"It's" is being attacked!

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

"It's" is being attacked!

Sailfish-2
REF: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3705

They intend to do to it just like what they did to poor Pluto :(

[excerpt quote="
The whole basis of the argument Humphrys gave for keeping the apostrophe
is mistaken. Since dogs, dog's, and dogs' are all pronounced exactly the
same, the fact that we can understand each other when we talk about dogs
is as good a proof as one could expect for the proposition that there is
no real danger of irresolvable confusion here. Humphrys cited the
distinctions between its and it's and between were and we're to
illustrate the wondrously helpful nature of the apostrophe, failing to
notice that (a) the form its is a genitive that lacks the apostrophe all
regular genitives have, and (b) it is extremely hard to make up any
sentence in which the only difference is its vs. it's or were and we're
so that ambiguity in context could actually arise. There is, in other
words, virtually zero chance of any ambiguity needing to be prevented by
separating the spellings of these pairs of words.
" /]

:)

--
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "It's" is being attacked!

RAV-2
On 1/26/2012 2:58 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> REF: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3705
>
> They intend to do to it just like what they did to poor Pluto :(

Do you mean, re-categorize it as a dwarf planet?  ;)

>
> [excerpt quote="
> The whole basis of the argument Humphrys gave for keeping the apostrophe
> is mistaken. Since dogs, dog's, and dogs' are all pronounced exactly the
> same, the fact that we can understand each other when we talk about dogs
> is as good a proof as one could expect for the proposition that there is
> no real danger of irresolvable confusion here. Humphrys cited the
> distinctions between its and it's and between were and we're to
> illustrate the wondrously helpful nature of the apostrophe, failing to
> notice that (a) the form its is a genitive that lacks the apostrophe all
> regular genitives have, and (b) it is extremely hard to make up any
> sentence in which the only difference is its vs. it's or were and we're
> so that ambiguity in context could actually arise. There is, in other
> words, virtually zero chance of any ambiguity needing to be prevented by
> separating the spellings of these pairs of words.
> " /]
>
> :)
>

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "It's" is being attacked!

Sailfish-2
My bloviated meandering follows what Rav graced us with on 1/26/2012
12:37 PM:
> On 1/26/2012 2:58 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>> REF: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3705
>>
>> They intend to do to it just like what they did to poor Pluto :(
>
> Do you mean, re-categorize it as a dwarf planet?  ;)
>
Everyone knows the the first step to extinction is re-categorization :D

>>
>> [excerpt quote="
>> The whole basis of the argument Humphrys gave for keeping the apostrophe
>> is mistaken. Since dogs, dog's, and dogs' are all pronounced exactly the
>> same, the fact that we can understand each other when we talk about dogs
>> is as good a proof as one could expect for the proposition that there is
>> no real danger of irresolvable confusion here. Humphrys cited the
>> distinctions between its and it's and between were and we're to
>> illustrate the wondrously helpful nature of the apostrophe, failing to
>> notice that (a) the form its is a genitive that lacks the apostrophe all
>> regular genitives have, and (b) it is extremely hard to make up any
>> sentence in which the only difference is its vs. it's or were and we're
>> so that ambiguity in context could actually arise. There is, in other
>> words, virtually zero chance of any ambiguity needing to be prevented by
>> separating the spellings of these pairs of words.
>> " /]
>>
>> :)
>>
>



--
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "It's" is being attacked!

clay-14
In reply to this post by Sailfish-2
On 01/26/2012 11:58 AM, Sailfish wrote:

> REF: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3705
>
> They intend to do to it just like what they did to poor Pluto :(
>
> [excerpt quote="
> The whole basis of the argument Humphrys gave for keeping the apostrophe
> is mistaken. Since dogs, dog's, and dogs' are all pronounced exactly the
> same, the fact that we can understand each other when we talk about dogs
> is as good a proof as one could expect for the proposition that there is
> no real danger of irresolvable confusion here. Humphrys cited the
> distinctions between its and it's and between were and we're to
> illustrate the wondrously helpful nature of the apostrophe, failing to
> notice that (a) the form its is a genitive that lacks the apostrophe all
> regular genitives have, and (b) it is extremely hard to make up any
> sentence in which the only difference is its vs. it's or were and we're
> so that ambiguity in context could actually arise. There is, in other
> words, virtually zero chance of any ambiguity needing to be prevented by
> separating the spellings of these pairs of words.
> " /]
>
> :)
>

It should be easy to see
The crux of the biscuit
Is the Apostrophe(')
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "It's" is being attacked!

