Posted: 7/6/2015 1:04:04 PM EDT
|
Three rules for selecting the correct "its":
One of the most frequent errors now made in written English involves the use of “its” — in the forms its, it’s or its’. It is the apostrophe that baffles people; knowledge of what the apostrophe represents and how to use it correctly has become shaky. However, in the case of ‘its’, the rules are simple. Here they are, in plain English. Rule 1 NEVER use its’. There is no such word. If you are ever tempted to such usage, think again. It is wrong. It should be one of rules 2 or 3. Rule 2 “It’s” is a contraction of two words, either: It is; or It has. Examples: It’s not my fault that we were late for the appointment. (It is not my fault that we were late for the appointment) Try the chilli dip — it’s red hot! (Try the chilli dip — it is red hot!) It’s been a tough week for the whole family. (It has been a tough week for the whole family.) There is no possessive usage of “it’s”; for example: The dog gnawed on it’s bone. This is incorrect. It should be: The dog gnawed on its bone. The rule: When you use “it’s”, it is ALWAYS a contraction. If you can’t substitute “it is” or “it has” and still have the sentence make sense, you should be using “its”. Rule 3 “Its” is the possessive of “it”. Use “its” when referring to a thing or characteristic that is ‘possessed’ by the entity you are writing about. (People are ‘he/his’ or ‘she/her’. Entities, organizations, companies, things, plants and often animals are ‘it’.) For example: Every city has its dark side. (The city ‘possesses’ a dark side. It [the city] has its dark side.) |
|
Quoted:
"It [the city] has its dark side." "It has its dark side." "It's its dark side." Right? Quoted:
Quoted:
<<<SNIPPED>>> (The city ‘possesses’ a dark side. It [the city] has its dark side.) "It [the city] has its dark side." "It has its dark side." "It's its dark side." Right? 
|
|
Quoted: I nominate tcrpe as arfcom grammatical moderator, with full ban hammer capabilities. Three strikes and BOOM, gone. I would also like to volunteer as his co-consul, on a part time basis, as his then/than ban hammer capable moderator.  Really? Just three? In one week this forum will be a ghost town with roughly five grammar Nazis standing around with nothing to do. |
|
Quoted:
I nominate tcrpe as arfcom grammatical moderator, with full ban hammer capabilities. Three strikes and BOOM, gone. I would also like to volunteer as his co-consulcounsel, on a part time basis, as his then/than ban hammer capable moderator. Steeeeeriiiiiike one. 
|
|
Quoted: What about "two"?   Quoted: Quoted: to and too kick my ass. I also despise the spelling of "through" and use "thru" instead, but I am a grammatical rebel in that way. What about "two"? I ain't no complete idiot. I does know that "two" refers to a number. I just never can remember the rule on to and too. (I guess if a sentence contains both "to" and "too" you could strike them out and replace them with "fore") |
|
Quoted:
I ain't no complete idiot. I does know that "two" refers to a number. I just never can remember the rule on to and too. (I guess if a sentence contains both "to" and "too" you could strike them out and replace them with "fore") Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
to and too kick my ass. I also despise the spelling of "through" and use "thru" instead, but I am a grammatical rebel in that way. What about "two"?
I ain't no complete idiot. I does know that "two" refers to a number. I just never can remember the rule on to and too. (I guess if a sentence contains both "to" and "too" you could strike them out and replace them with "fore") Yea, I seen that . . .  
|
|
Quoted:
I ain't no complete idiot. I does know that "two" refers to a number. I just never can remember the rule on to and too. (I guess if a sentence contains both "to" and "too" you could strike them out and replace them with "fore") Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
to and too kick my ass. I also despise the spelling of "through" and use "thru" instead, but I am a grammatical rebel in that way. What about "two"?
I ain't no complete idiot. I does know that "two" refers to a number. I just never can remember the rule on to and too. (I guess if a sentence contains both "to" and "too" you could strike them out and replace them with "fore") I'm going to the range too. I'm taking two (2) AR-15 rifles. |
|
Quoted:
Yea, I seen that . . .
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
to and too kick my ass. I also despise the spelling of "through" and use "thru" instead, but I am a grammatical rebel in that way. What about "two"?
I ain't no complete idiot. I does know that "two" refers to a number. I just never can remember the rule on to and too. (I guess if a sentence contains both "to" and "too" you could strike them out and replace them with "fore") Yea, I seen that . . .
