= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
thomblake comments on Two straw men fighting - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (157)
Really? Do you also cringe when using theirs, yours, ours, mine, and thine?
Mine and thine? They don't belong in the category. The flaw isn't that all words about possession should have an apostrophe. The awkwardness is that the pattern of adding the "s" to the end to indicate ownership is the same from "Fred's" to "its" but arbitrarily not punctuated in the same way. The (somewhat obsolete) "ine" is a distinct mechanism of creating a possessive pronoun which while adding complexity at least doesn't add inconsistency.
As for "theirs, yours and ours", they prompt cringes in decreasing order of strength (in fact, it may not be a coincidence that you asked in that order). Prepend "hers" to the list and append "his". "Hers" and "theirs" feel more cringe-worthy, as best as I can judge, because they are closer in usage to "Fred's" while "ours" is at least a step or two away. "His" is a special case in as much as it is a whole different word. It isn't a different mechanism like "thine" or "thy" but it isn't "hes" either. I have never accidentally typed "hi's".
You're just reading the wrong pattern. There are simple, consistent rules:
EDIT: <strike>Leaving out " Jesus' " for the moment...</strike>
No, I'm not reading the wrong pattern. I'm criticising the pattern in terms of the objective and emotional-subjective criteria that I use for evaluating elements of languages and communication patterns in general. I am aware of the rules in question and more than capable of implementing it and the hundreds of other rules that go into making our language.
The undesirable aspect of this part of the language is this: It is not even remotely coincidental that we add the "ss" sound to the end of a noun to make it possessive and that most modern possessive pronouns are just the pronoun with a "ss" sound at the end. Nevertheless, the rule is "use the appropriate possessive pronoun"... that's a bleeding lookup table! A lookup table for something that is nearly always an algorithmic modification is not something I like in a language design. More importantly, when it comes to the spoken word the rule for making *nouns possessive is "almost always add 'ss'". 'Always' is better than 'almost always' (but too much to ask). Given 'almost always' , the same kind of rule for converting them all to written form would be far superior.
According to subjectively-objective criteria, this feature of English sucks. If nothing else it would be fair to say that my 'subjective' is at least not entirely arbitrary, whether or not you share the same values with respect to language.
Yes, this is definitely a difference in how we perceive the language. I don't see any inherent problem with a lookup table in the language, given that most of the language is already lookup tables in the same sense (what distinguishes 'couch' from 'chair', for instance). And it would not occur to me to have a rule for "*nouns" rather than the actual separate rules for nouns and pronouns. Note also that pronouns have possessive adjective and possessive pronoun forms, while nouns do not. They're an entirely different sort of animal.
So I would not think to write "It's brand is whichever brand is it's" instead of "its brand is whichever brand is its" anymore than I would think to write "me's brand is whichever brand is me's" (or whatever) instead of "my brand is whichever brand is mine"
I suspect the difference extends down to the nature of our thought processes. Let me see... using Myers-Briggs terminology and from just this conversation I'm going to guess ?STJ.
I tend to test as INTP/INTJ depending, I think, on whether I've been doing ethics lately. But then, I'm pretty sure it's been shown that inasmuch as that model has any predictive power, it needs to be evaluated in context... so who knows about today.
There's one more rule-- if the noun you're making possessive ends with an s (this applies to both singular and plural nouns), just add an apostrophe.
That's not exactly true, and I didn't think it had terribly much bearing to my point on account of we're talking about pronouns, but I'll amend the parent.
Indeed, and while we're on the subject of idiolects: my preference is for the spelling to follow the pronunciation. Hence either "Charles's tie" or "Charles' tie" is correct, depending on how you want it to be pronounced (in this case I usually prefer the latter option, but the meter of the sentence may sometimes make the other a better choice).