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by Sailfish-2
On 1/26/2012 1:58 PM, Sailfish wrote:

> REF: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3705
>
> They intend to do to it just like what they did to poor Pluto :(
>
> [excerpt quote="
> The whole basis of the argument Humphrys gave for keeping the apostrophe
> is mistaken. Since dogs, dog's, and dogs' are all pronounced exactly the
> same, the fact that we can understand each other when we talk about dogs
> is as good a proof as one could expect for the proposition that there is
> no real danger of irresolvable confusion here. Humphrys cited the
> distinctions between its and it's and between were and we're to
> illustrate the wondrously helpful nature of the apostrophe, failing to
> notice that (a) the form its is a genitive that lacks the apostrophe all
> regular genitives have, and (b) it is extremely hard to make up any
> sentence in which the only difference is its vs. it's or were and we're
> so that ambiguity in context could actually arise. There is, in other
> words, virtually zero chance of any ambiguity needing to be prevented by
> separating the spellings of these pairs of words.
> " /]
>
> :)
>
Laziness is what causes language to deteriorate.  Then should we reduce
'your' and "you're" to a single form, since 'there is little chance of
confusion' (there really IS), or, perhaps, reduce 'their', 'there', and
"they're" to a single form?  Lazy people already are hard at work making
this happen.  It's sad!

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "It's" is being attacked!

Sailfish-2
My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
1/26/2012 4:46 PM:

> On 1/26/2012 1:58 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>> REF: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3705
>>
>> They intend to do to it just like what they did to poor Pluto :(
>>
>> [excerpt quote="
>> The whole basis of the argument Humphrys gave for keeping the apostrophe
>> is mistaken. Since dogs, dog's, and dogs' are all pronounced exactly the
>> same, the fact that we can understand each other when we talk about dogs
>> is as good a proof as one could expect for the proposition that there is
>> no real danger of irresolvable confusion here. Humphrys cited the
>> distinctions between its and it's and between were and we're to
>> illustrate the wondrously helpful nature of the apostrophe, failing to
>> notice that (a) the form its is a genitive that lacks the apostrophe all
>> regular genitives have, and (b) it is extremely hard to make up any
>> sentence in which the only difference is its vs. it's or were and we're
>> so that ambiguity in context could actually arise. There is, in other
>> words, virtually zero chance of any ambiguity needing to be prevented by
>> separating the spellings of these pairs of words.
>> " /]
>>
>> :)
>>
> Laziness is what causes language to deteriorate.  Then should we reduce
> 'your' and "you're" to a single form, since 'there is little chance of
> confusion' (there really IS), or, perhaps, reduce 'their', 'there', and
> "they're" to a single form?  Lazy people already are hard at work making
> this happen.  It's sad!
>
I think their position is that the language should abandon contractions
and just spell two words, as in "you are", "it is", "they are". They
didn't get into their and there (to/too/two/, bear/bare. &c) since there
wasn't an apostrophe. However, I can see their point regarding the lack
of ambiguity in speech depending on its contextual use. Also, I don't
see this as a lazyman's debate, maybe more so in noodling out what makes
more sense, logically.


--
Sailfish - Netscape Champion
Mozilla Contributor Member - www.mozilla.org/credits/
Netscape/Mozilla Tips: http://www.ufaq.org/ , http://ilias.ca/
Rare Mozilla Stuff: https://www.projectit.com/
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "It's" is being attacked!

Ron Hunter
On 1/26/2012 9:46 PM, Sailfish wrote:

