There are dozens of ways to tie shoes, and none of them work well for runners or children—people end up tying annoying double knots (or “devil knots” as I called them as a child).
Several years ago I found the best knot for this purpose at Ian’s Shoelace Site (an oddly specific website): Ian’s Secure Shoelace Knot
I just call it a “runner’s knot” and it has served me well for well over ten thousand miles on the road. The knot never unties during a run, but you can always untie it easily like any other slipknot.
The difference between “its” and “it’s”. Why is this such uncommon knowledge? And why do some folks have a special talent for always using the wrong one? Even the clueless would get it right about 50% of the time, but these guys totally defy the odds.
Then there’s the crowd who like to festoon plurals with apostrophes, which is a related but even worse malady. These folks seem to come in two classes: the Whimsical Artist, who believes the apostrophe is decoration and may be applied or not according to mood and fancy, and the Highway Signmaker, who believes the apostrophe is vital punctuation because it warns the reader, as a matter of public safety, that an “s” is coming up ahead.
It’s uncommon knowledge because English, for reasons of is own, has decided to use apostrophe-S to indicate possessive case, except in pronouns. A rule of irregularity. The more rules of irregularity there are in your language, the more people there will be who do not have command of every single one of them. Deal with it.
Also, mahy plurals do quite properly take an apostrophe, which even if technically incorrect, is practical for clarity. And the boundary of which terms can take an apostrophe-S for plural is not even agreed upon by style guides.
What on earth does that have to do with the misuse of “its” and “it’s”? The first is a simple adjective, the second a contraction of “it is”, both known to native English speakers since early childhood. There’s no command of anything required here.
Also irrelevant. Words are not pluralized with apostrophes. Symbols and the like that may arguably and sometimes controversially be pluralized that way are not words. Festooning words with apostrophes to warn of an approaching “s” is not English, it’s Bad Store Signage, as in “no check’s” and “Try ‘our’ delicious donut’s”.
Surprisingly few people understand that in the real world, heavier* objects reliably fall faster. It’s a consequence of the presence of air and the drag force it imposes on anything in motion.
*As in “denser”. Imagine we are comparing two spheres of equal radius dropped from the same height, one of which weighs twice as much as the other.
“Its” is the possessive form of the pronoun “it”. The possessive form of most singular nouns is marked by an apostrophe followed by “s” -“John’s” , “the store’s” etc. Pronouns are the exception.
That’s a good point. I would argue, however, that it’s more than just the absence of apostrophes in the possessive determiner forms of pronouns (with one exception); it’s the fact that those forms are usually entirely different words (she -> her, we -> our, etc.) whereas normally possessive forms are phonologically bound to the original noun or phrase in a simple and systematic way.
The exception among pronouns is one -> one’s. Any argument that the possessive form of “it” should follow the form of “one’s” instead of being a distinct word like all the other possessive determiners is rendered moot by the fact that “it’s” means something entirely different in very common usage – indeed in one of the most common usages in the English language. There is no way that anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of English could possibly write “the dog wagged it’s tail” and not realize, given half a moment’s thought, that she is writing “the dog wagged it is tail”. Whatever seriousness there was in my semi-facetious attempt at humor was that too often, not even that half moment’s thought is given to how we write.
Well, about 15% of the population suffers from profound left-right confusion, according to the New York Times. So knowing which way to turn a screw is not necessarily more intuitive than knowing which hand is right and left.
Surely there is no way that anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of English could possibly have overlooked the fact that a word or construction can quite happily have more than one meaning in English?
Simon’s driving to work in Frank’s car.
A apostrophe can indicate either possession or elision in the case of a noun, so why is it implausible that (in principle) it might do the same with a pronoun? The fact that it does not in the case of “its” is entirely arbitrary, something that writers of English simply have to learn as a rote fact. People who make this mistake are not (as you imply) thoughtless idiots.
Do you really think beginning every post with this kind of unnecessary blatant hostility or snark adds anything to the discussion? It’s not the spirit of conversation that I’m inclined to engage in for very long.
Your example statement is just fine. So what? It has nothing to do with the case in point. You cannot argue and accept that as an evolving human language English is full of inconsistencies, idioms, and all manner of anomalies that have to be accepted and learned as the norm of standard English because they just are, but then simultaneously try to justify some conflicting usage completely outside that norm just because it satisfies some arbitrary formality that you just thought of.
Is there any reason that the language couldn’t have evolved so that “it’s” was the possessive form of “it”? Technically, no. Trouble is, it didn’t, and that’s kind of important. Furthermore, it’s hardly “arbitrary” – “it’s” has a specific common and universal meaning for reasons that turn out to be very natural and utilitarian, and it’s rather fundamental to language that words have understood meanings. Using it in a different way isn’t Standard English. This is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. One might call such usage confusing and non-standard, or, loosely, in the common vernacular, “wrong”. Someone who does so isn’t necessarily a moron, and it may even be an innocent typo, but someone who does it consistently is at least careless and inconsiderate of their audience.
No, I think you’ll find that I’m generally a fairly genial fellow. It’s just your particular pompous and superior attitude that annoys me, when you condemn people as ignorant and thoughtless when they don’t conform to your own misconceived notions of language.
We are not in dispute about standard usage, or about the fact that a possessive *it’s is an error. We are in dispute about whether the usage is arbitrary, a notion that you seem a little confused about.
Your claim seems to be that an English speaker of limited literacy who gave the matter a moment’s careful thought could somehow deduce that the possessive form of “its” must lack an apostrophe, based on logic and common sense, apparently because “it’s” already has another meaning. That is complete nonsense. What general rule would somebody follow to come to that conclusion? English is replete with words that have more than one meaning. And in the case of nouns, and indeed the pronoun “one”, the apostrophe can indicate either possession or elision (contraction). It would (in principle) be perfectly sensible and consistent for English to use “it’s” for both the possessive pronoun and the contraction of “it is”.
Your convoluted nonsense about what’s “natural and utilitarian” notwithstanding, the fact that English omits the apostrophe in the possessive “its” is entirely arbitrary. It is simply a rote rule that writers of English must learn.
I have one, which appears to be recently lost knowledge.
I know that the single apostrophe, when used following a numeral, means that the subject is a quantity of FEET.
When the numeral is instead followed by two apostrophes, very close together,it means we are talking about INCHES.
It seems that millions of people have forgotten this of late, because I am constantly seeing people advertise that they have a sixty five FOOT screen television for sale, brand new, for several hundred dollars.
I know a lots of less important things, such as both the old colonial names of various states, and their modern names; the names and locations of all 196 recognized countries in the world, that sort of thing.
I am one of the only people I know, who learned to parallel park as a child, by careful study and practice with a fully functional metal Model A Ford.
Can’t do the whole degrees of cousin stuff, because I find it too annoying that the nomenclature dictators got lazy after they reached “cousin,” and decided to add numbers to the system, instead of inventing an appropriate new name. Frankly, I think the word “falafel” would have been far better applied to where we now say “first cousin twice removed.”
The rule is pretty simple. An 's is added to a non possessive noun when you’re altering it to make it a possessive. But you don’t add an 's to a word that is inherently possessive. Its follows the same rule as his, hers, yours, and ours.
