3 ms·

I see the title as "In the court of common usage, an old pronoun is losing its case". This is the correct possessive neutral pronoun. Has the title been chang

by smoyer 9y ago

I see the title as "In the court of common usage, an old pronoun is losing its case". This is the correct possessive neutral pronoun. Has the title been changed? My wife is an English teacher (and strict grammarian) and it's pretty universal that her students have already learned its/it's, their/there/they're and your/you're by the time they reach 9th grade.

raverbashing 9y ago
No, the title hasn't changed, my comment was more in relation to the fact that I see that mistake being commonly made (especially online) I'm happy to know about your wife's students!
- Milner08 9y ago
  I would argue that use of it's and its is going the same way as who and whom. Its mostly obvious which one is intended and its not like you could tell the difference in spoken English anyway. While its nice to be correct I don't think its something worth getting annoyed about. (Yes, its deliberately wrong).
  - CrystalLangUser 9y ago
    Those are two completely different situations, and it's intellectually lazy to consider them the same just because they're both words that people occasionally mix up. First, who & whom are more rare in speech than its & it's which are fairly common. Second, there is zero confusion about which one to use with its & it's. One is a contraction for "it is", and the other shows the possessive. These are very simple rules. Who & whom, in my personal experience, don't get as much coverage in the English classroom. I'd be hard-pressed to find people who could tell me exactly when to use those versus its & its, as those come up less in day to day conversation. Since its & it's have very clear rules and are used frequently, addressing the correct usage is important, same with your & you're and their, there, & they're.
    - unclenoriega 9y ago
      "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3703 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3703 I, too, will likely lament the loss, should it come to pass, but we've managed before, and we would again.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

by smoyer 9y ago

raverbashing 9y ago

No, the title hasn't changed, my comment was more in relation to the fact that I see that mistake being commonly made (especially online) I'm happy to know about your wife's students!

Milner08 9y ago
I would argue that use of it's and its is going the same way as who and whom. Its mostly obvious which one is intended and its not like you could tell the difference in spoken English anyway. While its nice to be correct I don't think its something worth getting annoyed about. (Yes, its deliberately wrong).
- CrystalLangUser 9y ago
  Those are two completely different situations, and it's intellectually lazy to consider them the same just because they're both words that people occasionally mix up. First, who & whom are more rare in speech than its & it's which are fairly common. Second, there is zero confusion about which one to use with its & it's. One is a contraction for "it is", and the other shows the possessive. These are very simple rules. Who & whom, in my personal experience, don't get as much coverage in the English classroom. I'd be hard-pressed to find people who could tell me exactly when to use those versus its & its, as those come up less in day to day conversation. Since its & it's have very clear rules and are used frequently, addressing the correct usage is important, same with your & you're and their, there, & they're.
  - unclenoriega 9y ago
    "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3703 http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3703 I, too, will likely lament the loss, should it come to pass, but we've managed before, and we would again.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]