable since other possessive forms (singular nouns) do take an apostrophe + s, as in the girl's bike or the president's smile.
Could it be any more definite?
Or should that be "somebody just got served"?
Or maybe "somebody just was served"?
Or perhaps"somebody has just gotten served"?
Originally posted by Telomar
It's about as ok as spelling lose, loose. It isn't right and never has been. It is an exception where you drop the apostrophe for possessive. Just because a large proportion of the population go uneducated in this day and age doesn't make using an apostrophe correct for possessive with it.
Given you obviously haven't looked in the Oxford dictionary I will tell you it doesn't agree with you. It says quite specifically in fact it's = contraction and its = possessive. It's as a possessive is not a modern usage, it is not a historical usage, it is an incorrect usage.
To quote the Oxford: Could it be any more definite?
You are wron about my not having looked in the Oxford. I don't have it here (all twenty= volumns), but you also haven't looked at the Third International.
OK? That's it.
Originally posted by melgross
That's very good, but you need the actual dictionary.
I don't have it. I was really hoping you could quote any relevant information from the actual dictionary.
It just isn't used much any more, so you won't find it where there are space limitations, or in a web definition which is giving commonly accepted definitions.
It's like the word regardless. That's accepted. Irregardless is used as well. It isn't wrong. But it's isn't preferred. Many dictionaries won't have it. Some do, and they say to use respective.
Actually, the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition says of the word irregardless:
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: ir-i-gärd-ls
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
The same source, which contains exhaustive usage notes on all such confusing words, is adamant about it's/its.
You haven't provided one bit of evidence that it's is a viable spelling of the possessive form of "it". Claiming that it's not modern is one thing, but claiming that old/middle English usage makes it okay is not valid. Those are fundamentally different languages than English. The English of 200 years ago isn't modern, but it's still the same English language we speak today. Old and Middle English are not. However, I haven't seen any evidence that "it's" was considered valid as a possessive pronoun 200 years ago either.
You also started this whole thread with this sentence:
I argue with some editors about the its it's its' thing as well. The " ' " implies possesive. Most times there's no problem with using the " ' ", but some editors think that it isn't "modern".
That shows a complete ignorance of the topic. First of all, its' is never okay. And this isn't an editorial option... I dare you to find one legitimate editor who would allow "it's" as a possessive. And yes, the apostrophe implies possessive for nouns, but, as discussed ad nauseum, not for pronouns. Which is where your confusion (and many others') comes from. [and yes, others' is correct. The possessive of the plural noun others -- many others' confusion -- although I would gladly debate the use of confusion vs. confusions in this example]
:d
Originally posted by wilco
Someone just got served!
Or should that be "somebody just got served"?
Or maybe "somebody just was served"?
Or perhaps"somebody has just gotten served"?
Somebody has just been served. Get it right!
Even when it's quite obvious, that they were in fact completely wrong.
Originally posted by Telomar
It's about as ok as spelling lose, loose. It isn't right and never has been. It is an exception where you drop the apostrophe for possessive.
Thank you for the supporting evidence from Oxford's. One issue I have, though, is that, in fact, "its" is not an exception. You do not drop the apostrophe for possessive. Its is a possessive pronoun, a word in its own right, like his, her, your, and their.
Pronoun Possessive Prounoun
------- -------------------
Him His
Her Her
You Your
Them Their
It Its
Us Our
As you can see, many possessive pronouns don't even end in "s". Its looks like an exception, but it's just a unique word, like her or his.
:d
Originally posted by Louzer
(or is it IT'S, I can never remember, but, then again, I have so much trouble getting the whole "which is left and which is right" thing memorized too, so its not too surprising)
It's interesting in hypnosis, when you're working with arm catalepsy (having an arm levitate while the person watches their arm raise) that the right hand to do first is the left hand, which means that the right hand is the only hand left.
:-)
edit: damn, is this an "its" discussion or a left hand right hand thing?
Originally posted by melgross
Nevertheless...
There are several ways of expressing , er, it.
T, FTFY