Re: TOT: edicashon

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <1pk1249.17hehg7gcccdbN%on...@anon.invalid>,
Mr Ön!on <on...@anon.invalid> wrote:
> williamwright <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:

> > On 11/12/2021 12:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > > In article <j1hlo6...@mid.individual.net>,
> > > JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > >> But I was over 30 and already in possession of a university degree
> > >> before I learned (by chance) that the possessive "its" doesn't contain
> > >> an apostrophe.
> > >
> > > Quite simple, really. It's and similar are two or more words shortened. So
> > > just try saying your sentence using it is - or whatever.
> > >
> > It isn't really that simple because the possessive 'its' breaks the rule
> > that possessives have an apostrophe. It came about because printers
> > decided it amongst themselves.
> >

> I disagree; its follows the rule:-

> his; hers; its are the masculine; feminine; neuter possessives

> - none of which take an apostrophe.

They are possessive pronouns - my, our, your, his, her, its, and their.

'It' can also me a noun, and a possessive noun. Like men men's and mens'

> [crossposted to alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe]

--
*Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? *

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 at 15:11:45, "Dave Plowman (News)"
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote (my responses usually follow points
raised):

>In article <1pk1249.17hehg7gcccdbN%on...@anon.invalid>,
> Mr Ön!on <on...@anon.invalid> wrote:
>> williamwright <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>
>> > On 11/12/2021 12:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> > > In article <j1hlo6...@mid.individual.net>,
>> > > JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> > >> But I was over 30 and already in possession of a university degree
>> > >> before I learned (by chance) that the possessive "its" doesn't contain
>> > >> an apostrophe.

It's not intuitive, is it!

>> > >
>> > > Quite simple, really. It's and similar are two or more words
>> > >shortened. So
>> > > just try saying your sentence using it is - or whatever.
>> > >
>> > It isn't really that simple because the possessive 'its' breaks the rule
>> > that possessives have an apostrophe. It came about because printers
>> > decided it amongst themselves.
>> >

Well, there needed to be _some_ way of distinguishing between "it is"
and "belonging to it".

>
>> I disagree; its follows the rule:-
>
>> his; hers; its are the masculine; feminine; neuter possessives
>
>> - none of which take an apostrophe.

that's certainly a good way of _remembering_ it. It's not entirely a
full explanation, because there is no word "hi" (in that sense anyway,
with a short-pronounced i). [It would be hims, but we don't use that.]

>
>They are possessive pronouns - my, our, your, his, her, its, and their.
>
>'It' can also me a noun, and a possessive noun. Like men men's and mens'

(I presume you meant "be".)

I can't think of a case where I'd use "mens'". "Men's", certainly. (I
think you were thinking of distinguishing the singular possessive from
the plural possessive, as in boy boy's boys'; however, men is already a
plural. It would be man man's mans', except we never use mans to mean
more than one man.)
>
>> [crossposted to alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe]
>
(Where I read it!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations...

[Mack A. Damia]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 14:17:15 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Dec 2021 at 15:11:45, "Dave Plowman (News)"
><da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote (my responses usually follow points
>raised):
>>In article <1pk1249.17hehg7gcccdbN%on...@anon.invalid>,
>> Mr Ön!on <on...@anon.invalid> wrote:
>>> williamwright <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > On 11/12/2021 12:03, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> > > In article <j1hlo6...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> > > JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> > >> But I was over 30 and already in possession of a university degree
>>> > >> before I learned (by chance) that the possessive "its" doesn't contain
>>> > >> an apostrophe.
>
>It's not intuitive, is it!

OT, but we have a blog owned and edited by a gal with whom I had an
acquaintanceship; it is about the old times in our area of
Pennsylvania complete with photos, stories and comments. Fairly
popular, too.

She wrote: "Us grandkids ran barefoot around that yard every summer
for our entire adolescence."

I told her to take my comments in good faith, but that you would never
say "Us ran barefoot around that yard every summer for our entire
adolescence." So it has to be "WE" (grandkids). Almost intuitive, eh?

