ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
While I do consider myself a Grammar Fiend, I am a little bit confused over the usage of "its" and "it's".

Obviously one uses "it's" where "it is" could be used, but when implying posession (eg. "The dog licked it's/its wounds.") which one are we supposed to use? I've been told that "it's" should be used in the above example, but if that is so, when should one use "its"? Could someone outline some example cases in which each instance is supposed to be used?

Other questions of grammar are welcome in this thread.

Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:07 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

its

mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:09 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Posession = its. No apostrophe.

It Is contraction = ONLY acceptible use of it's.

(pls ignore my spelling errors, because I know I am right on the its/it's issue)

kate (kate), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:10 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

you were told wrong. The dog licked its wounds.

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000227.htm

teeny (teeny), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:10 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

it's = it is ONLY

possessive of it has no apostrophe EVAH!!

viz: the dog licked its wounds

ditto plural of it ("he ended his avant-garde poem with a whole line of its"

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:11 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

its

otherwise it would read "the dog licked it is wounds" or "the dog licked it has wounds"

j0e (j0e), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:11 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

close brackets

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:11 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Its = ownership thing, think of it as like his or hers.

Tim (Tim), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:12 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

and his and hers never take an apostrophe, if that helps you remember.

teeny (teeny), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:13 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

grammarian cluster alert!!

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:13 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

What if your name is "it"?

Sam (chirombo), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:14 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

it licked his wounds

mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:14 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

apostrophes are so last century

stevem (blueski), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:15 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

theyre the microhouse of punctuation

mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:15 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

"and then smog licked ott's wounds"

mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:17 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Here's my question. I'm proofing this German website which my company had translated into English so we can use it as a resource. When referring to a made-up person, like a subordinate, they alternate between him and her from sentence to sentence, so it will be like:
Giving feedback to a subordinate helps him learn.
Then
Positive rapport helps a subordinate build her self-esteem.
But in the US, we would use him/her, or his/her, like:
Giving feedback to a subordinate helps him/her learn.
But sometimes this can get really tortured. So my question is, when is it appropriate to use "them" or "their" for a single person, like:
Giving feedback to a subordinate helps them learn.
Are you just supposed to use this when it will make things clearer? Or is it grammatically incorrect but tolerated? I really hate "him/her" and would rather keep it the way the Germans wrote it, but it has to be in proper English business grammar.

NA. (Nick A.), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:19 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

grammatically incorrect but tolerated etiquette-wise, basically

how abt:
Giving feedback to a subordinate helps him learn (her learn). [and then alternate the order]

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:22 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Cor Mark that's even clunkier!

Grammatically incorrect but increasingly tolerated in my experience. In the version of business English our business uses here in England, no-one would even notice. Except the sort of pedants you'd like to irritate.

Tim (Tim), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:24 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

just use "him"

Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:28 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

No it's not: you get a whole sentence followed by an alternative section you can easily ignore. (Because it's in brackets.)

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:28 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

(nutcase) Yes maybe you're right.

Tim (Tim), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:31 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

How about:

Giving feedback to subordinateS helps them learn.

Dilemma solved.

kate (kate), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:32 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

just use "him" but put a disclaimer at the bottom telling everyone how much women are valued in the workplace and that you're actually dead politcally correct, like, and you'll be fine...

Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:34 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

if you're going to start a fight you might as well start it by putting "her" the whole time, and then put a disclaimer at the bottom saying men can eat a bag of dicks

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:37 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Use "him/the dog".

Sam (chirombo), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:37 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

just include a picture of a german woman with subtitle "him" and youre sorted

mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:39 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

if you're going to start a fight you might as well start it by putting "her" the whole time,

either or'sgood with me


men can eat a bag of dicks

i live for the day i see this in any corporate communication

Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:40 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

kate is OTM.

teeny (teeny), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:41 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

just use "her" but put a disclaimer at the bottom telling everyone how much men are valued in the workplace and that you're actually dead politcally correct, like, and you'll be fine...

no, them is acceptable these days, and has been for years

Alan (Alan), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:41 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

alternately substitute any instance of him, her, them or theirs with 'rammstein'

mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:44 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

"giving feedback to a subordinate helps rammstein learn"

mark p (Mark P), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:46 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

You could also alternate 'him' and 'her' in different examples - a favourite self-help book technique but never mind. I still don't like 'them' in written English.

