Possesive comma use question.

[BlueTexas]

This is probably a dead horse for many, but my style books are disagreeing. Should the it's that begins this sentence really be its? In the previous sentence, I referred to the tree directly.

It’s gnarled branches were just the right size for me to nestle in, ten feet above the ground and safe from those who lived down there.

[MarkEsq]

I believe that you are correct, Blue Texas, your use is the possessive which means that it should be "Its."

[James D. Macdonald]

You probably want its.

Next, what's the full paragraph?

[reph]

The word should be "its" with no apostrophe. No reputable style book would say otherwise.

For the sake of clarity, this is an apostrophe: '

This is a comma: ,

[reph]

Three answers within six minutes, and all agreeing. Are we good, or what?

[BlueTexas]

I think I do want "its". I meant apostrophe in the title, sorry about that. Here's the full paragraph:

Grandma’s cluttered mind was reflected in her house. I see that now. I couldn’t possibly have known it when I was seven years old, and so I was hurt when the frying pan whizzed by my head. I really thought she was throwing it at me. I found refuge in the apple tree in her back yard that day. Its gnarled branches were just the right size for me to nestle in, ten feet above the ground and safe from her rages. Even if she found me, she couldn’t climb that high. Not that I feared she would hurt me; I feared the shrill of her voice as her fervor grew. I was escaping her tinny, shrieking madness.

[BlueTexas]

The word should be "its" with no apostrophe. No reputable style book would say otherwise.

For the sake of clarity, this is an apostrophe: '

This is a comma: ,

I did mean apostrophe, I was just in the middle of a thought, and grammar got in the way, muddling my brain :)

Thanks for the confirmation about "its". The evil style book in question is Hodges' Harberbrace College Handbook.

[mommie4a]

Its it is.

[Mistook]

the way I've finally come to remember the difference is that

it's

is a jumble of

'tis

and they mean the same thing

[James D. Macdonald]

Grandma’s cluttered mind was reflected in her house. I see that now. I couldn’t possibly have known it when I was seven years old, and so I was hurt when the frying pan whizzed by my head. I really thought she was throwing it at me. I found refuge in the apple tree in her back yard that day. Its gnarled branches were just the right size for me to nestle in, ten feet above the ground and safe from her rages. Even if she found me, she couldn’t climb that high. Not that I feared she would hurt me; I feared the shrill of her voice as her fervor grew. I was escaping her tinny, shrieking madness.

I wonder if that might not work better as two paragraphs. Break at "I found refuge...."

Is "hurt" the right word?

Is "shrill" the right word?

Is "fervor" the right word?

I trust we've already seen her cluttered house by this point. Since her mind is the most important item, perhaps the first sentence would work better as Grandma’s house reflected her cluttered mind.

How does a frying pan whizzing past our narrator's head relate to clutter?

[BlueTexas]

I wonder if that might not work better as two paragraphs. Break at "I found refuge...."

Is "hurt" the right word?

Is "shrill" the right word?

Is "fervor" the right word?

I trust we've already seen her cluttered house by this point. Since her mind is the most important item, perhaps the first sentence would work better as Grandma’s house reflected her cluttered mind.

How does a frying pan whizzing past our narrator's head relate to clutter?

I agree on the paragraph break. This is first draft stuff. The first sentence does work better active, as you changed it. Much better emphasis. Passive voice is the hardest habit to break!

Which hurt?
Piercing shrillness would be better...
Fervor is the one I want...she's hot crazy, not cold crazy. Spun up frenzied crazy.

The whizzing frying pan was thrown at the narrator because of what she did to the clutter. It was crazy Grandma's reaction.

[Jamesaritchie]

I did mean apostrophe, I was just in the middle of a thought, and grammar got in the way, muddling my brain :)

Thanks for the confirmation about "its". The evil style book in question is Hodges' Harberbrace College Handbook.

"It's" always means "it is." There's never a time when you use "it's" as a possessive. "Its," on the other hand, with no apostrophe, is already possessive "Its" is the possessive form of "it." I can't believe any style book would ever intentionally say that "it's" is ever possessive.