She didn't take my correction in good faith, and I never heard from
her again.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 at 08:31:43, Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com>

wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):

[]

>OT, but we have a blog owned and edited by a gal with whom I had an
>acquaintanceship; it is about the old times in our area of
>Pennsylvania complete with photos, stories and comments. Fairly
>popular, too.
>
>She wrote: "Us grandkids ran barefoot around that yard every summer
>for our entire adolescence."
>
>I told her to take my comments in good faith, but that you would never
>say "Us ran barefoot around that yard every summer for our entire
>adolescence." So it has to be "WE" (grandkids). Almost intuitive, eh?
>
>She didn't take my correction in good faith, and I never heard from
>her again.
>
>

As well as just ignorance of grammar, as you rightly showed, it can also
be a regional folk usage - some would say appropriate for reminiscences
of a barefoot childhood.
>
So while agreeing with you technically, it wouldn't even have occurred
to me to correct it. (The only incongruity being that such "folk usage"
doesn't really go with a vocabulary that includes the word
"adolescence", but I can't think what less sophisticated word could have
been used.)
>
>
General language chat, since APIHNA indulges in such (or did when not
moribund as now) - we don't _just_ talk about apostrophes! - I presume
this is the US usage of "yard" (as also in "yard sale" and "yard work"),
to mean a (not tiny) back garden, or at least different to the UK usage:
in UK, a "yard" is a small area behind or in front of a house, with a
hard surface (e. g. cement, concrete, or brick). Confused me (especially
"yard work") in US text until I realised what it meant in US. (Here, the
only "yard work" I can think of would be a few minutes to sweep it with
a broom, or standing in it to do maintenance on drainpipes on the house,
or similar. From what I've read, in US it means gardening tasks, such as
weeding, mowing, digging, and so on.)
>
[I've left it in, but might remove the DIY 'group - I don't know if
they're interested in language-usage natter.]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
15

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A professor is one who talks in someone else's sleep.

[Rod Speed]

J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote

> Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote

>>OT, but we have a blog owned and edited by a gal with whom I had an
>>acquaintanceship; it is about the old times in our area of
>>Pennsylvania complete with photos, stories and comments. Fairly
>>popular, too.
>>
>>She wrote: "Us grandkids ran barefoot around that yard every summer
>>for our entire adolescence."
>>
>>I told her to take my comments in good faith, but that you would never
>>say "Us ran barefoot around that yard every summer for our entire
>>adolescence." So it has to be "WE" (grandkids). Almost intuitive, eh?
>>
>>She didn't take my correction in good faith, and I never heard from
>>her again.
>>
>>
> As well as just ignorance of grammar, as you rightly showed, it can also
> be a regional folk usage - some would say appropriate for reminiscences
> of a barefoot childhood.
>>
> So while agreeing with you technically, it wouldn't even have occurred
> to me to correct it. (The only incongruity being that such "folk usage"
> doesn't really go with a vocabulary that includes the word
> "adolescence", but I can't think what less sophisticated word could have
> been used.)

Teen.

[Peeler]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2021 06:13:45 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Richard addressing senile Rodent Speed:
"Shit you're thick/pathetic excuse for a troll."
MID: <ogoa38$pul$1...@news.mixmin.net>

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 16/12/2021 18:49, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> [I've left it in, but might remove the DIY 'group - I don't know if
> they're interested in language-usage natter.]

We is intrested in evveryfink!


--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 18:49:21 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 at 08:31:43, Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com>
>wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>[]
>>OT, but we have a blog owned and edited by a gal with whom I had an
>>acquaintanceship; it is about the old times in our area of
>>Pennsylvania complete with photos, stories and comments. Fairly
>>popular, too.
>>
>>She wrote: "Us grandkids ran barefoot around that yard every summer
>>for our entire adolescence."
>>
>>I told her to take my comments in good faith, but that you would never
>>say "Us ran barefoot around that yard every summer for our entire
>>adolescence." So it has to be "WE" (grandkids). Almost intuitive, eh?
>>
>>She didn't take my correction in good faith, and I never heard from
>>her again.
>>
>>
>As well as just ignorance of grammar, as you rightly showed, it can also
>be a regional folk usage - some would say appropriate for reminiscences
>of a barefoot childhood.
>>
>So while agreeing with you technically, it wouldn't even have occurred
>to me to correct it. (The only incongruity being that such "folk usage"
>doesn't really go with a vocabulary that includes the word
>"adolescence", but I can't think what less sophisticated word could have
>been used.)

