| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 09:03:38AM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:43:44 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > It's easy enough: "its" = "belonging to it"; "it's" = "it is/was/has". |
| 5 |
> > The apostrophe denotes a missing letter or two, not possession. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> The confusion arises because, when used with a name, an apostrophe is |
| 8 |
> needed for a possessive. Of course, if you refer to everyone as "it", |
| 9 |
> the confusion disappears :) |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The proper posessive analogy here would be “her” and, of course, “his”. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I guess the only reason why I'm so observant of such things is because I had |
| 14 |
to learn it from scratch starting at about 12 at school. Native speakers do |
| 15 |
as they are used to from earliest childhood. It wasn't different with me and |
| 16 |
my native tongue. $deiety, when I look at the stuff that I wrote as a child… |
| 17 |
-- |
| 18 |
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla' |
| 19 |
Please do not share anything from, with or about me with any Facebook service. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Signatures are being revised, we apologise for any inconvenience. |
Archives