Archel (Archel), Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:46 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

But it's fine in spoken English?

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 17 July 2003 13:59 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

What does Nesbit do when describing something possessed by the Psammead.

Pete (Pete), Thursday, 17 July 2003 14:09 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Everything's fine in spoken English, it's in flux and I don't pay attention anyway :)

Archel (Archel), Thursday, 17 July 2003 14:09 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Alternating him and her was the Thing to Do when I was at Hahvahd.

Colin Meeder (Mert), Thursday, 17 July 2003 14:18 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I use Shem to mean both.

Pete (Pete), Thursday, 17 July 2003 14:19 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

good point ptee:

things belonging to Cousin It are Cousin It's

mark s (mark s), Thursday, 17 July 2003 14:19 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

"Them".

Chris P (Chris P), Thursday, 17 July 2003 14:31 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I use the third person plural rather than any of the other alternatives. If you actually put things into plural as much as possible, that helps.

Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 17 July 2003 19:47 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Alternating him and her was the Thing to Do when I was at Hahvahd.

That's what people kept telling me, but I was never that adventurous.

Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 17 July 2003 20:21 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I was going to make Chris's point without solid evidence. Hurrah for 'them'.

N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 17 July 2003 21:04 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

y'know what? that it's/its thing has been bothering me for years and now i know. didn't realise it was that simple. Its like an epiphany ;-)

dog latin (dog latin), Friday, 18 July 2003 01:16 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Using "them" or any other plural pronoun to refer to a singular antecedent is a horrible horrible thing and should be avoided.

It used to be gramatically acceptable to use a masculine pronoun (he, him, etc.) when referring to a person of unspecified gender (you know what I mean.. I can't think of any other way to put it), but now the "he or she"/"his or her" method is the proper form.

I'm not sure if it makes a difference whether you use a slash or the word "or." I suspect that the slash is unacceptable in formal writing.

Curt1s St3ph3ns, Friday, 18 July 2003 02:11 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

"giving feedback to a subordinate helps motherfuckers learn," italics or boldface on "learn" obv. possible/encouraged

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Friday, 18 July 2003 02:33 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

"I know what you're thinking. Did s/he fire six shots or only five?"

amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 18 July 2003 03:31 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

I suspect that the slash is unacceptable in formal writing.

Unless it's academic writing, and it allows you to make a terrible pun somehow.

jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 18 July 2003 04:31 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

but now the "he or she"/"his or her" method is the proper form.

Proper, maybe. But it should be pointed out that if you're having to cram this into your sentence, you;re writing a clumsy sentence, and you should probably drop back and punt.

Kenan Hebert (kenan), Friday, 18 July 2003 04:34 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

Not that I don't write clumsy sentences all the time, mind you. It's just that I'm aware of it.

Kenan Hebert (kenan), Friday, 18 July 2003 04:35 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

seven months pass...
Quick - is "fact-checking" hyphenated? Or is it "factchecking"? Oh no, they both look weird!

@d@ml (nordicskilla), Monday, 8 March 2004 00:24 (fourteen years ago) Permalink

ugly house

conrad, Wednesday, 25 October 2017 21:34 (five months ago) Permalink

sad tidings

A is for (Aimless), Wednesday, 25 October 2017 21:38 (five months ago) Permalink

conrad haha yep. wasn't watching but mr kinder picked up on it.

kinder, Wednesday, 25 October 2017 21:44 (five months ago) Permalink

I had the same reaction

conrad, Wednesday, 25 October 2017 21:45 (five months ago) Permalink

on the basis of the verb, 'to wife':

do you think it should be 'wifing' or 'wifeing'?

j., Friday, 27 October 2017 20:34 (five months ago) Permalink

Wifing. Would you write "knifeing" or "knifing"?

