In point of fact, linguistic misunderstandings have quite often been the cause of disasters, and of the loss of wealth, property, opportunity, and time. Misreading and misinterpretation of the written word is far from trivial. For instance:
The constant silly debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment, because most people don’t understand what a dependent clause is.
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in part at least because a journalist mistranslated the Japanese term, “mokusatsu” in Japan’s response to the Potsdam declaration.
There are thousands of other instances where misreading/miswriting has caused troubles both large and small. And if someone is so ignorant that they can’t read or write a proper English sentence, how can they be expected to understand the issues they vote on, or the statements of the politicians they vote for?
Let’s also not forget the literally millions of times a year a person reads a legal document but doesn’t fully comprehend what it says, when he/she probably would have if he/she hadn’t been staring out the window in English class. Or if he/she had read books instead of making Twitter posts.
I guess I’m angry because people these days seem not to assign any real importance to good grammar and spelling. The English language is the most versatile tool for communication in the history of mankind. To use it badly is an almost criminal waste IMHO.
And yet, we allow “its” and “it’s” to remain indistinguishable in speech. How do we get by?
Point me to one disaster which has ever resulted from “its”/“it’s” confusion.
Or because comma conventions in the 18th century were far different from ours today, and make the issue of distinguishing the grammatical role of written clauses not necessarily clear-cut, plus the question of whether even a clear understanding of the grammatical role of the phrase in question should have legal effect or be understood as merely a rhetorical flourish providing explanation of the original motivation behind the Amendment without explicit comment on how the law should react if the circumstances of such motivation should change, not to mention thornier issues of exactly how textualist our constitutional jurisprudence should or even can coherently be.
This, I admittedly have no awareness of (neither the history of this particular event nor the details of the Japanese language). Go ahead and strip me of my balls and voter registration.
There is a great deal of ground between “Can gleam no understanding from English text; is out-and-out illiterate” and “Can read English text perfectly, and write it very well, but occasionally screws up orthographic distinctions which are not present in English speech, in a manner easily taken care of by a professional editor without worry”. It’s an awful lot like the distance between 0 and 99.999%.
Yeah, 'cause English majors are so skilled in contract law and its specialized jargon.
Damn those people spending all their time frivolously writing! They have literacy to acquire!
You might find that if you come down off your lower-case ‘t’, you’ll be able to enjoy life a little more without the rest of the world being any worse off.
“It’s a shame when people incorrectly use the word ‘its’ and ‘it’s’. It’s is a contraction for ‘it is’, and ‘its’ denotes the possessive form of the pronoun ‘it’.”
Now, what if I weren’t sure I used the quotes and apostrophes correctly above? I could rightly ask, “Are the its’ and it’s’ apostrophes and quote marks correct in the excerpt above, or did I screw it up?”
So, yup. Its’ and it’s’ are perfectly “cromulent” words.
Damn – I was going to take the contrary view but I see I’ve been beaten to it.
I stopped caring hugely about grammar when I realized that in some situations grammatical errors such as taco’s can actually reduce ambiguity (e.g. “tacos”, might leave the reader wondering momentarily what a takoss is (if tacos wasn’t such a common word)).
Grammatical errors still have a record needle scratch effect on my train of thought, but as long as it’s obvious what was intended…meh.
I’m not saying that using an apostrophe when pluralizing words ending in vowels is better than using correct grammar. I’m just saying that there are reasons this common error exists and it’s not just sloppiness.
Well, all this argument shows is that they are as cromulent as any letter-string. I might be texting someone “For what it’s worth, my password is ‘FOCLR3’”, and then not be sure if they received my message. I could then ask “Did you see the ‘FOCLR3’ I just typed to you?”. In that sense, “‘FOCLR3’” is a cromulent word, and in the same sense, your argument shows that “its’” and “it’s’” are cromulent words (except for the further complaint that one might demand that you pay more attention to the use-mention distinction, and should instead have said “Are the “its”’ and “it’s”’ apostrophes and quote marks correct…?”, and thus have really only shown that “’“its”’” and ““it’s”’” are cromulent words, where I am now resorting to C-style explicit escaping of quote marks inside quote marks because I can’t think of a better way to deal with the fact that some single-quotes inside double quotes might represent literal instances of single-quotes and others might be meant to indicate nested double quotes [and depending on pronunciation or orthographic convention, you might write “its”'s rather than “its”’ (oh, look, I thought of an alternative to C-style escaping (to wit, italics! [I’d better make sure to keep these brackets consistent]))]…).