> My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> 1/26/2012 4:46 PM:
>> On 1/26/2012 1:58 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>>> REF: http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3705
>>>
>>> They intend to do to it just like what they did to poor Pluto :(
>>>
>>> [excerpt quote="
>>> The whole basis of the argument Humphrys gave for keeping the apostrophe
>>> is mistaken. Since dogs, dog's, and dogs' are all pronounced exactly the
>>> same, the fact that we can understand each other when we talk about dogs
>>> is as good a proof as one could expect for the proposition that there is
>>> no real danger of irresolvable confusion here. Humphrys cited the
>>> distinctions between its and it's and between were and we're to
>>> illustrate the wondrously helpful nature of the apostrophe, failing to
>>> notice that (a) the form its is a genitive that lacks the apostrophe all
>>> regular genitives have, and (b) it is extremely hard to make up any
>>> sentence in which the only difference is its vs. it's or were and we're
>>> so that ambiguity in context could actually arise. There is, in other
>>> words, virtually zero chance of any ambiguity needing to be prevented by
>>> separating the spellings of these pairs of words.
>>> " /]
>>>
>>> :)
>>>
>> Laziness is what causes language to deteriorate. Then should we reduce
>> 'your' and "you're" to a single form, since 'there is little chance of
>> confusion' (there really IS), or, perhaps, reduce 'their', 'there',
>> and "they're" to a single form? Lazy people already are hard at work
>> making this happen. It's sad!
>>
> I think their position is that the language should abandon contractions
> and just spell two words, as in "you are", "it is", "they are". They
> didn't get into their and there (to/too/two/, bear/bare. &c) since there
> wasn't an apostrophe. However, I can see their point regarding the lack
> of ambiguity in speech depending on its contextual use. Also, I don't
> see this as a lazyman's debate, maybe more so in noodling out what makes
> more sense, logically.
>
>
Speech is imprecise, but writing should be precise.  Using two instead
of too will cause confusion for those of us who know the difference.
So many words in English sound exactly the same, usually because people
are too lazy to pronounce them as they really should be pronounced, but
have different meanings.  Others are spelled the same, but pronounced
differently, and mixing up the pronunciation can cause a lot of
confusion with verbal communication.  It is best to know the difference,
and to enunciate clearly for best communication.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: "It's" is being attacked!

kelly-49
On Jan 27, 9:27 am, Ron Hunter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 1/26/2012 9:46 PM, Sailfish wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > My bloviated meandering follows what Ron Hunter graced us with on
> > 1/26/2012 4:46 PM:
> >> On 1/26/2012 1:58 PM, Sailfish wrote:
> >>> REF:http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3705
>
> >>> They intend to do to it just like what they did to poor Pluto :(
>
> >>> [excerpt quote="
> >>> The whole basis of the argument Humphrys gave for keeping the apostrophe
> >>> is mistaken. Since dogs, dog's, and dogs' are all pronounced exactly the
> >>> same, the fact that we can understand each other when we talk about dogs
> >>> is as good a proof as one could expect for the proposition that there is
> >>> no real danger of irresolvable confusion here. Humphrys cited the
> >>> distinctions between its and it's and between were and we're to
> >>> illustrate the wondrously helpful nature of the apostrophe, failing to
> >>> notice that (a) the form its is a genitive that lacks the apostrophe all
> >>> regular genitives have, and (b) it is extremely hard to make up any
> >>> sentence in which the only difference is its vs. it's or were and we're
> >>> so that ambiguity in context could actually arise. There is, in other
> >>> words, virtually zero chance of any ambiguity needing to be prevented by
> >>> separating the spellings of these pairs of words.
> >>> " /]
>
> >>> :)
>
> >> Laziness is what causes language to deteriorate. Then should we reduce
> >> 'your' and "you're" to a single form, since 'there is little chance of
> >> confusion' (there really IS), or, perhaps, reduce 'their', 'there',
> >> and "they're" to a single form? Lazy people already are hard at work
> >> making this happen. It's sad!
>
> > I think their position is that the language should abandon contractions
> > and just spell two words, as in "you are", "it is", "they are". They
> > didn't get into their and there (to/too/two/, bear/bare. &c) since there
> > wasn't an apostrophe. However, I can see their point regarding the lack
> > of ambiguity in speech depending on its contextual use. Also, I don't
> > see this as a lazyman's debate, maybe more so in noodling out what makes
> > more sense, logically.
>
> Speech is imprecise, but writing should be precise.  Using two instead
> of too will cause confusion for those of us who know the difference.
> So many words in English sound exactly the same, usually because people
> are too lazy to pronounce them as they really should be pronounced, but
> have different meanings.  Others are spelled the same, but pronounced
> differently, and mixing up the pronunciation can cause a lot of
> confusion with verbal communication.  It is best to know the difference,
> and to enunciate clearly for best communication.

Ron, the example you gave "two & too (AND to)" Is there really a
difference in pronunciation?
I think that the mobile text speak has influenced all modes of
communication now, mores the pity.
Laziness, as you say, is the main reason. It's amazing how soon these
strange words are officially accepted into the English dictionary.
Like "gobsmacked". In was really "gobsmacked" when that happened with
this word. I think the English teachers will be battling more than
ever to do their jobs nowadays, just trying to keep up with the
vocabulary trends.
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general