(Though I would be tempted by "wiving." We've come to wive it wealthily in Padua.)

what if a much of a which of a wind (Ye Mad Puffin), Friday, 27 October 2017 20:36 (five months ago) Permalink

To splice = splicing. To drive = driving. To brine = brining.

what if a much of a which of a wind (Ye Mad Puffin), Friday, 27 October 2017 20:37 (five months ago) Permalink

just don't make being a wife into a verb

weird woman in a bar (La Lechera), Friday, 27 October 2017 20:50 (five months ago) Permalink

^^

k3vin k., Friday, 27 October 2017 20:50 (five months ago) Permalink

i am not opposed to verbing nouns in general but this one is:
* problematic
* not a natural fit for neologism since no 1 clear verb form emerges as the logical (comprehensible) one
* the variations listed above are incomprehensible and if no one knows what it means, don't try to force-invent a word that didn't ask to be invented

I was busy wifing (using wifi?)
I was busy wiving (dwiving?)
I was busy wifeing (wifeing = ???)

weird woman in a bar (La Lechera), Friday, 27 October 2017 20:56 (five months ago) Permalink

Good points LL.

Pro tip: husbandry and husbanding are different things.

(cf. Tom Lehrer: "he majored in animal husbandry... until they caught him at it one day."

Is "wifing" meant to be like "adulting"? Was not aware.

what if a much of a which of a wind (Ye Mad Puffin), Friday, 27 October 2017 20:58 (five months ago) Permalink

purely on the spelling question, i thiiiiiiiiink the only exceptions* to the rule that you drop the e for -ing are words where the e modifies a vowel: viz you don't drop the e with seeing or shoeing or -- treating y as a vowel -- eyeing

when adding e.g. -able you always need the e if it's modifying a consonant: viz changeable -- the a doesn't soften the g so you need the e

compare forcible: since the i softens the c you don;t need the e as well

*tbh this is always a risky thing to claim w/english, as it's an unusually irregular language but i certainly can't think of any

mark s, Friday, 27 October 2017 20:59 (five months ago) Permalink

fwiw SOED has wifish (for "having the characteristics of a wife", 1616) rather than wivish

mark s, Friday, 27 October 2017 21:02 (five months ago) Permalink

Anyways wiving means marrying a woman, not being a wife, of course

what if a much of a which of a wind (Ye Mad Puffin), Friday, 27 October 2017 21:03 (five months ago) Permalink

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/wifed

and more importantly:
https://www.anagrammer.com/scrabble/wifed

mark s, Friday, 27 October 2017 21:09 (five months ago) Permalink

lol but also:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wive

and:
https://www.anagrammer.com/scrabble/wived

mark s, Friday, 27 October 2017 21:12 (five months ago) Permalink

SOED also agrees with YMP on the verb form: to wive, meaning to be a wife (rare), to become a wife (obs. or arch.), furnish with a wife (obs. or arch.), or to take as a wife (presumably not obs. or arch. or even rare, tho it seems p rare to me)

mark s, Friday, 27 October 2017 21:17 (five months ago) Permalink

don't try to force-invent a word that didn't ask to be invented

too late, done been did, we're just looking to mind the drift therefrom

ye m p otm

j., Friday, 27 October 2017 23:22 (five months ago) Permalink

ymp otm. wiving is pretty ancient now, replaced by "taking to wife", which is also quite archaic and disused. nb: "swiving" was much more fun.

A is for (Aimless), Saturday, 28 October 2017 00:05 (five months ago) Permalink

Motherfuckers be like "but what type of niggas will wife you?"

