Random Act Of Hatred

[AllenSmithee]

Haha, I love how bubbly that post is!

I'm gonna post some other songs sometime soon I guess. Lets hope it doesn't go all grammarmatic.

[Ascended Mermaid]

Yakra's posts are always light, warm-hearted and bubbly. She's perhaps one of the happiest sounding people here.

As far as proper English goes, I'm hardly the authority for English in other countries -- but here in the good old USA, "it's" is merely a contraction of "it is" and shouldn't be used for any other reason than to simplify "it is". It's that simple!

[Incog Neato]

Mar 14, 2009 13:47:29 GMT -5 Ascended Mermaid said:

Mar 14, 2009 13:17:08 GMT -5 Skeletore has a boner said:

it's frequency will only increase, and you've already lost the war.

Essentially you wrote "it is frequency will only increase, and you've already lost the war." ;) Whether it is fact or my own "opinion", you sir, are wrong. ;)

Totally agree on it's being a gender neutral possessive but we're talking more about the generally accepted use. The language is indeed always changing and eventually we will not understand one another ever again. TOT!!!!!! *cries*

[Red Hairdo]

Mar 14, 2009 13:17:08 GMT -5 Skeletore has a boner said:

The reality is it's is used as a possessive everyday, it's frequency will only increase, and you've already lost the war. Nothing can stop language evolution!

I think that if such a thing is being increasingly used, it's only in specific regions of the US.

Well, no matter what, if you use "its" as if it was "it's" and vice-versa in any english test of any kind and anywhere, it will be considered wrong. Especially when it's about tests for international certificates.
(In those, if they are of british origin like from Cambridge and Oxford universities, they are as "radical" as to consider even "I were" wrong instead of "I was". "I were" can be correct only in the US english.)

Personally, I don't see it as a language evolution. It's a popular usage of the language only. For example:
"I ain't going anywhere."
There's no such a thing as "I ain't". It's either "I am not" or "I'm not".
But there's no problem using such things when you're communicating with people. The main point of any language is communication, so if both sides understand each other, nothing else matters. That's why I'm fine with whatever way people talk to me (speaking or writing, in our case).

Mar 14, 2009 14:20:00 GMT -5 Yakra said:

I love how Smithee's song has turned into a grammar discussion though~!

Yeah, we all owe him an apology. xD Sorry. It's just that it's such an interesting subject to talk about! *languages lover*

[Ascended Mermaid]

Main Entry:
    its
Pronunciation:
    \ˈits, əts\ 
Function:
    adjective 
Date:
    circa 1507

: of or relating to it or itself especially as possessor, agent, or object of an action
<going to its kennel>
<a child proud of its first drawings>
<its final enactment into law>

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, "its"

Main Entry:
    it's
Pronunciation:
    \ˈits, əts\ 
Date:
    circa 1555

: it is
: it has

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, "it's"

There you have it. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is the definitive source for English, both proper and improper.

[Skeletore has a boner]

There's no such a thing as "I ain't".

Contradiction. As it clearly exists, and you even used it in a completely coherent sentence that does not cross the border of ungrammatically of syntax, semantics, or morphology.

I encourage everyone to look up the difference between "prescriptive" grammar and "descriptive" grammar.

Prescriptive grammar is what most here are espousing to, a set of completely arbitrary grammar "rules" given by people who *claim* to have authority over language. Prescriptive grammar is "shoulds" and "it'd be nice"...it's fantasy.

Descriptive grammar is the reality of language, what people actually use, how they use it, and why. This is one of the things we linguists study.

In the real world, we use ain't, it's as a possessive, and dawg all day, that is descriptive grammar and it is fundamentally "correct".


Also...

There you have it. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is the definitive source for English, both proper and improper.

No, just no. Dictionaries are a reference guide, not an authority, and even the lexical semantisists who write them will tell you that.


Edit:

Why do I feel like I've had this exact same argument in the past here? Well because I have, and it was true then and true now.

[Incog Neato]

Well, let's just all agree that nothing is as it seems! :D!!! No point in arguing, really. :B

LET'S BE ONE HAPPY FAMILY, DAMMIT! >:E

(And continue to point out its and it's! Just because.)

[Red Hairdo]

Well, I know that writing "ain't" in tests will leave a negative mark in the grade.

Also, if it's like how you are saying, then people can nearly do anything as they please with the language.
Ever wondered how it'd be if, say, each state of the US invented its own word or grammatical "rule"? If such a thing kept going, you'd have one language per state eventually (it would take centuries, but still xD).

Are you also saying i.e. "you're" and "your" can also be used for the same thing? That "you" can be replaced for "ya", "ye" and even "u"?
"I see" becomes "i c"?

u 'n' me ain't 'n 'greement xD


Edit:

Mar 14, 2009 17:18:47 GMT -5 Incog Neato said:

Well, let's just all agree that nothing is as it seems! !!! No point in arguing, really. :B

LET'S BE ONE HAPPY FAMILY, DAMMIT! >:E

(And continue to point out its and it's! Just because.)