The elephant walked wearily across the desert, head drooping, its trunk nearly dragging in the sand.

I can't help but think you've found a typo in the stylebook. I can't believe any style book would ever intentionally say that "it's" is ever possessive.

[azbikergirl]

"It's" is also sometimes used as a conjunction for it has.

"It's been a hard day's night..."
But to James's point, "it's" a conjunction, never possessive. :)

[reph]

"it's" a conjunction, never possessive.

Contraction.

Sorry to be so insufferable.

[Mistook]

I still think the it's rule is counter intuitive. Reph once explained the logic of it, and now I finally get it, but if you rely on quirky rules of thumb the way I do, 'tis an easy mistake to make.

My brother once told me that the way to understand the possessive apostrophe-S was to think of it as a contraction of "his"

So, "The boy's dorm-room" equals, "The boy, his dorm room."

if you have several boys assigned to the room you say, "The boys' dorm-room" and that's more like saying "The boys, their dorm room"

'tis a weird way of thinking about it, but it works for me. Unfortunately, the whole thing falls apart when "IT" comes along.

I also tend to throw apostrophes next to plain-old plural S, and that's just a bad habbit. Nothing can cure me of that asside from vigilance.

[azbikergirl]

Contraction.

Doh! I need to get some sleeeeeep...

[Jamesaritchie]

"It's" is also sometimes used as a conjunction for it has.

"It's been a hard day's night..."
But to James's point, "it's" a conjunction, never possessive. :)

Yes, sometimes "it has," but always "it is" in the situation that started this thread, and never, ever a possessive. There's an old rule that an English teacher told me when I was in the seventh grade. "When in doubt, spell it out."

If there's something to spell out, it's a contraction. If there's nothing to spell out, it's a possessive.

This is one area that mever gave me problems. In a contraction, an apostrophe always signifies a missing letter or letters. In a possessive, there are no missing letters, and the apostrophe tells you that word owns something.

I'm not sure why some writers use "it's" when they mean "its." I guess we all have our weak areas. My biggie is ending sentences with prepositions. I know the rule, but I seem to look right past them unless I sit the manuscript aside for several days or more.

What always amazed me was how many manuscripts came in with you're/your. two/to/too, and their/there/they're mistakes. It doesn't take many of these early in a manuscript to cause a quick rejection.

[TashaGoddard]

Jamesaritchie:
My biggie is ending sentences with prepositions. I know the rule, but I seem to look right past them unless I sit the manuscript aside for several days or more.
There is nothing wrong with ending a sentence with a preposition. If it sounds right, it's fine. It is a question of style, rather than grammar. Grammar (or style) should not be followed religously; it should be made use of where appropriate.

What did you go out for?
For what did you go out?

Honestly now, which one sounds better? (I'm sure there are some people would still feel the latter sounds better. But the vast majority will feel the former flows more easily. [oh look, I started a sentence with a conjunction - oops])

What always amazed me was how many manuscripts came in with you're/your. two/to/too, and their/there/they're mistakes. It doesn't take many of these early in a manuscript to cause a quick rejection.
This is often a form of dyslexia. (Or maybe it's dyspraxia; I'm never quite sure which is which.) While most people know full well the difference between these homonyms, when typing (or writing) quickly it is very easy to muddle them up. In addition, it is also something that can slip through when you reread, because you know what you expect it to say from the context. I suffer from this problem (as well as getting p and d and b and g/q mixed up when writing by hand). My emails (and posts on boards such as this one) are full of these mistakes (and no/know our/hour and plenty of others). However, I do usually manage to spot them on a reread (especially if I haven't look at the writing for a day or two).

The other problem, of course, is that spellcheckers will not pick up on these errors, because they are all correctly spelt words - just used in the wrong place!

When I'm editing I tend to forgive these kinds of mistakes, but get annoyed by others instead. I hate apostrophe errors most of all, but will usually forgive an its/it's error. It's odd. I suppose we all have our pet hates!