My type of niggas will wife me! The type of niggas that like bitches that pop off and suck dick all day motherfucking long bitch

Thanks to all my followers that always defended me, y'all my God brothers and God sisters, I would dare jump in your fight, I would dare jump in your fight. Now what's poppin?

j., Saturday, 28 October 2017 02:21 (five months ago) Permalink

i'm finally reading The Last Samurai and jesus does that book make me feel dumb. i mean it's about geniuses and i am not one of those but i really don't know much about much. is it too late in life to learn grammar rules or learn latin?

i am never using proper punctuation on this thread.

ALSO i love the lack of punctuation in that book! what a cool book.

i mean CASE ENDINGS i think i knew what that was but i looked it up and that just starts me on a rocky road through terminology i have no idea about.

THE VOCATIVE CASE. i dunno maybe its too late for me.

scott seward, Friday, 10 November 2017 16:33 (five months ago) Permalink

get yr head round finnish cases and the rest is easy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_noun_cases#Finnish_cases

mark s, Friday, 10 November 2017 16:45 (five months ago) Permalink

They passed on their message with(using) the houses they built.

scott seward, Friday, 10 November 2017 16:56 (five months ago) Permalink

finns don't see gender. the language of the future!

scott seward, Friday, 10 November 2017 16:56 (five months ago) Permalink

one month passes...

otm

mookieproof, Wednesday, 20 December 2017 00:33 (four months ago) Permalink

one month passes...

are there any good reasons to use he's got rather than he has?

mookieproof, Friday, 16 February 2018 21:21 (two months ago) Permalink

stylistically, it lends a colloquial informality to whatever is being written.

A is for (Aimless), Friday, 16 February 2018 21:24 (two months ago) Permalink

"she has the look" - prince

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Friday, 16 February 2018 21:25 (two months ago) Permalink

you know this is the first time I've read the opening post in this thread and it's a real doozy

khat person (jim in vancouver), Friday, 16 February 2018 21:26 (two months ago) Permalink

you mean its a real doozy

Rhine Jive Click Bait (Hadrian VIII), Friday, 16 February 2018 21:35 (two months ago) Permalink

it's a well established usage: shakespeare used it, johnson approves it, fowler quotes someone i haven't heard of calling it "not a real error but a counterfeit invented by schoolmasters"

which last i think paradoxically explains and perhaps validates the sense that it's more informal or colloquial

the other reason for choosing one over the other is, not rhythm exactly, since they're interchangeable in terms of syllables, but the sense of flow or of choppiness you need at that point

(either is fine, in other words: it's up to you)

mark s, Friday, 16 February 2018 21:47 (two months ago) Permalink

sorry: xps to got vs have

mark s, Friday, 16 February 2018 21:47 (two months ago) Permalink

fair. it's a tic of an otherwise terrible writer of my acquaintance and i wanted to hate it as well

mookieproof, Friday, 16 February 2018 21:56 (two months ago) Permalink

tracer hand's recasting cracking me up

mom tossed in kimchee (quincie), Friday, 16 February 2018 22:53 (two months ago) Permalink

i am possibly going to take an editing test in the next couple of weeks for a special publications dept of a local newspaper

i have freelanced for years but haven’t written for Legit outlet like this before

can anyone recommend any websites or books to help me bone up on my editing/grammar etc. i’ve got functional skills but my knowledge feels v flabby

Squeaky Fromage (VegemiteGrrl), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 00:57 (two months ago) Permalink

disclaimer: I am not a newspaper employee or journalism major

I expect you won't be required to parse grammar in detail just to demonstrate a technical knowledge nearly so much as to show the ability to edit for clarity and brevity, correct writers' incorrect spelling or improper homophones (to, too, two, etc.), and show some familiarity with whichever style guide the newspaper favors. Ask them ahead of time what style guide they use so you can figure out how they want you to do stuff like capitalize, hyphenate, and a few other arcane details along those lines.

If I were hiring you, I'd mainly want to know you can recognize bad, awkward, or flagrantly ungrammatical writing and can clean it up to a minimum level of readability, and since this is for a newspaper, how to make the article fit the space allotted to it without ruining its sense.

