It's irritation (grammar)

[Meed]

In case you missed it (because I want to add presumptuous patronizing to my previous tedious pedantry) I was mocking your use of a plural noun (phenomena) with a singular verb (is).

I did miss it. I thought you were making some sort of point about the aesthetics of improper language use.

 

[bruto]

"So", is similar to using "right" at the end of each sentence.

So you say.

 

[aggle-rithm]

"It's Irritation" is the sequel to "That's Entertainment".

 

[jakesteele]

It's very simple. It's = it is, Its = as in "Its claws are sharp." Also, It's can also be "It has" = It's/"It has" been fun.

p.s. I'm assuming that you meant it's/it is.

"How annoyed are you English speaking types over it's's abundance?"

 

[Anerystos]

I drove over to the store, but they didn't have any bubblegum. So, I decided to convert to Islam.

Er, should there be a comma in the second sentence?

There are two* things which bug me. Both have been attributed to greengrocers in the UK.

First, those who use " 's " when indicating a plural - eg, orange's. I keep wanting to ask, "What is it that belongs to the said oranges? Pray, kind sir, tell us, that we may be suitably enlightened.".

Secondly, those who use quotation marks inappropriately. For example, "Oranges". As far as I can see, this means that we have here objects which purport to be oranges (and have the other characteristics normally associated with such objects), but are, in fact, not oranges. Once again, "Pray tell me, kind madam, what are they if they are not oranges?".

Thirdly, how should the sentence immediately above (starting "Once ... ") be terminated, containing - as it does - a sentence within a sentence. I have used a question mark to terminate the internal sentence, and a full stop (UK) (period, US) to terminate the overall sentence. But should that be " ... full stop (UK ["period", US])?". These are, of course, sentences which repeat the original problem, at least one of which could have been avoided by using a semi-colon.

Ain't pedantry wonderful.

But then, it has been said that English is one of the easiest languages to get your point across in, but the most difficult to speak or write grammatically.

* OK, amongst the many things which annoy me in written English are such diverse ones as ... . But then, I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I see a tendency for miswriting the possessive form of the neuter pronoun "it", even among native, otherwise quite capable English writers.

How annoyed are you English speaking types over it's's abundance?

It drives me nuts. When I see it, I always stop to wonder, "It is what?"

*Shrugs* I've always had a hard time getting where language pendants are coming from. "Its" and "It's" are pronounced the same so while using "It's" for the possessive might not be technically "correct" it is hardly confusing. And since so many possessives do use apostrophes it isn't a totally not understandable mistake. I get that its operates under the same rules as his or hers but confusing it for following the same rules as Bob's or Tim's or whatever doesn't make someone a dullard.

But not the personal pronouns, unless you're Tennyson.

If we're gonna use _it's_ to indicate possession, then I insist we also use _hi's_(or _him's_) and _her's_

...and "your's" and "their's".

At a conservative estimate, I read around 1500 pages of college freshman writing a semester. I can't begin to calculate how many apostrophe errors I have seen. "It's" for "its" (and "its" for "it's") is annoying; by this point of the semester, I want to make it a capital offense; and, on occasion, it can be confusing. It's not the worst offense I see: poor organization, poor argumentation, poor research skills, poor critical reading and critical thinking skills are all much worse sins in a composition classroom. If a paper is exemplary in every way except apostrophe usage, I won't mark it down in any significant way. However, I've been on a week-long grading bender, and I'm feeling stabby.

Make those papers bleed.

I think the question of why something as inconsequential as this should irritate someone is an interesting phenomena. The meaning of "it's" or "its" should almost always be clear from the context of its place in the sentence, so I can't imagine that confusion is the source of the irritation.

It's not confusion, it's that little interruption when I have to stop and think, "Oh, that person means 'its'," multiplied a thousand times a day.

This irritant pales into near-insignificance compared with loose/lose and could of/could have.

They all bother me equally.

This one pales to using "so" at the beginning of a sentence incorrectly (written or spoken). At least the "it's/its" mix-up is relatively infrequent.

What punctuation paradise do you live in? I want to move there.

 

[alfaniner]

I prepared this for a Facebook post but I'm waiting for the right time so no one think it is directed at them particularly. (And I hope it's right!)

His, her, your, my, our, their, its.
His, hers, yours, mine, ours, theirs, its.
He's, she's, you're, I'm, we're, they're, it's.

*Shrugs* I've always had a hard time getting where language pendants are coming from.

I listen to SGU a lot and that is an idiosyncracy I like.

 

[bigred]

It's not incorrect.

So yes it is. So I'm all like dude.

What punctuation paradise do you live in? I want to move there.

lol

So it's more like I'm all what grammar hell do you live in? So Southern California?

So I'm sorry if you're in a worse area. So it must suck to be there. So hopefully that's not true. So if so I'm so sorry.

"a needle sewing threaddd.........."

 

[The Don]

Er, should there be a comma in the second sentence?

There are two* things which bug me. Both have been attributed to greengrocers in the UK.

First, those who use " 's " when indicating a plural - eg, orange's. I keep wanting to ask, "What is it that belongs to the said oranges? Pray, kind sir, tell us, that we may be suitably enlightened.".

As understand it there is a case where an apostrophe can correctly be used to indicate a plural and that is where the word is foreign loan word ending in a vowel. I presume this is done because it may not be immediately apparent that it is a plural and not a singular ending in 's'.

So the plural of "pizza" could be correctly rendered as "pizza's"

 

[Foolmewunz]

Sorry, we missed this thread, folks. Things have been quiet over at the Grammar Resistance because we're still riding the high of having GWB in the White House carrying our banner for us.

