View previous topic | View next topic

Is the Earth putting on weight....?

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Moosh
601429.  Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:14 pm Reply with quote

But why? You use a the apostrophe to indicate possession for other words, why not it? Come on Susannah, don't just slavishly follow the "rules" of grammar that you were told, question them. Stick it to the man, use the possessive apostrophe for it!

 
Flash
601432.  Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:25 pm Reply with quote

I have here Quentin Tarantino's script for Inglourious Basterds ... spellling, apostrophes, everything all over the shop. Like this:
Quote:

COL LANDA
as he crosses the floor, he see's the young girl RUNNING towards the cover of the woods ...

SHOSANNA'S POV
the safety of tree's, getting closer.

COL LANDA
Framed by the window, takes his LUGAR, and straight arm aims at the fleeing Jew, cocking back the hammer with his thumb

 
zomgmouse
601450.  Wed Aug 19, 2009 5:45 pm Reply with quote

Do you think that in the case of this particular film it was intended?

 
Flash
601462.  Wed Aug 19, 2009 6:02 pm Reply with quote

No. The spelling of the title was ostensibly to distinguish it from the 1978 film Inglorious Bastards, but presumably also a very economical publicity stunt. As for the script, it's pretty clear that that's just the way Tarantino writes. Presumably spelling is just a subject that is of absolutely no interest to him, and of course he dropped out of school at 15.

 
Susannah Dingley
601468.  Wed Aug 19, 2009 6:20 pm Reply with quote

Moosh wrote:
But why? You use a the apostrophe to indicate possession for other words, why not it?

Because you only use an apostrophe with a noun. “It” is not a noun; “it” is a pronoun.

Moosh wrote:
Come on Susannah, don't just slavishly follow the "rules" of grammar that you were told, question them.

What is there to question?

Moosh wrote:
Stick it to the man, use the possessive apostrophe for it!

No!


Last edited by Susannah Dingley on Wed Aug 19, 2009 6:25 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
ColinM
601469.  Wed Aug 19, 2009 6:24 pm Reply with quote

On which note:
OUP's Edpress News wrote:
It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.

 
Susannah Dingley
601471.  Wed Aug 19, 2009 6:40 pm Reply with quote

ColinM wrote:
On which note:
OUP's Edpress News wrote:
… Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.

That’s the point I’m trying to make to Moosh about nouns and pronouns.

 
bobwilson
601480.  Wed Aug 19, 2009 7:47 pm Reply with quote

Ah good idea. When a difficult to answer question is raised (such as whether the Earth is gaining mass due to the impact of sunlight) just change the subject to a discussion of apostrophes.

 
Davini994
601499.  Wed Aug 19, 2009 9:37 pm Reply with quote

Me wrote:
As was my first point, that the mass difference of a complex chemical structure to it's components is an extremely small amount. That's the important point to grasp with the question.

This was a typo which I've now corrected, just for you Susannah. We might have a case of Muphry's Law with this though:

Susannah Dingley wrote:
Because you only use an apostrophe with a noun. “It” is not a noun; “it” is a pronoun.

Wiki wrote:
Possessive pronouns and adjectives

No apostrophe is used in the following possessive pronouns and adjectives: yours, his, hers, ours, its, theirs, and whose.

All other possessive pronouns ending in s do take an apostrophe: one's; everyone's; somebody's, nobody else's, etc. With plural forms, the apostrophe follows the s, as with nouns: the others' husbands (but compare They all looked at each other's husbands, in which both each and other are singular).

(my bold).

Hopefully there will shortly be someone with authority (either Canadian, Polish or even both), along to confirm...

International Write Like a Moron Day

 
Posital
601508.  Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:56 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
Ah good idea. When a difficult to answer question is raised (such as whether the Earth is gaining mass due to the impact of sunlight) just change the subject to a discussion of apostrophes.
Yey - I'm with you - Kitten pictures are better...

 
Susannah Dingley
601530.  Thu Aug 20, 2009 3:19 am Reply with quote

Davini994 wrote:
Me wrote:
As was my first point, that the mass difference of a complex chemical structure to it's components is an extremely small amount. That's the important point to grasp with the question.

This was a typo which I've now corrected, just for you Susannah.

Thanks!

 
ColinM
601551.  Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:04 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
Ah good idea. When a difficult to answer question is raised (such as whether the Earth is gaining mass due to the impact of sunlight) just change the subject to a discussion of apostrophes.

Haven't we already pretty much covered that question? Sunlight will have added a tiny amount of mass to the Earth which will have been swamped by various other effects. Not a very conclusive answer perhaps, but I doubt we'll get better.

Oh, and I've thought of another rather obvious factor: Over the last sixty-odd years a group of apes have been chucking stuff off the Earth, usually into orbit.

 
gruff5
601577.  Thu Aug 20, 2009 5:53 am Reply with quote

....and brought hundreds of kilograms of stuff back from the Moon.

Radioactive decay in the earth and then the radiation of that lost mass away from the Earth as heat needs to be figured in as well.

I think the addition of micrometeorites (dust) to the Earth every day is in the order of thousands of tonnes - so, I guess that will swamp all of these other considerations.

Next question, please.

 
suze
601629.  Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:43 am Reply with quote

Davini994 wrote:
Hopefully there will shortly be someone with authority (either Canadian, Polish or even both), along to confirm...


And British as well, these days!

Susannah is ultimately quite right of course, and she's by no means the only person who gets upset when its and it's are used incorrectly. An awful lot of people do get them wrong though; indeed some studies which have been done suggest that it's gotten wrong more often than right.

What's more, I know that I stick the unwanted apostrophe in once in a while, as does just about everyone (I won't name names here, but I've spotted it on these forums from a number of users from whom one mightn't expect it). Personally, I've never really seen the point of calling people on such things though. First of all it's a little undignified, and secondly, I just know that if I call you on some feature of grammar, then I'll make exactly the same mistake in my very next post.

Given that so many people do it, perhaps the use of it's to mean "pertaining to it" will ultimately come to be regarded as correct - and maybe even the use of an apostrophe before the -s to mark the plural. I dare say that some here are horrified by that thought, but they needn't worry too much - it won't be in any of our lifetimes.

One's (pertaining to one) is sort of an exception - it "ought" to be ones by analogy with his, yours, and so on. But it isn't.

 
Eric the Underwriter
602137.  Fri Aug 21, 2009 1:25 pm Reply with quote

Yes. Way to many fat b*stards.

 

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group