Was its’ ever used for the possessive of the singular it? I have someone here claiming to have been taught that as a grade schooler in the early 1970s. “He parked the car in its’ spot.”
I can imagine if you go back long enough ago you can find any number of freakshow constructions within a garbage language like English, but “its’” that recently? I dunno.
The tricky part of the its question is this: If we write “Javier’s license” with an apostrophe, why do we write “its license” without an apostrophe?
Here is the explanation: Its is like hers, his, ours, theirs, and yours. These are all pronouns. Possessive pronouns do not have apostrophes. That is because their spelling already indicates a possessive. For example, the possessive form of she is hers. The possessive form of we is ours. Because we change the spelling, there is no need to add an apostrophe to show possession. Its follows that pattern.
Its goes back to the late 16th century, according to online sources. It’s as the singular possessive of it has been used up until the beginning of the 19th century “by some.”
I am not aware of its’ ever being used for the singular possessive.
I, personally, have never seen its’ with the apostrophe at the end. But it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that some teacher, somewhere, taught their kids to do it that way.
I’ve never seen its’ and I was an English teacher. I read for hours every day and have never encountered it.
I did have an elementary school teacher who screwed up my perfect spelling with her incorrect corrections, such as scisors and squirel. No surprise if someone has misled their students.
I went to parent/teacher night when my kids were in elementary school and had to correct the teacher who had incorrectly mixed up affect and effect on the board. This was pre-google times (late Pleistocene, don’tcha know!) and she was reluctant to believe me until I went to the back of the classroom, fetched a dictionary and proved it to her that I do indeed know what the fuck I’m talking about.
Never once seen its’ and can’t think of a single way it would work like that.
“John and Mary It moved in to the neighborhood last week. That’s the Its’ new house right over there.”
Okay, you win.
But I’ll have to deduct a point for the capital I.
That rule doesn’t make sense.
Compare “person” and “person’s”—doesn’t the spelling already indicate a possessive?
Now, granted, with the pronouns, there’s no possibility of confusing the possessive singular form with the subject / object plural, but you still have “her” (possessive) and “her” (direct object), and “his” and “its” doing double-duty as possessive adjectives (my, your, his, her, its) and pronouns (mine, yours, his, hers, its).
That sounds to me like an attempt to rationalize a convention that is fundametally irrational: we add punctuation to the possessive form of nouns, but not pronouns, because that’s how the system evolved, just as the relentless inability of people to get it right, especially in the plural, is evolving us away again.
I’m not sure what you mean here. Obviously the extra 's indicates a possessive. How is that relevant?
It’s certainly true that the language was not planned logically and is the result of conventions all the way down. I’ve read that “to be” is irregular in every language because the older and more basic the term, the more likely it evolved before the “rules” and the logic formed.
The possessive pronouns are very old. Nobody would plan it’s and its as we use it. Still, to complain that the entire basics of the English language are the result of ignorance is at best technically true: everybody was ignorant. They just spoke. “Rules” didn’t come around for hundreds of years, and too many of the ones that get taught in school only go back to Victorian English assholes.
This, exactly this.
My kid’s class spelling list had “Ghandi” on it. I’m sure there are still kids from that class who think it’s right.
I would say, and write, the Its’s house. But if it were just John It, I would have so say It’s house.
But there’s no telling what some idiot teacher might have gotten into their think it to be logical. I am reminded of a teacher who insisted that the phrase “everybody else’s” was illogical and insisted that her pupils say “everybody’s else”. They humored her until the year was over. She utterly missed the fact that the 's can and often does modify an entire phrase. Consider: “Charles is the Queen of England’s son.”
I HAVE AN ACTUAL CITE THAT DISAGREES!
I have in my hand a 1960 copy of English Grammar and Composition by John E. Warriner and Joseph Mersand (published by Harcourt Brace) which was used by schools in Kentucky. It lists the possessive personal pronouns, and has “its” as the only form of the third person singular non-gendered personal pronoun.
While some few teachers are idiots, I think most of them are human and can make mistakes just like the rest of us.
I’ve seen two variations of the rule.
One says you just put an apostrophe at the end of any word that already ended with an s before it was made into a possessive.
James and Mary Smith moved in to the neighborhood last week. That’s the Smiths’ new house right over there. You can see James’ car parked in the driveway.
The other rules says you use an apostrophe s when the word normally ends with an s and use just an apostrophe when the word ends with an s because it’s in plural form.
James and Mary Smith moved in to the neighborhood last week. That’s the Smiths’ new house right over there. You can see James’s car parked in the driveway.
The stated reason for the lack of apostrophe in possessive “its” that I quoted said it was because “its” is a pronoun, and “their spelling already indicates a possessive.” I was just pointing out that the same thing could be said of nouns, which DO have apostrophes, meaning that logically speaking, this cannot be the reason.
But those nouns don’t have apostrophes. The 's is a suffix added to the noun to make it possessive. This is not true of my, your, his, her, our, or their. Nor is it true of mine, yours, his, hers, ours or theirs.
Hence it is also not true of its.
As for the OP, I would suspect that this is most likely a mistaken memory, conflating how the process to make plural nouns possessive with the one to make pronouns possessive.
Sure, I can imagine that there was at least one teacher who themselves misremembered the rule and actually taught it, but I would expect that this is quite rare (and would result in the teacher being called out), and thus it is unlikely to the person in the OP.
You want a cite? How about Abraham Lincoln?
I recently reread Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. Goodwin has several quotes from Lincoln’s writings in the text and she preserves his original spelling. Lincoln used its, it’s, and even its’ as possessives. Sometimes he would even mix them together in the same passage.
And let’s not even get started on Washington’s spelling.
I pulled out my copy of the OED and it agrees with that, so I assume that’s the “online source” you used. 