[whitehound]

An apostrophe in a word stands for elision - that is, for letters which have been removed. So in "it's" the apostrophe stands for the letters i or ha - in "can't" it stands for no and so on.

The possessive apostrophe in "the dog's tail" stands for the elision of the letters it from "the dog its tail." If you were to write "The dog wagged it's tail" (rather than "The dog wagged its tail," which is correct) that would suggest that the sentence should really be "The dog wagged it its tail" - which would be ridiculous. "Its," without an apostrophe, is what 's stands for!

There are some nasty complications to the elision business. For example, the plural of photograph is photographs but the plural of photo' is photo's, where the apostrophe stands for the elision of graph - but if you write it that way, most people think you don't know the difference between a plural and a possessive!

[reph]

For example, the plural of photograph is photographs but the plural of photo' is photo's, where the apostrophe stands for the elision of graph...
Does anyone use photo', with an apostrophe, to mean "photograph" (or anything else)? I haven't seen that.

[Medievalist]

Does anyone use photo', with an apostrophe, to mean "photograph" (or anything else)? I haven't seen that.

Just looking at that makes me twitch.

No.

The convention of using an apostrophe with the plurals of numbers and letters, and some abbreviations, seems to be fading. Such uses as p's and q's, or Ph.D.'s for plurals always seem odd to me. I've worked on publications that required such in their style guide, but I don't favor it.

[dragonjax]

Regarding "it's" versus "its," Jamesaritchie said it best: spell it out.

it's = it is. Period, end of story.

It's like "who's" versus "whose." who's = who is.

Who's there?
It's me.
Whose book is that?
It's mine.
Are you sure?
Its cover has my name on it.

And I agree with Tasha: There is a fine line between being gramatically correct and being inflexive in fiction writing. Some rules can be bent; others can be broken. And some should never, ever be broken. It comes down to being comfortable enough with grammar to know when precision can make allowances for art.

Humble opinion, of course. ;)

[Jamesaritchie]

For example, the plural of photograph is photographs but the plural of photo' is photo's, where the apostrophe stands for the elision of graph - but if you write it that way, most people think you don't know the difference between a plural and a possessive!

"Photo'" or "photo's" are old usages that were outdated before they even became common. It's certainly not done at any of the magazines I've written for, and hasn't been for years and years. None of the newer style guides I have suggest using them either, and I think this is for the best.

"Photo" is a word by itself, and has been for many a year. The debate seems to be whether the plural should be "photos" or "photoes." I always use "photos," largely because "photoes" looks too darned much like "potatoes."

It's the word "photograph" that has become uncommon. This is one area where I think our ever-changing language got it right. I suspect "photograph" will eventually pretty much disappear from the language altogether.

[Mistook]

It's the word "photograph" that has become uncommon. This is one area where I think our ever-changing language got it right. I suspect "photograph" will eventually pretty much disappear from the language altogether.


It happened to, velocipede.

[reph]

"Photo" is a word by itself, and has been for many a year. The debate seems to be whether the plural should be "photos" or "photoes."
There are living beings who think "photoes" is right?!?!

I've read enough old stuff to remember 'phone and 'plane, but never photo' or any other word with an apostrophe at the right end.

It [extinction] happened to, velocipede.
"Velocipede" didn't shrink to a truncated form, though. It was replaced by an entirely different word.

[Mistook]

There are living beings who think "photoes" is right?!?!

I've read enough old stuff to remember 'phone and 'plane, but never photo' or any other word with an apostrophe at the right end.


"Velocipede" didn't shrink to a truncated form, though. It was replaced by an entirely different word.


I don't know why, I just have a fascination with those turn of the century invention words.

Telephone, Photograph, Telegraph, Motorcycle, Automobile, etc...

If that stuff were invented today, they would be:

TP, PG, TG, MC, and AM.

[Medievalist]

There are living beings who think "photoes" is right?!?!

I've read enough old stuff to remember 'phone and 'plane, but never photo' or any other word with an apostrophe at the right end.

I can't find it in either the OED or Chambers.