faustian bargain
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2004
- Messages
- 2,444
- Reaction score
- 2
it's 'its', not 'it'.
We would like to welcome House of Huntington as an official Affiliate Vendor. Shop past season Drake's, Nigel Cabourn, Private White V.C. and other menswear luxury brands at exceptional prices below retail. Please visit the Houise of Huntington thread and welcome them to the forum.
STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
What are you referring to?it's 'its', not 'it'.
So am I fluent (not pucunctuation for purpose)I meant there's not much room for improvement.
(Fabienne @ May 13 2005,21:57) I meant there's not much room for improvement.Quote:
(faustian bargain @ May 13 2005,14:39) it's 'its', not 'it'.Quote:
just giving him a hard time, while attempting alliterative cleverness.My last one was to master the damn posessive it
(Roy @ May 13 2005,12:07)Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabienne,May 13 2005,17:57
Originally Posted by Roy,May 13 2005,11:33
Your english has improved from farmer to gangster.Originally Posted by RJMan,May 13 2005,17:10
I vote for Ernest as moderator.I like the idea of a French language board here.
"To what are you referring?"What are you referring to?
(jmswentworth @ May 13 2005,09:47) What are you referring to?Quote:
(jmswentworth @ May 13 2005,09:47) What are you referring to?Quote:
What are you talking about?Originally Posted by Kent Wang,May 16 2005,20:42
"About what are you talking?" Prepositions (e.g. to, about, with, from, for, etc) should not be at the end of a sentence. Well, not in more formal speech anyway. It can also get a little awkward in slang. E.g. 'I am not the person with whom to mess.'
Well, I found it logical once it got pointed out to me. There are two contenders for the form it's: the 'it is' and the possessive it. One had to give way to avoid ambiguity and it was the possessive it that lost the apostrophe. I agree though, why make a special rule for this?And another confusing anomaly was exposed in this thread. That of the possessive form of "it." Why does it have to be different for that one word than it is for most other words? For example: One can say "Henry's over there." We know it means "Henry is over there." Or, one can say "Is this Henry's?" We know it asks whether something belongs to Henry. We know these meanings from the context. Why does it have to be different with "it?" No sense.