Cato's Grammar Grumble

[eyeresist]

Quote from: eyeresist on Today at 06:22:40 PM

To be fair, it's one of the more arbitrary grammatical rules.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by this; after all, aren't most rules--grammatical or otherwise--arbitrary by the very nature of their being guidelines formed by an unknown group of people? For me, the distinction between it's and its is very clear. I am continually amazed at how often well-educated people continue to confuse and get them wrong in everyday written usage.

The distinction is clear, but the rule is abitrary. Inverted commas are used to show contractions and possessives, except in this case; to differentiate the uses for "it's", someone decided to omit the comma from possessives, but there's no logic to the choice and it could as easily have been the other way around.

Here's an interesting quote:

There is something to add here. You can tell a person's age with regard to this one, because older books use "it's" as a possessive. A friend, a few years older than I (I'm almost 50) showed me this in her college grammar book, dated about 1965 or so. The rule was updated somewhere around that time so that "its" became the sole possessive, while "it's" became a contraction only. When I see a good writer who frequently uses "it's" as the possessive, I check his/her age and am almost always correct that it is someone over the age of 60. It is often seen in the original unedited versions of classics. The online book "The Grammar of English Grammars," written c. 1852, agrees.

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/13148/why-is-there-a-distinction-between-its-and-its

[Opus106]

but there's no logic to the choice and it could as easily have been the other way around.

If there's (see what I did there?) something that the English language lacks, it's logic.

[Concord]

So, here's a question: did they hold each other's hands or hold each other's hand? Sometimes the plural looks right to me, other times the singular. Or is it one of those cases where there is no rule and you go with personal preference? I lean toward singular, since only one hand of each is invovled, but 've seen the "each other's" construction both ways.

If you untwist the sentence, the singular is definitiely correct, as in "Each held the other's hand," but that's the only alternative construction I can think of, and in this case both the subject and the object are singalar, whereas in the first instance the subject ("They") is plural as well.

Discuss.

[Concord]

Punctuation does matter:



Not a problem, though, if boy syrup is what you're looking for ...

[North Star]

And what exactly is this plaque trying to tell?

[mahler10th]

...did they hold each other's hands or hold each other's hand?

"Hold each others hands" would refer to a group of more than 2 people.
"Hold each others hand" references only two people.

EDIT:  Maybe not.

[kishnevi]

The distinction is clear, but the rule is abitrary. Inverted commas are used to show contractions and possessives, except in this case; to differentiate the uses for "it's", someone decided to omit the comma from possessives, but there's no logic to the choice and it could as easily have been the other way around.

That quote goes in the bank of useful quotations.  But its and not it's as a possessive is not quite so illogical--wherever the change originated, it was probably intended to conform to all other pronouns--ours, yours, his, hers, theirs--which all lack the apostrophe.  (Or at least  I don't remember seeing them with one, no matter how old the source material.)

The true degradation occurred whenever 'twas that it's replaced 'tis in general use.  And I think that was before the 20th century....

[Gold Knight]

@ eyeresist and Jeffrey Smith, Thank you both for your insights into this often annoying--at least for me--"misuse" of the two words. I had no idea that the other usage was acceptable before 1965; I have no recollection of being taught that it's could be used as a possessive, and I am 61 years old. Then again, maybe I just don't remember anymore!

[eyeresist]

That quote goes in the bank of useful quotations.  But its and not it's as a possessive is not quite so illogical--wherever the change originated, it was probably intended to conform to all other pronouns--ours, yours, his, hers, theirs--which all lack the apostrophe.

You're right - I thought of that later.

Last night I was going to make a lengthy post on the subject of em dash vs. en dash, but in the end thought better of it, and just added it to the blog.

Em dashes are weird!

[petrarch]

Em dashes are weird!

I recommend the following, a very concise, well-written summary of the rules of typography and their historical roots--including em dashes:

[asin]0881792063[/asin]

[Karl Henning]

In an online article I read yesterday (or Monday, perhaps): "… the family asks that their privacy is respected."

Especially a hard death for the subjunctive, in that ritual phrase!

[Florestan]

"... the family asks that their privacy is respected."

Replace "that" with "whether" and everything is allright... 

[Cato]

In an online article I read yesterday (or Monday, perhaps): "... the family asks that their privacy is respected."

Especially a hard death for the subjunctive, in that ritual phrase!

I have met English teachers - from high schools - who either did not know what the subjunctive mood was, or admitted to not bothering to teach it, because it was "too hard."

Yes, English lacks logic, as do languages in general, since they evolve and "happen" over time, and are not pre-planned.

Esperanto, I suppose, would be an exception.  But perhaps even there one might find problems?

[Gurn Blanston]

In an online article I read yesterday (or Monday, perhaps): "... the family asks that their privacy is respected."

Especially a hard death for the subjunctive, in that ritual phrase!

Not a phrase that one tends to parse out. Now that I think about it, whether correct or not, I would write this;

"The family ask that their privacy be respected."

Even if it is incorrect, it just feels so much better to me.

[eyeresist]

I have met English teachers - from high schools - who either did not know what the subjunctive mood was, or admitted to not bothering to teach it, because it was "too hard."

I confess I have no idea what the subjunctive is - I steer largely by instinct.

[Karl Henning]

Not a phrase that one tends to parse out. Now that I think about it, whether correct or not, I would write this;

"The family ask that their privacy be respected."

Even if it is incorrect, it just feels so much better to me.

It is correct; you have instinctively steered to the subjunctive!

[Karl Henning]

If there's (see what I did there?) something that the English language lacks, it's logic.

But, you know, there is logic to it; just not the tidy, mathematical sort.

[Karl Henning]

It is correct; you have instinctively steered to the subjunctive!

And you have instinctively steered to using a plural form of the verb for a noun singular in form, but for a collection of individuals: The family ask . . . .

[North Star]

And you have instinctively steered to using a plural form of the verb for a noun singular in form, but for a collection of individuals: The family ask . . . .

Aren't they both correct, but the plural implies that they each ask individually?

[Karl Henning]

That's the rough idea.