Oh, crap, I forgot to turn the nested double-quotes into single-quotes here (and, I think, the double-nested double-quotes are supposed to revert from single-quotes back into double-quotes, although I must, with trepidation, admit I don’t quite recall… (Well, there go my balls!)).
You’ve gone all reductio ad absurdum on me here (in your most recent few posts). Obviously, most grammatical mistakes are harmless. What is NOT harmless is not caring about grammar just because, “Meh, they’ll understand what I meant.” Most of the time they will. Most of the time isn’t good enough.
I think that bad grammar and spelling are more alarming as a symptom of a condition–intellectual laziness–than as a condition in and of themselves. It’s like the guy at the auto plant who misses tightening the occasional bolt. It’s not so much that the car is going to disintegrate as a result, but that the carelessness–and the toleration of it–leads to a worse and worse product. The degradation is cumulative.
What people call bad grammar is (when it is in fact a grammatical issue at all) almost never a symptom of intellectual laziness, but simply a symptom of having grown up in a different speech community than the critic.
What people call bad spelling can be a symptom of not having read and written as much as the critic. But there’s no need to blow your stack over it.
You’re engaging in some Cassandra-esque fantasy. Where is poor spelling leading us? When in history were things ever better? Do I need to whip out examples of how people use to spell?
Because people love to get self-righteous about the language errors they can figure out, but of course, conveniently overlook the ones they make themselves. I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of the people complaining here regularly used past hypothetical conditionals incorrectly, or something else of that nature, but they wouldn’t be embarrassed because they haven’t figured that particular thing out.
Also, re: the post above this: I was dumbfounded by that line, but mostly because I couldn’t quite figure out what the hell was being said. I mean, I guess I was too charitable to use the interpretations that were too ridiculous, although I do suspect greenslime1951 has a mistaken view of the relationship between written and spoken language…
The difference between “its” and “it’s” is not bad grammar in most cases, it’s pedantic pettifogging by anal-retentive grammar-nazis.
It is only bad grammar if it leads to reasonable misunderstandings. Almost no examples given here (and in fact, in general of apostrophe usage at all) lead to a problem in understanding. Thus, the problem is not with the user, it’s with the person who has the problem.
Out of curiosity, what is this in reference to? Surely, when not actively affecting some borrowed or invented variety of English, everyone correctly manages this in accord with whatever the norms of their native speech community are. (If you had written about people mistakenly analyzing some piece of grammar, rather than mistakenly using it, I’d have had no qualms, but this seems a bolder claim. But perhaps you only mean to point out some ritual of artificial usage not matching how even its flaunters ordinarily speak. Or perhaps you mean to call attention to the vast shifting mass of misguided and even contradictory rules, together observed by no one, which comprise the grammar gotcha game…)
I see this feeble excuse all the time. I also see the sneering name-calling about people who care about grammar all the time.
It’s true that most of the time, someone who reads your bad grammar will be able to figure out what you meant. Most of the time. At the very least, though, you’re putting an undue burden on the reader.
Naah. Regional dialects aren’t that much different from “mainstream American English” any more. Mass media and standardized education have pretty much seen to that. If a person does retain his native dialect to the point of continuing to use its…er…unique grammar, he would still likely have been exposed to mainstream usage and unless totally ignorant, would understand the distinctions.
Most of the bad grammar I hear/read isn’t because the speaker is using a regional dialect, but because he’s misusing the mainstream language.
Where is poor spelling leading us? You’re looking at the question backwards. Poor spelling is a symptom. It is reflective of the degradation of educational values in this country. I feel compelled to point out that attitudes such as yours, i.e., that good spelling, grammar, and punctuation don’t really matter–hasten that degradation.
I freely admit that I might very soon be one of a very few who do care about this, and that my preference for properly spelled words and properly constructed and punctuated sentences might be seen as quaint or even silly.
I assume he meant, “Had I bought Apple stock in 1979, I would be rich today” or some such. A regional dialect usage might be, “If I’d a’ known she was gonna marry that boy, I would’a shot her right then and there.” The latter usage isn’t incorrect in the context of the community in which the dialect was used.
What would be simply wrong would be a usage such as, “If he strikes out Pujols, this is a whole different ballgame,” when referring to something that happened in the recent past.
The set of grammar rules, though certainly confusing and arbitrary at times, isn’t meant to produce “gotchas,” as you put it. And those rules actually are observed by quite a few people.
I should also point out that the more educated you become about etymology, morphology, and syntax, the less arbitrary those rules seem.