s'right innit?

now I'm kinda interested in the topic.

Why can't "it's" replace "it has"?

it's = it is

well that's true, but why can't it be both?

Funny, but my husband whose native language is completely unrelated to English and who is incredibly fluent (even though occasionally he'll throw me a curve ball like saying plaid as 'played' and have a bizarre sort of 'whose on first' routine until we figure it out) also got this question wrong. He had instruction in the UK fashion, too.

I wonder if that might be a real trick question since, by all rights, it is a rather difficult grammatical case.

In spoken English, sure, but in my stuffy old skool ways, "it has" should never be replaced with "it's" in the written form. But, this is an age where we have texting, tweeting and a whole myriad of much greater crimes against the language so....

I have heard this many times, but have yet to find a respectable source published to confirm this.

Of course in 'proper' 'old school' english, apostrophies are almost always discouraged.

But apparently Hart's Rules sees it's as a proper replacemet for both it is and it has.

No reason at all.

From Fowler:

Well, you'd be amused that a good 30 minutes of hilarity ensued around our house as my husband pulled out various references to prove that it is commonly accepted usage. This is part of the problem with English in that what few rules there are, they get pushed aside over time due to use and laziness. Just because it gets used it doesn't make it right, it just makes it common.

Furthermore, regarding the erroneous notion that an apostrophe can only replace one letter:

I also learned my English in the US (born, raised, and schooled), and find both to be correct.

But I'm probably from an older generation when we actually learned things at school.

Tom

P.S. Took the test, 40/40

I'm afraid it does, if used often enough.

If that wasn't the case, we'd all be writing in Old English.

I ain't doing that.

No worries. We would never axe you to go back to old english

40 out of 40.

I went through academically selective streams in high school and university. They bash this sort of stuff into you. Pity anyone with learning disabilities such as dyslexia (my mother and sister both have this problem)...my mother on graduating from university was having lunch with an old childhood friend, a university professor, who on hearing that mum had finished university said to her 'Oh, so you're not stupid after all'...

And read to your kids...lots of good books...poetry, songs, vocabulary...and a lot of reading!

There aren't really any short cuts. We english speakers set really bad examples with our oral tradition. I'm sure my co-workers don't realise how much effort I put into speaking full sentences and using correct grammar all day, every day (I teach small children in english) ...my employer realised what a jump it was for me when she picked my dad up from the train station when he came for a holiday...and she couldn't understand a word he said!

I disagree. There is absolutely nothing wrong with English as she is spoke in all her myriad varieties. As long as we are aware of the existence of register, and are prepared to moderate our use of language in the presence of non-native speakers, all is fine and dandy.

It would be as daft to avoid contractions (such as it's been for it has been) in spoken English as it would be foolish to include them in a letter of application for a job as a teacher of English.

Innit?

Totally agree.

I am a bit of an extremist when it comes to the english language- I believe language is just a tool of communication to convey information from your head to whoever is to listen to it. If the grammer and what-not are totally wrong, but the information was received by the other party as intended, I really don't care about the semantics of the language. Obviously in most cases, especially in other language speaking countries, this is best met through proper spelling and grammar.

That being said I would definitely make sure to have proper, respectable, gramatically sound english in a job application or anything I'm publishing.

__________________
"You have reached the end of you free trial membership at BenjaminFranklinQuotes.com" -Benjamin Franklin

In any case, the alternatives were so far out in left field (which most of you non-American types will probably fail to get) that it would be hard NOT to get 40/40.

Really.

Tom

It's true that rules are shifting, and what's acceptable now wasn't then.
Examples: transparency - 'I like my colleagues to be transparent'.
Oversight v overview. Oversee v overlook.

I hate being wrong too, and found this one really tough. It's style as opposed to grammar, but I felt several to be arguable.
http://www.economist.com/diversions/...name=stylequiz

(PS: It helps if you read the Style Guide first.)

but you'd never know it when you met him!

heheheehehehe

Well, but my bone of contention is that speak it however ye may, but write it properly....but apparently Oxford accepts it's for 'it has' which I will go to my grave tsk-ing at as I'll still consider it lazy slang.