I think this arguement is "healthy" enough. xD It's more of an academic debate.

[Ascended Mermaid]

i c ur nuts how do u pleed

// A fine example of English without rules or regulations, and a great mass of people over the internet who sound under-educated. I refer to the short-hand Instant Messenger users, of course.

[Yakra]

Ahem....

A pretty much pointless point and totally non-apostrophe related but.....

You know, who knows if such an odd way of speaking does become an accepted form of English though, one day. Perhaps not in places like Britain or Australia or even here, but maybe in the U.S? Afterall, English has evolved over time! I mean, just look at the English we speak and write today and compare it to that in Shakespere's works or even Chaucer? (I see no one going about declaring 'Tis a cold day today!' or something like such!) :'D Plus, if you look back at dictionaries before the British colonization period, you'll find lots of accepted 'english' words like wadis and sahibs and all such stuff don't exist! Sooo.... languages evolve? And become THE language?

[Incog Neato]

Mar 14, 2009 17:20:40 GMT -5 Red Hairdo said:

I think this arguement is "healthy" enough. xD It's more of an academic debate.

But you don't understand! It's A FUTILE ARGUMENT! There's nothing to argue about!

You'll never convince darusgrey otherwise!

Yakra: What you're seeing is just people shaking fist at things that aren't the norm right now. XD One day interchanging its and it's will be A-OK. :(

[Yakra]

HMMM!!! I just realized something!! For all these years, I was using both the "its" and "it's" in exactly the opposite manner! X'D Or rather... "it's" for possessive, "it's" for it is, er.... "it's" for everything infact. XD And a random 'its' whenever I thought it looked pretty.

This is what happens when one sleeps in grammar classes! :'D

*idiot*

[rocket]

howdy all,

I actually like how the language battle has turned out.

as i see it darusgrey argument is grounded in reality and Unsavory Fieg argument is grounded in academia. both arguments are correct.

Rockets tip of the week. If your boss says something that is wrong gramatically and they are not a teacher are you going to correct them.... I am betting you wont if you want to keep you job. That is what we call reality... Academia lives in its own reality and likes to impose its power but when you step outa there good luck pressing it in the working world.

Just my retired 2 pennys.

[Red Hairdo]

Mar 14, 2009 17:59:34 GMT -5 Incog Neato said:

You'll never convince darusgrey otherwise!

Hm. Yeah, that may be true. xD Now that you mentioned it, I don't think we will get to a point in common.

But... It's not like I have much else to say (I always try not to repeat myself), so this can't go on much longer anyway. And it's harmless so far, like I said...

[AllenSmithee]

Ah, its not a problem really.

I didn't focus on grammar when writing it, since it's just poetry, but yeah, still criticism.

[rocket]

Wow i just found the grammer tech from academia. That explains a lot. I see in your job how grammer is important given the releases to the masses.

now i can properly clear up my statement:

as i see it darusgrey argument is grounded in reality and wyrdwad argument is grounded in academia and his particular job. both arguments are correct.

It is kinda nice to have it sorted out where the real players are in this grammer game.

[Skeletore has a boner]

I can asset that there is NOTHING grammatically correct about using "it's" as a possessive.

Grammaticality is the act of understanding, the rule for grammar is if a successful linguistic transaction takes place, it is grammatical. Ungrammatical means it features semantical, syntactical, or morphological structures so alien to the human mind that your brain literally rejects it as not even speech(and it routes through an entirely different path in your brain's neurological structure).

When I type "My 360 broke because I kicked it's CD-ROM drive"...whether or not you think that's "correct" you clearly understand the intention of my communication, and because you do it is grammatical.

Whether you think that is "correct" or not is entirely a matter of your own opinion, because as I said, there is no authority on English language.

There is not some "board" of the masters of English who sit there and review "rules", pass new ones, repeal old ones and hand them down from on high to the masses.

You'll never convince darusgrey otherwise!

What exactly do I need to be convinced of?

as i see it darusgrey argument is grounded in reality and wyrdwad argument is grounded in academia and his particular job. both arguments are correct.

Kind of an odd way to phrase it, my stance is the one grounded in academia and facts. I hold a PHD in linguistics, and have dedicated my life to the study of language(Ys plays a big part in this, which is why I hang around here).

I can cite sources, explain phenomenia in clear detail, and eventually it always boils down to someone just saying...

"Well I disagree"...and I'm sorry to call you out Wyrdwad, but it's the equivalent of me stating "The sky is blue today" and someone saying "Well I disagree"...

The fact that you or anyone disagree does not change any of the facts I mentioned from being true.

I try not to bring emotion into this stuff(lol internet afterall), but it's honestly disrespectful and demeaning that I take the time to fully explain something and it gets dismissed out of hand.

