Its, the possessive of it .

  • Thread starter Dremmer
  • Start date
  • #1
87
0
its, the possessive of "it".

Anyone else find it funny and odd that it's (no pun intended) spelled "its" with no apostrophe? Other possessive forms like "one's", "dog's" etc. are spelled with an apostrophe before the "s".
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
12,209
5,902


So as not to confuse it with the "it is" contraction. English was designed by a commiittee before the age of computers or commuters.
 
  • #3
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
685


English was designed by a commiittee before the age of computers or commuters.
That would be French or Spanish. English? We don't need no stinkin' committee.
 
  • #4
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
132


That would be French or Spanish. English? We don't need no stinkin' committee.
The pronounciation variability in endings like -ough ought to tell you otherwise..
 
  • #5
Ibix
Science Advisor
Insights Author
7,083
6,014


That it's the wrong way round is the way I remember which way is right.
 
  • #6
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
685


That it's the wrong way round is the way I remember which way is right.
I use the short and sweet "it's a contraction."
 
  • #7
Ben Niehoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,879
162


There are also no apostrophes in "yours", "his", "hers", "theirs", and "whose". Notice that they are all pronouns.

The truth is, there is no logical reason for possessives like "dog's" to carry an apostrophe in the first place. Historically, there was none. Compare to modern German which forms genitives with -s and no apostrophe; there is no confusion.

The apostrophe was added by Renaissance grammarians who mistakenly believed that the possessive ending was derived from "his", as in "the dog his = the dog's". However, this grammatical construction never existed in English.
 
  • #8
AlephZero
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
6,994
291


The truth is, there is no logical reason for possessives like "dog's" to carry an apostrophe in the first place. Historically, there was none. Compare to modern German which forms genitives with -s and no apostrophe; there is no confusion.

The apostrophe was added by Renaissance grammarians who mistakenly believed that the possessive ending was derived from "his", as in "the dog his = the dog's". However, this grammatical construction never existed in English.
There is no confusion in German because, unlike English, plurals are not formed by adding "s".

There is potential confusion in English when "genitive or plural" is followed by word that could be either a noun or a verb, for example "the priests stole". (Can't think of a better example right now...)

Without an apostrophe, there is also confusion between genitive singular (priest's) and genitive plural (priests').

But you are right that the apostrophe was not used in English in the 16th and early 17th century.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
lisab
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,887
616


Please, just don't use its' (insert pet peeve smiley here).
 
  • #10
Danger
Gold Member
9,607
246


Please, just don't use its' (insert pet peeve smiley here).
:rofl:
I can't say as I ever saw that one.
 
  • #11
Ben Niehoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,879
162


There is no confusion in German because, unlike English, plurals are not formed by adding "s".
Mostly true, but some German words do add -s to make both the plural and the genitive, such as Auto, Autos.

But aside from genitive vs. plural, German has other case endings that are sometimes identical, especially in the feminine gender. They are always spelled the same, and you can tell them apart from context.

And Latin, which is even more strongly dependent on its word endings, has several examples of different endings being the same. You'll probably find the same in every natural inflected language; not every inflection is absolutely unique. English is the only example I know of that feels the need to spell two endings differently when they are pronounced the same.
 
  • #12
87
0


Mostly true, but some German words do add -s to make both the plural and the genitive, such as Auto, Autos.

But aside from genitive vs. plural, German has other case endings that are sometimes identical, especially in the feminine gender. They are always spelled the same, and you can tell them apart from context.

And Latin, which is even more strongly dependent on its word endings, has several examples of different endings being the same. You'll probably find the same in every natural inflected language; not every inflection is absolutely unique. English is the only example I know of that feels the need to spell two endings differently when they are pronounced the same.
Yeah, the "er" ending in "nicer" and "maker" are spelled the same despite the different function, likewise the "s" ending in "detects" and "cars".
 
  • #13
Danger
Gold Member
9,607
246


likewise the "s" ending in "detects" and "cars".
Of course, if you combine those two, the proper ending is a speeding ticket.
 
  • #14
Dembadon
Gold Member
624
89


Something else that seems to cause a lot of confusion:

How does one refer to an object that belongs to someone whose name ends with an 's'?

Example: A bat belonging to a person named Carlos.

Correct: Carlos's bat. (One appends the apostrophe AND the 's' to the end of the name)

Incorrect: Carlo's bat. (One just changed Carlos's name to Carlo)

Also Incorrect: Carlos' bat. (One just indicated there are multiple people named Carlos, perhaps even cloned, who all claim possession of the bat)
 
  • #15
Chi Meson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,789
10


Also Incorrect: Carlos' bat. (One just indicated there are multiple people named Carlos, perhaps even cloned, who all claim possession of the bat)
Multiple people named Carlo, I believe. Several Carloses claiming bat would be "Carloses' bat." [/nitpicking]
 
  • #16
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
685


Something else that seems to cause a lot of confusion:

How does one refer to an object that belongs to someone whose name ends with an 's'?

Example: A bat belonging to a person named Carlos.

Correct: Carlos's bat. (One appends the apostrophe AND the 's' to the end of the name)

Incorrect: Carlo's bat. (One just changed Carlos's name to Carlo)

Also Incorrect: Carlos' bat. (One just indicated there are multiple people named Carlos, perhaps even cloned, who all claim possession of the bat)
That last one would be Carloses' bat, or Carloses's bat, depending on whose set of rules one follows.

Regarding Carlos' versus Carlos's, different guides have different opinions. There is no single authority that dictates what is / is not proper English. This happens to be one of those places where different style guides disagree, but consensus does appear to be moving toward Carlos's.
 
  • #17
Dembadon
Gold Member
624
89


Multiple people named Carlo, I believe. Several Carloses claiming bat would be "Carloses' bat." [/nitpicking]
That last one would be Carloses' bat, or Carloses's bat, depending on whose set of rules one follows.

Regarding Carlos' versus Carlos's, different guides have different opinions. There is no single authority that dictates what is / is not proper English. This happens to be one of those places where different style guides disagree, but consensus does appear to be moving toward Carlos's.
Points taken.
 

Related Threads on Its, the possessive of it .

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
7K
Replies
45
Views
5K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
8K
Replies
23
Views
5K
Replies
39
Views
7K
Top