If they think they want someone who can call a gerund a gerund with consummate ease, or can name-drop the subjunctive case in casual conversation, they are probably just confused or wrong-headed. Or horribly snobby about grammar.

Good luck. Oh, and "special publications" might be code for paid advertising inserts.

A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 02:11 (two months ago) Permalink

it is - that’s kinda where my background is, hence why i’m going for that gig & not tryna be a stringer in the oughts or something :)

Squeaky Fromage (VegemiteGrrl), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 03:13 (two months ago) Permalink

I keep a copy of the AP's Guide to Punctuation on my my nightstand. It's not the stylebook, which obviously can change from place to place, but does illustrate things like why the Oakland A's have had multiple MVPs.

Not bad for a book with only 93 pages, but maybe you can find something from this decade though.

https://www.amazon.com/Associated-Press-Guide-Punctuation/dp/0738207853

pplains, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 03:51 (two months ago) Permalink

The style guide for Chicago is pretty compressed and good. It's sort of like a shortened version of Garland's Oxford guide to American English usage.

Pataphysician, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 04:01 (two months ago) Permalink

I hit the AP Stylebook online often. I don't agree with everything they come up with (though I do have to abide by their rules), but it is interesting to see at least why they write the rules they write.

pplains, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 04:40 (two months ago) Permalink

thanks everyone, this is all v helpful <3

Squeaky Fromage (VegemiteGrrl), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 05:53 (two months ago) Permalink

Just read my posts

DUMPKINS! (darraghmac), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 11:55 (two months ago) Permalink

then delete them

mark s, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 12:08 (two months ago) Permalink

:o

DUMPKINS! (darraghmac), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 12:26 (two months ago) Permalink

this is an amaaaazing book on editing. it's about academic rather than newspaper editing, but there's so much helpful stuff

https://sites.duke.edu/niou/files/2014/07/WilliamsJosephM1990StyleTowardClarityandGrace.pdf

Chuck_Tatum, Tuesday, 20 February 2018 12:45 (two months ago) Permalink

When I was active as a copyeditor (USian term, sorry), the standard book to follow was Karen Judd's Copyediting: A Practical Guide. If I chance to leaf through it nowadays it seems dated, and very focused on practical aspects of paper-based work.

Speaking as an ex-newspaper employee and ex-journalism major, I agree with Aimless's post. It's more important to show you can make murky things clear (and correct the most howlingly egregious errors) than to master every nuance of using em dashes, en dashes, hyphens, etc. Most of those are issues of style rather than right/wrong.

I hire editors from time to time, and I like to look for a basically chill, audience-centric philosophy of editing. Vastly prefer that over dogmatic rigidity or encyclopedic memorized technical knowledge.

Consider one or more books by Bill Walsh, whose irreverent, pragmatic attitude is very much simpatico with my own. Look for The Elephants of Style if you can.

persona non gratin (Ye Mad Puffin), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 14:38 (two months ago) Permalink

speaking as someone currently employed as a proofreader and someone who has taken (and passed) a lot of editing tests, you are almost definitely overthinking it. virtually every copy editing test I've taken has focused on basic grammar, punctuation and usage errors, possibly some AP/Chicago style points (for a newspaper, you're probably going to deal with AP). editing for clarity/brevity generally doesn't show up, probably because those things are A) subjective and B) harder to deliberately insert into a story than a misspelling. as far as style, I've taken a surprising amount of editing tests where they just give you a style guide and dictionary during the test.

so if I were to brush up on anything before an editing test for a print publication, it'd actually be proofreading marks.

algorithm is a dancer (katherine), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 15:14 (two months ago) Permalink

katherine speaks wisdom

persona non gratin (Ye Mad Puffin), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 15:54 (two months ago) Permalink

thank you!!!

it’s def prob just paranoia/overthinking. i just worry that i’m underqualified. i’ve been writing for a very small publication & i am not sure if my skills measure up, even tho i really want the job.

Squeaky Fromage (VegemiteGrrl), Tuesday, 20 February 2018 17:50 (two months ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.