Pennsylvania Dutch area of Pennsylvania. "Dumb Dutchmen" is a term
commonly heard, except I would have expected more from her considering
that she is an accomplished college graduate and an editor.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well regional usage is regional usage. My Norfolk Grandfather used to
say 'garridge' despite being a Cambridge educated engineer.

'Us' is very American, and no American I have heard recently ever uses
the plural of an irregular verb.

Rembember American is the last relics of an English that was spoken in
the West Country 500 years ago plus pidgin English adopted by slaves,
plus every single gutter dialect from the emigrating hordes of poverty
stricken Europe. Especially Oirish.

You should hear what Dutchman have to say about Afrikaans...the oldest
country Dutch mangled by a very thick accent.

And you should hear what Germans have to say about Dutch....

--
“But what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!”

Mary Wollstonecraft

[Mack A. Damia]

But it is not regional pronunciation; it is basic grammar that is
taught in elementary school.

Would anybody ever say, "Us ran barefoot around that yard"?

[The Natural Philosopher]

Yes. That's very North country UK dialect

Give us a job, give us a break...when its the singular 'me' that is meant

A very small step to replace 'we' with 'us' as well.

I am fairly sure I've heard it up on the Fens as well, and for sure
Manchester where its pronounced 'ooze'

>
>> Rembember American is the last relics of an English that was spoken in
>> the West Country 500 years ago plus pidgin English adopted by slaves,
>> plus every single gutter dialect from the emigrating hordes of poverty
>> stricken Europe. Especially Oirish.
>>
>> You should hear what Dutchman have to say about Afrikaans...the oldest
>> country Dutch mangled by a very thick accent.
>>
>> And you should hear what Germans have to say about Dutch....

--
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities.”

― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de
Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de
M. de Voltaire

[Tony Mountifield]

In article <qtpmrgh70jj8bilk5...@4ax.com>,

Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> She wrote: "Us grandkids ran barefoot around that yard every summer
> for our entire adolescence."
>
> I told her to take my comments in good faith, but that you would never
> say "Us ran barefoot around that yard every summer for our entire
> adolescence." So it has to be "WE" (grandkids). Almost intuitive, eh?

Yup, here in UK there is too much confusion between subject and object case:

1. Me and my friend went shopping. (Should be: My friend and I...)

2. They invited my wife and I to dinner. (Should be: They invited my wife and me...,
but then: My wife and I would be delighted to come)

The latter is SO prevalent among people who think they are being so correct,
because they always got told to replace "me and my friend" in the first
example with "my friend and I", with no explanation of the difference in case
between "my friend and I" and "my friend and me". When referring to oneself
and another person, just remove the other person from the sentence and see if
the I or Me still sounds correct: They invited I to dinner?

Cheers
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: to...@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: to...@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

[Chris Green]

Tony Mountifield <to...@mountifield.org> wrote:
> 1. Me and my friend went shopping. (Should be: My friend and I...)
>

Why turn it round "I and my friend ...." is perfectly OK.

However the current fashion is the (horrible) "Myself and my friend ...".

--
Chris Green
·

[Tony Mountifield]

In article <dm2v8i-...@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <c...@isbd.net> wrote:
> Tony Mountifield <to...@mountifield.org> wrote:
> > 1. Me and my friend went shopping. (Should be: My friend and I...)
> >
> Why turn it round "I and my friend ...." is perfectly OK.

Grammatically with regard to case, yes. I was just always taught it was polite
to mention the other person before oneself, and old habits die hard.