4 ms·

Which one is the most inconsistent? He -> His It -> Its She -> Her He -> He is -> He's It -> It is -> It's She -> She is -> She'

Which one is the most inconsistent? He -> His It -> Its She -> Her He -> He is -> He's It -> It is -> It's She -> She is -> She's The only one breaking the pattern is Her, which instead should be Shes if we wanted to keep things consistent.

coffeecantcode 1y ago
Actually if we’re keeping with the pattern it would be Shis
- spiderfarmer 1y ago
  Or shits
  - myk9001 1y ago
    Does this happen to be the one billionth HN comment?
- david-gpu 1y ago
  Good catch! Thank you.
tsimionescu 1y ago
All of the pronoun contractions are somewhat inconsistent with noun possessives. So "its", but "the dog's". There's no reason why you couldn't write "it's" for both "it is" and "its". You already write both "the dog's ball" and "the dog's tired", and both "it's" and "it's" are pronounced identically, which doesn't pose any difficulties in speech. His, her, and my are a different matter, since they are all pronounced differently from he's*, she's, and I'm. * at least in most accents, "his" uses the kit vowel, while "he's" uses the fleece vowel
- wetpaws 1y ago
  Dog's/dogs are ambiguous. It's/its is not.
  - tsimionescu 1y ago
    "Dog's" is ambiguous in itself (dog is / that belongs to the dog), but this doesn't cause problems in practice. It's exactly the same ambiguity as spelling "it's" for the possessive would give. Also, it's / its is only unambiguous in writing. In speech, they are identical, in every accent of English - and yet people understand each other perfectly fine in spoken English, so the ambiguity is not a problem in practice.
raincole 1y ago
Believe or not, "it's" as a possessive form came before "its." Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/the-tangled-history-of-its-and-its https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/the-tangled-history-...
janalsncm 1y ago
I have yet to encounter a case where words need an apostrophe to disambiguate. It’s just an unnecessary exception. Writing is about communication and if everyone knows what you mean without the apostrophe then it adds no value. Same thing with book authors who have a good idea that can be expressed in 50 pages but for some reason publishers want 180+, so you end up with 130 pages of fluff, wasting everyone’s time.
- layer8 1y ago
  zatsasliperislope
- hluska 1y ago
  > It’s just an unnecessary exception. Had you written this “it’s just an unnecessary exception” you would be talking about a “just an unnecessary exception” that belongs to it. That’s not clear in the slightest. Apostrophes exist for clarity and precision.
  - janalsncm 1y ago
    I think you meant to criticize “its just an unnecessary exception” and were autocorrected. Reading it without an apostrophe it looks unusual but the meaning is still very clear. Further, there are many words like “don’t” and “doesn’t” and can’t” where the apostrophe doesn’t even provide any disambiguating value.
    - Groxx 1y ago
      There is "wont" and "cant" but theyre rather rare nowadays. Probably others too, but Im (...im?) not able to remember any easily. The closest I can think of thats maybe confusing is plurals vs possessive... but thats usually pretty clear from context, and when both are combined its often handled specially and thats weird but not usually confusing - English often has other in-sentence (and in-context) markers for plurality. You can of course construct ambiguous sentences, but thats true of many things that are accepted as "legal English". It would be a shame to lose y'all'd've though. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wont https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wont https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cant https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cant
hluska 1y ago
She->her (like everything in English) makes a lot more sense if you start in the roots of English. She was “hio” or “heo” and her was “hire”. By the 13th century, the pronunciations of he and heo had converged and become synonyms so “she” was introduced. She shares a letter with seo, which was the root of both he and heo. Simple pattern matching really can’t work in English - the roots are way too messy. And it’s absolutely amazing that people can become reasonably fluent if they only start learning as adults.
Groxx 1y ago
tbh I'm not quite sure if you're arguing in favor of switching to "it's" or against. I think against...? Clearly "x is" is most consistent in that example, implying the possessive form is inconsistent. Also clearly in a straightforward example John possesses -> John's The dog possesses -> Dog's It possesses -> It's Xe possesses -> Xe's is equally as consistent as "x is", which is more consistent than "Its". (yes I'm aware there's a proper noun vs pronoun change in there, but I'm not sure that's an argument for "special noun cases are good". they undeniably exist, but should we encourage them?)
selcuka 1y ago
> The only one breaking the pattern is Her, which instead should be Shes if we wanted to keep things consistent. It should be "She > Shis" if we want to keep it consistent with "He > His" and not with "It > Its".

