 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / September 2005Science group
Science_and_Sci_Fi A group for talking about current Science and it's relation to "Future" Science and the technology of the Science Fiction Genre. http://groups.google.com/group/Science_and_Sci_Fi "it's relation" = You're an illiterate. zona5@pcinternet.net wrote: > Science_and_Sci_Fi > A group for talking about current Science and it's relation to "Future" > Science and the technology of the Science Fiction Genre. > http://groups.google.com/group/Science_and_Sci_Fi > "it's relation" = You're an illiterate. And you are merely incompetent, but than I don't believe that I was inviting you to visit the group. Nope, I'm quite competent, if I was taught well. > "it's relation" = You're an illiterate. http://www.word-detective.com/back-d.html#its " It has become increasingly common to see the two forms confused, not just in everyday use, but also in the news media up to and including The New York Times. Yet the case for the rule regarding "it's and its," as we noted last time, is not as clear- cut as we might imagine. Until the 19th century, in fact, "it's" was used most commonly as the possessive of "it" -- just the opposite of the current "rule." The contraction of "it is" was usually "'tis," as often heard in Shakespeare's plays. Even after the use of "'tis" faded, "it's" was used for both the possessive and the contraction, and the reader would have to judge which was meant by the context in which it was used. The modern rule regarding "it's," it would seem, is a fairly arbitrary decree." Oh, Great Queen of Literacy! Please help me find the *exactly right* word for a person who spends their time correcting the grammar of posters to science newsgroups. After that, I really don't care *what* you do. p A person does not have a their. > A person does not have a their. I wept for 13 hours upon reading this tragic news. I have put together a little their made of clay and paper clips for you. Simply post your home address along with bank acct.# and P.I.N., and I will send it along. p > Yet the case for the rule regarding "it's and its," as we noted last > time, is not as clear- cut as we might imagine. Until the 19th century, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > context in which it was used. The modern rule regarding "it's," it > would seem, is a fairly arbitrary decree." COMMENT: Thanks for that. It might also help readers historically to understand that we got the apostrophe used in the possessive sense with nouns, from the Old English "es" possessive tacked onto nouns. The apostrophe is there as a stand-in for that missing "e", so it works as a stand-in for a missing letter in possessives, also. "It's" as the spelling for it-possessive is perfectly reasonable. But (as you note) now outlawed. It's one of those things you have to do to show you're literate. Like not writing that "to show your literate." Sigh. SBH > > Yet the case for the rule regarding "it's and its," as we noted last > > time, is not as clear- cut as we might imagine. Until the 19th century, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > SBH You are heartily welcome, sir. Though I do lament the passing of "unique" and "literally" from the English language, there is a limit beyond which one simply becomes annoying, eh? All the best, p Certain words are unique and have literally only one meaning, eh?. >> Yet the case for the rule regarding "it's and its," as we noted last >> time, is not as clear- cut as we might imagine. Until the 19th century, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >show you're literate. Like not writing that "to show your literate." >Sigh. Usage evolves. "Awful" used to mean "full of awe" but now it doesn't. If you're arguing that it's for possessive would have been proper in the 17th century or some such, OK. But it's not now. >SBH SBH, where did you get that? What about -se and -ce possessives? -Aut > SBH, where did you get that? What about -se and -ce possessives? > > -Aut Told to me once by an English teacher. A wonderful string of limmericks on the subject: http://www.oedilf.com/db/Lim.php?Word=apostrophe >> "it's relation" = You're an illiterate. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >in fact, "it's" was used most commonly as the possessive of "it" -- >just the opposite of the current "rule." The contraction of "it is" was Two hundred years later, there is a clear and unambiguous rule which school children are taught and can be found in handbooks of the English language.  Signature"Funny, how close to God you can become on a Harley... " -- Dr. Squat > >> "it's relation" = You're an illiterate. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Two hundred years later, there is a clear and unambiguous rule If one breaks this rule whilst posting a perfectly friendly and useful link, should one expect to be labeled "illiterate" by some uptight little snot with nothing better to do? > which > school children are taught and can be found in handbooks of the English > language. Sci.physics is an international forum. Grammar is currently under attack from the media an do the street. People make mistakes. I think we should give people some slack. p >> >> "it's relation" = You're an illiterate. >> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >useful link, should one expect to be labeled "illiterate" by some >uptight little snot with nothing better to do? Should one? Nope. Should one expect to? Yeah, that's the way usenet works. But that's a different matter than whether a mistake was made in the first place. >> which >> school children are taught and can be found in handbooks of the English [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >attack from the media an do the street. People make mistakes. I think >we should give people some slack. Grammar flames aren't about the grammar. But I, for one, try to use language correctly, and don't mind valid criticisms if I slip. Signature"And don't skimp on the mayonnaise!" > >> >> "it's relation" = You're an illiterate. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Should one? Nope. Should one expect to? Yeah, that's the way usenet > works. There is that... > But that's a different matter than whether a mistake was made in > the first place. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Grammar flames aren't about the grammar. But I, for one, try to use > language correctly, and don't mind valid criticisms if I slip. Man, I removed this post almost immediately due to, "an do the street". You're the quickest replier in the world...guess I'll remove the corrected one an do hit the street. p >> > Sci.physics is an international forum. Grammar is currently under >> >attack from the media an do the street. People make mistakes. I think [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >street". You're the quickest replier in the world...guess I'll remove >the corrected one an do hit the street. Just logged on this afternoon, your post could have been hanging around since yesterday for all I knew. I just have good timing. And now I've immortalized a message you'd rather everyone forgot about. It's happened to me, too. Signature"It is the weak who are cruel. Gentleness can only be expected from the strong." -- Leo Roskin > >> "it's relation" = You're an illiterate. > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Two hundred years later, there is a clear and unambiguous rule If one breaks this rule whilst posting a perfectly friendly and useful link, should one expect to be labeled an "illiterate" by some uptight little snot with nothing better to do? > which > school children are taught and can be found in handbooks of the English > language. Sci.physics is an international forum. Rules of grammar are practically endless. People make mistakes. I think we should cut people some slack in this regard. No ill will toward G.L. Hansen here. p |
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
|
©2008 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.