This is in the pit, because I can’t figure out a better place to put it, but consider it a friendly pitting.
Among recent examples, this:
and this:
The correct plurals in these cases are addresses and the Goldmans. No apostrophe necessary.
Joneses, Charleses, Jesuses, jumping Jehosaphats. Thomases, Congresses, penises, weenises, genuses, species.
Bob’s Quick Guide to the Apostrophe
Bob’s Quick Guide to “Its” and “It’s”
Those should help you with your futile, quixotic crusade. For the record, I feel exactly the same way.
It’s = it is. Always*. The possessive is its. How hard is that to remember?
You’re = you are. Again, it always works like that. The possessive is your.
Okay, unless you’re discussing The Addams Family and somebody asks who played Cousin It’s part.*
**Felix Silla. So now you’ll never have to ask.
The crazy thing is that I remember the day in grade seven English class when they taught this. It took all of five minutes, and I’ve been perfect at it ever since. Was half of the English-speaking world sick that day or something?
Actually, it’s Itt, with two of that letter, so this issue need never come up.
…unless you’re discussing things that belong to Stephen King’s It.
Or It! The Terror from Beyond Space
or It Came from beneath the Sea
or * It Came from Outer Space*
or…
Folks, it’s as easy as this:
Apostrophes either indicate a contraction* or possession.
*In a contraction, the apostrophe takes the place of letters. So it’s “y’all” not “ya’ll”. The apostrophe takes the place of the “ou” in “you all”. If you can’t figure out what letters are being replaced, don’t use the contraction. (Except for “won’t”, that stupid rebel.)
The apostrophe shows that something is missing - sometimes used to denote brain cells.
Obviously, this is the problem. Possessive personal pronouns don’t take an apostrophe. People get that “his” and “hers” and “ours” take no apostrophe, but they know they’ve seen “its” with an apostrophe, so they assume it should have it, or something.
But isn’t the apostrophe useful sometimes to aid legibility? Consider:
He was a meticulous chap, always sure to dot his is and cross his ts.
He was a meticulous chap, always sure to dot his i’s and cross his t’s.
The second version seems preferable to me, rule or no rule.
He was a meticulous chap, always sure to dot his Is and cross his Ts.
Wait, I see why the capital letters would look silly there. Still, that’s how I’d do it.
Still basically a contraction.
I’d go with either:
He was a meticulous chap, always sure to dot his Is and cross his Ts.
-or-
He was a meticulous chap, always sure to dot his "i"s and cross his "t"s.
Remember, kids, an apostrophe does NOT mean, “Here comes an “s”!”
The car, where is its or it’s ignition?
Which is correct?
Its. If it ain’t “it is,” it’s its.
OK, but doesn’t this break the rule? The car possesses the ignition.
This has been a common exception to the rule, but this circumstance don’t come up all that often in writing.
And even when it does, I’d argue that with the kind of writing technology we use today, the exception has become obsolete.
He was a meticulous chap, always sure to dot his is and cross his ts.
And it was always possible to make this distinction in handwriting without the apostrophe.
Follow my rule. It’s always means it is (or it was). So just substitute and see if the sentence makes sense.
The car, where is it’s ignition? becomes The car, where is it is ignition?. That doesn’t make sense, so don’t use it’s.
Or try it with Munch’s sentence: Folks, it’s as easy as this becomes Folks, it is as easy as this. As you can see, it’s works here.
It breaks Munch’s rule, yeah. Like needscoffee said, that’s where the trouble comes from; it actually isn’t that easy because Munch’s rule gives you the wrong answer with “it”:
And that’s where the “it’s always equals it is” rule comes in handy.
A secret I learned somewhere–when unsure, mentally substitute the word his. If the sentence still works correctly, use the same number of apostrophes (none).
