The rules of English grammar and usage were not logically derived, as any native English speaker who ever studied a Romance language will attest.
Meaning no disrespect to Mr. Lincoln, but he never published a grammar textbook, did he?
I understand that the pronouns and the nouns work differently with regard to apostrophes.
What I am saying is that the justification given above for WHY they work differently is illogical, as both nouns and pronouns distinguish the possessive and non-possessive just fine without an apostrophe.
And to get to the OP, I’ve seen " its’ " many times on student papers. I always assume brain fart, but it’s possible they learned an incorrect rule.
No, you’re not getting it.
“person” is the noun. It doesn’t become possessive until you add 's. Thus, adding the 's is the indication of possession.
These pronouns are already possessive, inherently: my, mine, (thy, thine), your, yours, his, her, its, hers, our, ours, their, theirs. There is nothing being added to them to make them possessive.
The ss that happen to appear at the end of a few of them are not analogous to the 's that is appended to a noun to create a possessive.
To accept what you are saying as logical, you would have to assert that the possessive pronouns can also be written something like m’y, m’ine, you’r, you’rs, hi’s, he’r, he’rs, it’s, ou’r, ou’rs, thei’r, thei’rs.
(I’m sure someone out there has written them this way.)
Actually, it was Etymonline, as I don’t have a subscription to the OED, but etymonline seems to track well with the OED.
And we’re saying that logic has nothing to do with the history of the English language. Saying that the historic evolution of possessive pronouns is not logical is as meaningful as saying that it is not yellow or wistful.
Right, I get that. I wasn’t making a point explaining that the language is logical, but challenging an illogical statement.
Put another way, the words ALREADY had the -s, which is a sound from the spoken language. The apostrophe, on the other hand, is basically a diacritic, and came to be added later, introducing a distinction between nouns and pronouns that was not present before.
It’s spelling, not grammar.
But I think we all agree on that. It’s just one claim I’n objecting to: the discussion seems to be insisting that I’m arguing for something that I’m not.
I have long advocated the use of its’ in place of both its and it’s, with the reader, just as a listener does, choosing the appropriate part of speech by the context. If nothing else it will eliminate one tedious bit of nitpicking.
You can’t have it both ways. It’s not a “rule” if its’ spelling instead of grammar. Spelling has histories and conventions but no rules. Actually, much the same can be said of much of grammar, but those conventions got hardened a long time ago.
“Rules” are for school teachers who know that nuances are hard and giving out cheat sheets are the way to go.
Shouldn’t that be “It’s just one claim In’ objecting to”? 
One of my junior high school teachers told us that the plural of quiz is quis. She had us the folder where we kept returned exams as “Tests and Quis”.
I’ve seen people write their’s and our’s (people for whom apostrophe I think means ‘look out, here comes an S!’)
I can understand why people have trouble with the possessive its. The word really doesn’t act like other possessive pronouns very much.
Every other pronoun makes a major change in form to become possessive. He becomes his, she becomes her, they becomes their, we becomes our, etc. It is the only personal pronoun that forms the possessive simply by adding an s sound to the end. Superficially, it resembles a possessive noun far more than it does other possessive pronouns. I understand people’s impulse to stick an apostrophe before the s.
As a matter of fact, there is one other pronoun that forms the possessive simply by adding an s to the end. Namely, the rarely used indefinite pronoun one, as in “One should always use proper grammar.” Which does use an apostrophe for possession: “One should always be sure one’s grammar is correct.”
So just saying that its is a pronoun, so of course it doesn’t use an apostrophe, is not as inherently obvious as it might seem.
The worst real life example I ever saw was from a manager at a job that I had over twenty years ago.
Charle’s is sick and won’t be at work today.
Good grief. I apologize for mis-analyzing the statement that was made as a “rule” when it was in fact a… whatever it was.
I don’t know I’m being super unclear in this thread, or if people just aren’t reading closely, but I think I’m detracting rather than adding so I won’t post any further.
