English is a remarkably inconsistent PITA, isn't it...? Could be worse, though. Esperanto.
;) On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:02 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > On 16.9.8 10:52, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > ~~~~~~ > >> On ~, Sep 8, 2016 at 3:25 AM, <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] > http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook > Send large attachments to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list [email protected] http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to [email protected]