Here is our ruling:

It's is a contraction. Its is the possessive of the pronoun it. Since the pronoun is both nominative and objective it confuses some people. No one needs to worry about misunderstanding he's or she's, but how come no one mucks up on her/hers. I never see hers written her's.

As to the irritant factor. It gets about a 1. It really does not confuse one in reading 999 out of 1000 sentences. If someone writes "Its time for dinner", you really don't have more than a moment's irritation while you mumble to yourself, "Illiterate peasant meant it's" and it's over. Gone.

Could of / could've merits about a 3. It's more ignorant and the two don't really sound alike, so just cut it out.

The high score in this category, though, goes to They're, their, there. Skillfully misused, those can take you four readings of a sentence to figure out what the person was trying to say. That gets a 5 (this is on The Grammar Resistance's Formal Irritation Scale from 1 to 7).

But, that's all they are. Varying degrees of irritation. Our main thrust at TGR is that if readers or listeners can make sense of the sentences and paragraphs, then cut 'em some slack, y'all! Not everyone is great at grammar and spelling and punctuation. If we're writing doctoral dissertations on Twentieth Century Poetry, okay... I'd like those people to understand and use the language properly. But we're communicating on an internet forum or sending emails to people half-way 'round the world.

 

[Rat]

So yes it is. So I'm all like dude.

So perhaps I should have said that it is not necessarily an error. I have never heard it used in any construction like the one you have there.

 

[Tristan Chi]

If someone writes "Its time for dinner", you really don't have more than a moment's irritation while you mumble to yourself, "Illiterate peasant meant it's" and it's over. Gone.

But these could be slightly confusing:

I sit close to the television set and it's remote.
I hate illegal parking and it's fine.
I capture the sun and it's light.

Contrived? Nah!

 

[jaydeehess]

IMO "so" is a perfectly acceptable -- and helpful -- beginning to some sentences.

I drove over to the store, but they didn't have any bubblegum. So, I decided to convert to Islam.

OK, but if its " So, I drove over to the store and, so, they didn't have any bubblegum. So I decided to convert to Islam", it becomes tedious and after a few minute's of similar tedium, I am one of those people who's eyes glaze over and silently search for a way to exit from the conversation.

 

[Rat]

OK, but if its " So, I drove over to the store and, so, they didn't have any bubblegum. So I decided to convert to Islam", it becomes tedious and after a few minute's of similar tedium, I am one of those people who's eyes glaze over and silently search for a way to exit from the conversation.

Whose.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

OK, but if its " So, I drove over to the store and, so, they didn't have any bubblegum. So I decided to convert to Islam", it becomes tedious and after a few minute's of similar tedium, I am one of those people who's eyes glaze over and silently search for a way to exit from the conversation.

Whose.

And "minutes".

ETA: And, of course, "it's".

 

[Rat]

And "minutes".

ETA: And, of course, "it's".

OK, I evidently fell for a trolling. Or, at least, I hope so.

 

[Foolmewunz]

But these could be slightly confusing:

I sit close to the television set and it's remote.
I hate illegal parking and it's fine.
I capture the sun and it's light.

Contrived? Nah!

I almost included a disclaimer in my post that was going to say, "Now some of you clever lads or lasses are going to come up with strained examples to show that such confusion is possible." But I sez to myself,... naaaah, they wouldn't do that, not a bunch of edumacated skeptics. Tsk, tsk! Guess I was wrong.

If you have to strain that hard to come up with examples, it's really not much of a problem. We have posters on this board who can't make their thoughts clear whether they use polysyllabic constructions or whatchercallyer basic Hemingway-esque K.I.S.S. style.

Its for it's (and vice-versa) is a sloppy mistake for some and it's a momentary distraction. No one's defending it as what we'd like to see the language morph into. I'm working on reading with my five year old right now and love the fact that almost every page of his PHONICS book is essentially contradictory to their idea of how to learn the language, e.g. "Sound it Out!" The teach them on Day 1 to associate "E" with the sound in egg. They give them little mnemonic exercises so they remember the egg and the "e - egg" sound. And then a month later they start having to teach them all the exceptions. And a month after that, all the phonemes that can be used to make the long E sound. English is best taught as a whole word language (or at least a whole syllable language) because the exceptions don't just make the rule... they are the rule.

And with all those pronunciation foibles, just how and where was it cast in marble that naybour is spelled neighbor or that you can be singular or plural or that it can be nominative or objective case. Much of it is arbitrary and the answer is "because ( _________ )" where you can fill in the elipse with a thousand explanations bur rarely a rule.

If you write and speak English as a second language, I can see where the fascination might come from, but when taken in the scope of problems regarding communications, these are really minor foibles. As I said,... Irritation Factor of 1.

 

[Elizabeth I]

As I said...Irritation Factor of 1.

For you. For me, it's that little irritation multiplied by the number of times I see the error every day. It's cumulative.

 

[Foolmewunz]

For you. For me, it's that little irritation multiplied by the number of times I see the error every day. It's cumulative.

The Foolmewunz Theory of Specific Relativity comes into play. If that's the only error you see and you see it repeatedly, it could get annoying. But if you see they're/their/there substitutions or literally/figuratively confusion or objective/nominative (me/I) errors, I bet the 1 score for it's/its would seem about right.

 

[Elizabeth I]

The Foolmewunz Theory of Specific Relativity comes into play. If that's the only error you see and you see it repeatedly, it could get annoying. But if you see they're/their/there substitutions or literally/figuratively confusion or objective/nominative (me/I) errors, I bet the 1 score for it's/its would seem about right.

No, I used to help my mother grade college freshman English papers. I see them all. I'm in a constant state of low-grade irritation.