- #36
ZQrn
Did I?BobG said:You make a good case for simplifying our language, much as the metric system simplifies our units of measure.
I use the objective whom all the time, and do so correctly, if I may be so bold to state, I maintain spellings as connexion, inflexion, formulae, octopodes...
I'm just pointing out that a lot of linguistic prescription is ultimately based on nothing. The most awkward of these might be that 'its' is actually a contamination comparable to writing 'dont', the word 'its' is a fairly recent misspelling of 'it's'. Just as we say 'John's car' and 'John's stand there' we say 'it's car' and 'it's going to the store', or at least, 'we' did so till quite recently.
Variously one encounters arguments such as that it's supposed to be 'its' when it's possessive because it's a pronoun. A: it's not a pronoun, it's a noun phrase with an enclitic morpheme. B: even if it were, that's a particularly nonsensical reason, the apostrophe marks a vowel deletion, and just as 'John's' originated from a shorter form of 'Johnes', so did 'its' from 'ites', and up to 1920 there were still reputable authors who condemned the practice.
What I'm trying to say with this ranting is, never believe an English teacher, they hardly know anything about English, they reproduce rules as taught to them without questioning and without checking, there are few courses in education filled with such blatant lies as language courses. They aren't about teaching you theoretical or practical knowledge, they are about controlling your life and making up lies to justify arbitrary rules.