Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 5:46 PM
Thu Nov 26
21 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
08/01/09
One day -- maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but one day -- you or your children or your children's children are going to write "its" to form a possessive and it will be "corrected" with an apostrophe by some idiotic teacher or co-worker.
And. He. Will. Be. Right.
08/01/09
08/01/09
teh interwebs. makin us stoopit
08/01/09
What of "its"? The original form ites became the elided its long before the spelling convention of the apostrophe. In consequence, it is "irregular" in so far as the genitive qua possessive normally has 's as a case ending.
In other words, had the elision of ites not become so common before the spelling convention of the apostrophe, the possessive of "it" and the contraction "it is" would be identical: it's and it's. Context would determine whether "it's" meant "of or belonging to it" or "it is." In fact, this is what happens cognitively when one correctly interprets the "mistake" "it's" for "its": the context determines the meaning (as with "who" for "whom"), and there is no problem of comprehension--yet the hyperliterate call out "mistake."
So there is nothing "stupid" about wanting "it's" for "its." Rather, the "mistake" would seem to show the natural human instinct to create formal regularity in language, even--or especially--against irregular conventions. (After all, they sound the same in spoken language.) When we the educated and the literate resist these changes, we may be correct in calling them "mistakes"; however, we should also be honest with ourselves about why we want to correct others and retain control over the language as we customarily use it.
To correct the language of others is to attempt to exercise power over them through the medium of language. The social and symbolic capital of literacy and higher education may not always buy you much, but they aren't worthless. (Consider the relative linguistic wealth of President Obama as opposed to, say, Sarah Palin.) I like to be right in language as in all things; however, I realize that my wanting to be right is, just a little bit, about dominating others. It's not cute, but that's how humans are, and that's what I am.
08/01/09
My bet is that with the propagation of e-mail, IM, text, and general Interwebbery, people have come to distinguish between formal writing and informal writing. When 95% of people omit apostrophes in 95% of their informal writing (cant you see, dont go there), there is an instinct to use an apostrophe in its in any writing they consider "formal."
08/01/09