Wrong. It's "seent." |
|
Quoted:
Wrong. It's "seent." Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
to and too kick my ass. I also despise the spelling of "through" and use "thru" instead, but I am a grammatical rebel in that way. What about "two"?
I ain't no complete idiot. I does know that "two" refers to a number. I just never can remember the rule on to and too. (I guess if a sentence contains both "to" and "too" you could strike them out and replace them with "fore") Yea, I seen that . . .
Wrong. It's "seent." 
|
|
Quoted: I'm going to the range too. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: to and too kick my ass. I also despise the spelling of "through" and use "thru" instead, but I am a grammatical rebel in that way. What about "two"? I ain't no complete idiot. I does know that "two" refers to a number. I just never can remember the rule on to and too. (I guess if a sentence contains both "to" and "too" you could strike them out and replace them with "fore") I'm going to the range too. So you have TO + TOO = FOREO (there are five letters total in TO and TOO so the answer must five as well, cuz math) So now you have FOREO/3 since you had three words that eliminates R and O. We select R and O due to Krabsinna Miadrawers fourth rule of Grammatical Math So you have FOE, and since we are in the process of the action it would be ING, so FOING. You now have I'm going foing to the range too. Going and foing are redundant as well as to and too so what we get is the proper sentence I'm foing to the range |
|
Quoted:
"It [the city] has its dark side." "It has its dark side." "It's its dark side." Right? Quoted:
Quoted:
<<<SNIPPED>>> (The city ‘possesses’ a dark side. It [the city] has its dark side.) "It [the city] has its dark side." "It has its dark side." "It's its dark side." Right? LOL, I love this place. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
I thought the three rules to live by were :
1) Never get less than 12 hours sleep. 2) Never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city. 3) Never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. If people would stick to that, everything else would be cream cheese. 
|
|
Quoted:
So you have TO + TOO = FOREO (there are five letters total in TO and TOO so the answer must five as well, cuz math) So now you have FOREO/3 since you had three words that eliminates R and O. We select R and O due to Krabsinna Miadrawers fourth rule of Grammatical Math So you have FOE, and since we are in the process of the action it would be ING, so FOING. You now have I'm going foing to the range too. Going and foing are redundant as well as to and too so what we get is the proper sentence I'm foing to the range Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
to and too kick my ass. I also despise the spelling of "through" and use "thru" instead, but I am a grammatical rebel in that way. What about "two"?
I ain't no complete idiot. I does know that "two" refers to a number. I just never can remember the rule on to and too. (I guess if a sentence contains both "to" and "too" you could strike them out and replace them with "fore") I'm going to the range too. So you have TO + TOO = FOREO (there are five letters total in TO and TOO so the answer must five as well, cuz math) So now you have FOREO/3 since you had three words that eliminates R and O. We select R and O due to Krabsinna Miadrawers fourth rule of Grammatical Math So you have FOE, and since we are in the process of the action it would be ING, so FOING. You now have I'm going foing to the range too. Going and foing are redundant as well as to and too so what we get is the proper sentence I'm foing to the range um, I'm confused. Wouldn't it be: "I'm foing the range" |
|
Now that we've got that, let's do "Clearance" and "Tolerance". People constantly get that one wrong and it drives me nuts. Clearance is how much space there is between two adjacent parts. Tolerance is how much, undersize OR oversize, a part is allowed to be and still pass inspection. |
|
Quoted:
Now that we've got that, let's do "Clearance" and "Tolerance". People constantly get that one wrong and it drives me nuts. Clearance is how much space there is between two adjacent parts. Tolerance is how much, undersize OR oversize, a part is allowed to be and still pass inspection. 
|
|
I approve of this thread.
The OP is helping many of you. His target audience should be grateful. First, in the event that you're (not "your") applying for a job, it helps if the potential employer believes that you're functionally literate. Second, it helps our cause if the anti-liberty people (I mean the anti-gunners from outside this site) have fewer examples to use for their "gun owners are illiterate rednecks" narrative. |
|
Quoted:
Steeeeeriiiiiike one. Quoted:
Quoted:
I nominate tcrpe as arfcom grammatical moderator, with full ban hammer capabilities. Three strikes and BOOM, gone. I would also like to volunteer as his co-consulcounsel, on a part time basis, as his then/than ban hammer capable moderator. Steeeeeriiiiiike one. Nice try Socal, no soup for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consul Edit to add: Let's just call that one a pop fly foul into the satnds, with injury to a fan, it will not reflect on your arfcom records.
|