I understand that people are brought up thinking English has "rules", and that these rules are concrete...but that is not reality. Reality is language is a living thing that changes and evolves over time.

The rules you consider to be "Concrete" were different just 50 years ago, and you would be lambasted for the way you type now by those people.

It's is acceptable, so is their, and so is ain't. You know what the difference between what is acceptable and what isn't within prescriptive grammar?

10 years.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ain%27t

I 100% guarantee you that in 10 years, give or take, you will see it's in the possessive form, commonly listed in dictionaries and word-nets. That is the way people are using it, and because of that, the "rules" of English will change to reflect that. Society is often decades ahead in common usage vs what is considered "proper" writing("The norm of prestige").

English is on a slow transition to a fully analytical language.

To just address what Wyrmward said after he disagreed.

darusgrey: I'm going to have to disagree with you. As someone who holds an English degree, I can asset that there is NOTHING grammatically correct about using "it's" as a possessive. It's accepted into society, perhaps, but it's not part of English grammar just yet - and bear in mind, grammar IS just a set of arbitrary rules, but it's a very IMPORTANT set of rules, as it helps keep our language homogenous and unmuddled. Without proper grammar, the English we speak now will be nearly incomprehensible to people in the future (like old English versus modern English), relegating the dissemination of information to only the most well-learned among us, and essentially screwing over those who can't afford a good education.

This is going to happen regardless, look around you, ever heard an old person saying "I can barely understand kids these days"?

Well, they've been saying that forever, and it's been true just as long. The pace at which language changes is generational, and it's only getting faster, hi2u again internet

If language was homogeneous do you understand what we'd lose? Do you really get what you're saying?

For one thing, poetry...gone. The entire foundation of poetry, lyrics, and creative writing relies on those changes, as well as making those changes itself.

Second off, culture. What we say is often less important than how we say it. Within the world of humans we can only express a little over 1000 different concepts, that's correct by the way, just a bit over 1000.

The way we phrase things, the unique colorings we put on our speech, the changes we implement, are defined within how we speak, and within that is our culture.
Our language is code for our thoughts, and if it doesn't change, we stop changing.

[Skeletore has a boner]

Grammatical, yes. Grammatically correct, no. If a successful linguistic transaction takes place, it's COMPREHENSIBLE.

No, it's grammatical, that's the technical use of grammatical. You can have a sentence that is grammatical and not comprehensible.

Let's use a classic example "Go"... Go where? I don't understand what you mean.

Also I just wanna state I don't hold any ill-will over stuff like this, I enjoy being a contributing member(sometimes!) of these boards.

[Ascended Mermaid]

Suddenly, I'm reminded of those old PC games where you had to describe in detail what you were doing, and how you were going to do it -- otherwise, the game would piss all over you if you failed to follow its rules of what is and isn't correct. Those were a pain in the ass!

Yes, I'm using "ass" in the sense that it's not a donkey. Ages ago, "ass" didn't have a slang usage, which is why it's so common in old translations. Our language did evolve over the years, but I also argue that our language should be regulated -- and infact, is. By schools, by our English teachers, and by the various scholars who disagree with you.

Unfortunately, the majority has the authority, which in this case, happens to be the "c u l8r" crowd. Our language is now overruled by those who senselessly and needlessly contract every single word down to a series of letters and numbers. Come on, it's lazy to write 2 instead of to, but I suppose that just because it's comprehensible, that it's supposed to be acceptable by any means?

Same with your mixed usage of its and it's. It may be comprehensible, but to the masses of scholars and teachers all across the United States of America, it's lazy. I may not approve, and neither may a select few, but you've said yourself that it's disrespectful that nobody will agree with you when you explain your points in depth. So everyone else here is chopped liver, then? It's okay for you to disrespect my fellow comrades, and I? Afterall, you're doing the same thing -- you're disagreeing. If that's so disrespectful, then why do you do it? Please do not try to argue your contradictions to us.

[Skeletore has a boner]

Grammatically correct in that context though is an oxymoron.

For something to be grammatically correct, it must be grammatical. Since my example 360 sentence is grammatical in that it is not semantically rejected, it is therefore grammatically correct.

Now granted, I know what you're trying to get at in terms of using grammatically correct as a metaphor for English prescriptive grammar, but that's when what you're saying falls apart. We get led back down the "there is no authority on English language" path.

Now the consequences of this are interesting, because it means me, you, 12 year old girls texting (omg bb c u ltr, u my BFF Jill) each other, ALL HAVE EQUAL AMOUNTS OF AUTHORITY when it comes to "proper" use of English.

If we ignore reality for a moment and assume descriptive grammar doesn't exist, then that means if I say "it's" as a possessive is acceptable in "proper" English, I am as "correct" as you are. It's a matter of opinion where we both share equal authority.

I'm sure you can understand this is circular logic, where if we keep talking about what "proper" or "correct" English is, we will keep going in this loop forever because the reality is not you, nor any other English major, speaker, professor, etc has authority of the English language.