(With thanks to Theo, who noticed)
If you do decide to send the e-mail to your MP, requesting that he
or she signs Early Day Motion 611 ... please correct a typo:
of it's fervent support of the rule of law, that all are equal in
should be “proud of its
fervent support of the rule of law, that all are equal in its
... in other words no apostrophe ... "its" is correct ... "it's" is
It's called 'English grammar'.
Although the general rule ... that there would be "apostrophe-s"
for something possessive (in this case "fervent support for the
rule of law") ... "it" is an exception.
This is because there is a clash between the uses of apostrophes
... they are also used to indicate "missing characters" ...
"It is" contracts to "it's" ... and the apostrophe is used up.
So ... how do we indicate "something that belongs to it"
We have to break the general rule ... and write "its" for
possessive. That works ... or ... at least ... we can get away with
it ... because we already have a plural for "it" ... the plural is
"them". Which is a totally different word, n'est-ce pas?
"it's" means "it is"
"its" means "belongs to it"
Don't EVER criticise those ... who's native language isn't English
... when they try to get to grips with our language. Remember: The
English can't do it ... so how can you expect others to do it?
In the (geez ... must be) early 1960s (?) ... Keith Waterhouse (one
of the writers of the series "Budgie", starring Adam Faith), wrote a
weekly column in the Daily Mirror.
In that column he started a 'pseudo-organisation', which he called
the AAA i.e. "Abolition of the Aberrant Apostrophe".
This was an attempt to explain the English language to the English.
So, when you see crap, such as "FAQ's", and stuff like that
("potato's" instead of potatoes", "tomato's" instead
of tomatoes") just remember: The problem of the English "not
being able to write their own language" is not new. (You
may shake your head, and wonder how the standards of English
ed-jew-cay-shun have fallen so low. That's permissible. Well, I do
it a lot, anyway)
The problem's certainly go back to the 1960's or even furthe'r fo'r
exampl'e th'e 1950's a't th'e ver'y lea'st.
(O'f cours'e, th'e othe'r proble'm i's whe're fu'll stop's &
comma's g'o ... bu't that's anoth'er stor'y)
Lesson for tomorrow
"Your", "yours" and "you're"