A grammar lesson for Facepunch - regarding "it's" and "its" - General

I actually thank op, I never knew this.

It's a well known fact that FP and its community are smart.

Could have been a lot easier if I hadn't needed to squeeze all of the spider's shit through a tiny hole. I'd like to make an incision, but I don't have any anti-bacterial alcohol fluid to put on my bite.

For all intensive purposes, I could care less.

Between you and I Between you and me. Second one is correct. Why? No fucking idea but believe me. [editline]10:19PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Dude902;17605380]For all intensive purposes, I could care less.[/QUOTE] Isn't it intents and purposes?

[quote]The first one is correct, the second one is saying that "The cat ate it is shit", or "The cat ate. It's shit" I see all of you making this mistake. [B]Comma splice.[/B] It's incorrect to say "could of", but correct to say "could have". Could've is could have. [B]Misplaced comma.[/B][/QUOTE] The first one is correct[B];[/B] the second one is saying that . . . It's incorrect to say "could of" but correct to say "could have." When you've got two independent clauses and you want to join them, you need a semicolon, a comma + a conjunction, or semicolon + a conjunctive adverb between them. Also, you don't need a comma in front of a conjunction unless that conjunction is joining two independent clauses. :eng101: Oh shit! The English prof. just showed up!

[QUOTE=Dan The Man;17605416]Between you and I Between you and me. Second one is correct. Why? No fucking idea but believe me. [editline]10:19PM[/editline] Isn't it intents and purposes?[/QUOTE] Because "me" is a referral word in its meaning, whilst "I" is the first person indicator. "I should have lunch." "He'll blame me, I just know it." More of speaking, you can see "I" as the active word of "myself" and "me" as the passive word of "myself". Therefore, "My friends and I went to the movies" is correct because the "I" in the sentence is active; it is making an action. "You and me are in this together, you can't back out now." is also correct because the "me" in the sentence is passive; it is getting an action.

[QUOTE=Stopper;17604030]I'm surprised, that you are not spotting the obvious thing here. It's not that we... They? Whatever. Don't know the rule, but pressing the appostrophe key requires more work than pressing nothing. Simple equation really - 1>0.[/QUOTE] Oh, and RARELY does one put a comma before the word "that." By your own equation, you could've saved the effort in pressing the comma button and used the effort to press the apostrophe button instead. Oh shit!

[QUOTE=James*;17604200]I think 80's can be acceptable, but technically there shouldn't be an apostrophe.[/QUOTE] I thought it was '80s because you're removing the 19 from 1980s.

improved my grammar no

[QUOTE=Sirdangolot5;17606758]I thought it was '80s because you're removing the 19 from 1980s.[/QUOTE] I think you can do that but it's not necessary.

This is a simple sentence excluding grammatical errors.

Can all of Facepunch also review the difference between "their", "there", and "they're" while we're at it? Oh, and the difference between "to" and "too" as well.

[b]It's[/b] Internet.. doesen't matter ^

I learned this in school.

I think Garry should bring back the quiz.

I was taught that "it's" is also possessive in the first grade, so sue me.

[QUOTE=scorpion8754;17608549]I was taught that "it's" is also possessive in the first grade, so sue me.[/QUOTE] I was taught the same thing. The apostrophe shows owership. Or at least I thought. Are there other words where it should normally have the apostrophe but doesn't?

The fuck does it matter, it's one of the most useless rules in the english language. It makes absolutely no difference in terms of understanding, and is an exception in the first place.

Wow and I thought things pissed me off easily

You're a grammar nazi, but it is okay since you're a kraut.

How about the " James, Jame's, James' " deal?

I hate the British/English spelling.........get those "U"s of of honor and color. Any British/English spelling along those lines drives me crazy.

Actually, if I am correct, it's Would be referring to what something the object owns. Although it can also refer to It is. Example: The cat eats it's shit. [i] it's shit [/i] Therefore the cat owns " it's shit " and eats it's shit which it owns.

[QUOTE=iNinjah;17611035]Actually, if I am correct, ...[/QUOTE] Here's where your theory falls through.

It feels odd when you're a foreigner, yet you speak better than a few natives.

I already knew this, but thanks anyway.

I hate it when people make this mistake.

The possessive "it's" case doesn't work; when the subject is referred by indirect pronoun, we bring on the use of indirect possession. "His book" and "her bag" for examples, not "his's book." But I see where you were coming from with the apostrophe adding possession to "it," but alas there's a freaking contraction associated with "it's." frickfrickfrick.

[QUOTE=JamesMay;17604150]The second one is correct. You put an apostraphe in if if it's refering to something it owns. In this case, it's the shit.[/QUOTE] That only works for nouns. "Bob's shit." That means that we're talking about the shit that Bob 'owns' (or the shit that he has taken). "The cat's shit." (Why the fuck are we all using shit in our examples?) That's the shit belonging to the cat. "Its" is 'belonging to it", for example, "its head." "It's" means, "it is," hence the apostrophe.