There’s a difference between a slip and apparently consistently not knowing the details of the material you are supposed to know well enough to teach. However, to be fair - as others point out - there is no logic to English, we made it up as we went along and everything is an exception. (Unlike, say, Spanish where it seems there a a huge number of rules and few exceptions). The more commonly used some word is, the more likely it ain’t following any rules. Fun thing would be to look up some list like the most commonly misspelt or confused word pairs. It’s hard to get them all correct.
The thing is, technically it’s would be an adjective modifying a noun (or pronoun), not a pronoun.
She took that book of hers.
Rather than: This is hers book.
Note the possessive adjective form is: I read her book. (No “s”)
So- here the “its” is a modifier of dinner.
The dog ate its dinner.
I’m trying to think of an example where you use its as a standalone pronoun. I think it’s (sorry) more in the category like hers as a modifier.
Phrases using verbs like “is” don’t count, because it’s a linking verb, which is followed usually by a modifier “subject complement” (i.e. adjective or phrase).
The dog’s bone is only its until another dog takes it.
The dog is brown. (Brown is not a noun).
What I se is that trying to use its as a standalone pronoun sound forced.
But to go back to the OP, never seen its with a trailing apostrophe.
And the classic “how to do possessive” is with Jesus’ / Jesus’s stuff.
is it “jeezuz” robe or “jeezuzuz” robe? Either way sounds acceptable.
But - all the busses’ wheels are round.
I’ve definitely heard personal possessive pronouns called personal adjectives before.
But I think the idea is that words like its replaces a noun made possessive, e.g. “the shirt’s color” becomes “its color.”
I can’t recall ever having seen its’ being taught as proper in schools, no.
As to the possessive pronoun, I usually advise thinking about how silly hi’s would look and to treat its accordingly.
All that shows is that nouns like pronouns can act like adjectives.
He opened the shirt’s buttons.
The dog’s house is red.
It’s the buttons or the house, not the shirt or the dog that is the subject/object. The possessive noun is acting like an adjective, because this is English and the language can be tortured until it says what you want to hear. Foreign languages avoid that by using a phrase instead - English speakers are too lazy.
Abrió los botones de la camisa.
([He/she/it] opened the buttons of the shirt. )
Of course, a lot of English involves tortured grammar because certain words or phrases are understood.
Sure, but the point is that the pronouns only replace nouns that act like adjectives, not adjectives in general. Hence they’re considered pronouns.
It seems that, if you want to call the personal posessive pronouns adjectives, then you should also say that adding 's turns a noun into an adjective.
It sort of does. but that’s the point, that the status of a word depends a lot on context, and the actuality of its status is sort of ambiguous.
We say if it modifies a noun it’s an adjective, but then can uses nouns as adjectives also in certain context. It’s the grammar equivalent of gender-fluid. We’ve got a whole category of verbs-turned-into-nouns with gerunds.
Then there’s jumping jacks for exercise if jumping makes you happy - which turns a verb in gerund form into an adjective. 
The first part of this is correct. A possessive noun acts like an adjective but is still a noun.
The second part… The better way to think of it is that all languages have a tendency to contract themselves, both in pronunciation and word form. Unneeded morphemes are discarded. Sometimes the words merely become spelled differently, sometimes they form contractions. Think c’est and j’ai in French. I’m pretty sure it’s a universal in Indo-European languages, and possibly in every language we know the history of.
Does English have more of these words than other languages? Probably, yes. Some linguists have made the case that English is a Creole that serves to join several languages and make the result easier to cope with. Even if this isn’t the case, English speakers seem to be very comfortable with these changes and moreover lack an official language authority that keeps traditional forms current.
Calling this cross-cultural, lost-to-history, default attribute of language laziness, even as a joke, is the same mistake as complaining that it’s isn’t logical. Language is not subject to logic nor does it have any need to be rigorous except for certain forms that are an infinitesimal part of the entire spoken and written universe of language.