coffeecantcode 1y ago

Actually if we’re keeping with the pattern it would be Shis

spiderfarmer 1y ago
Or shits
- myk9001 1y ago
  Does this happen to be the one billionth HN comment?
david-gpu 1y ago
Good catch! Thank you.

tsimionescu 1y ago

All of the pronoun contractions are somewhat inconsistent with noun possessives. So "its", but "the dog's". There's no reason why you couldn't write "it's" for both "it is" and "its". You already write both "the dog's ball" and "the dog's tired", and both "it's" and "it's" are pronounced identically, which doesn't pose any difficulties in speech. His, her, and my are a different matter, since they are all pronounced differently from he's*, she's, and I'm. * at least in most accents, "his" uses the kit vowel, while "he's" uses the fleece vowel

wetpaws 1y ago
Dog's/dogs are ambiguous. It's/its is not.
- tsimionescu 1y ago
  "Dog's" is ambiguous in itself (dog is / that belongs to the dog), but this doesn't cause problems in practice. It's exactly the same ambiguity as spelling "it's" for the possessive would give. Also, it's / its is only unambiguous in writing. In speech, they are identical, in every accent of English - and yet people understand each other perfectly fine in spoken English, so the ambiguity is not a problem in practice.

raincole 1y ago

Believe or not, "it's" as a possessive form came before "its." Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/the-tangled-history-of-its-and-its https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/the-tangled-history-...

janalsncm 1y ago

I have yet to encounter a case where words need an apostrophe to disambiguate. It’s just an unnecessary exception. Writing is about communication and if everyone knows what you mean without the apostrophe then it adds no value. Same thing with book authors who have a good idea that can be expressed in 50 pages but for some reason publishers want 180+, so you end up with 130 pages of fluff, wasting everyone’s time.

layer8 1y ago
zatsasliperislope
hluska 1y ago
> It’s just an unnecessary exception. Had you written this “it’s just an unnecessary exception” you would be talking about a “just an unnecessary exception” that belongs to it. That’s not clear in the slightest. Apostrophes exist for clarity and precision.
- janalsncm 1y ago
  I think you meant to criticize “its just an unnecessary exception” and were autocorrected. Reading it without an apostrophe it looks unusual but the meaning is still very clear. Further, there are many words like “don’t” and “doesn’t” and can’t” where the apostrophe doesn’t even provide any disambiguating value.
  - Groxx 1y ago
    There is "wont" and "cant" but theyre rather rare nowadays. Probably others too, but Im (...im?) not able to remember any easily. The closest I can think of thats maybe confusing is plurals vs possessive... but thats usually pretty clear from context, and when both are combined its often handled specially and thats weird but not usually confusing - English often has other in-sentence (and in-context) markers for plurality. You can of course construct ambiguous sentences, but thats true of many things that are accepted as "legal English". It would be a shame to lose y'all'd've though. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wont https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wont https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cant https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cant

hluska 1y ago

She->her (like everything in English) makes a lot more sense if you start in the roots of English. She was “hio” or “heo” and her was “hire”. By the 13th century, the pronunciations of he and heo had converged and become synonyms so “she” was introduced. She shares a letter with seo, which was the root of both he and heo. Simple pattern matching really can’t work in English - the roots are way too messy. And it’s absolutely amazing that people can become reasonably fluent if they only start learning as adults.

Groxx 1y ago

tbh I'm not quite sure if you're arguing in favor of switching to "it's" or against. I think against...? Clearly "x is" is most consistent in that example, implying the possessive form is inconsistent. Also clearly in a straightforward example John possesses -> John's The dog possesses -> Dog's It possesses -> It's Xe possesses -> Xe's is equally as consistent as "x is", which is more consistent than "Its". (yes I'm aware there's a proper noun vs pronoun change in there, but I'm not sure that's an argument for "special noun cases are good". they undeniably exist, but should we encourage them?)

selcuka 1y ago

> The only one breaking the pattern is Her, which instead should be Shes if we wanted to keep things consistent. It should be "She > Shis" if we want to keep it consistent with "He > His" and not with "It > Its".