2 ms·
We're veering off topic here, but it seems like a legitimate debate. I do believe language should not remain static, but I don't believe that rules should be ch
by jm4 17y ago
We're veering off topic here, but it seems like a legitimate debate. I do believe language should not remain static, but I don't believe that rules should be changed just because enough people are breaking them through ignorance. Also, in this case doing so would introduce an inconsistency that would lead to even more confusion. True, we have many of them already in the English language, but the behavior of the apostrophe is mostly consistent. It indicates possession except when it conflicts with a contraction of the same form, in which case the possessive drops the apostrophe, i.e. "it's" and "its".
You could say that the current rule is already inconsistent and confusing, but imagine for a moment that an apostrophe could be used to construct an acceptable plural form and think about this example: "The lot's dimensions are..." Now, "lot's" is both plural and possessive. Is that one lot or multiple lots with the same dimensions? The current rule may not be perfect, but it is clearly less ambiguous than the alternative.