# Possessive: ones or one's?



## mtf

Which of the following is correctly punctuated:

  (1) "One eats ones dinner."
  (2) "One eats one's dinner." ?

I've always assumed that (2) is correct, but then I remembered that we wouldn't put an apostrophe in "It eats its dinner", because "it's" is only used as an abbreviation for "it is" or "it has". So should there be an apostrophe in "one's", which plays the same grammatical role as "its"?


----------



## jacinta

There are two different ways to use the apostrophe in English.  One is to show a possesive and the other is to make a contraction.

"One eats one's dinner" is correct.  This is the possesive apostrophe.  
The dinner belongs to Mary.  The dinner is Mary's.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "one plays the same grammatical role as its".

"Its" is an exception.  A lizard loses its tail when caught.  There is no possesive apostrophe because there needs to be a distinction between this word and the contraction of it is: it's.

It is one o'clock.
It's one o'clock. (contraction of it is)

Every town has its own police department. (possesive)


----------



## el alabamiano

mtf said:
			
		

> Which of the following is correctly punctuated:
> 
> (1) "One eats ones dinner."
> (2) "One eats one's dinner." ?
> 
> I've always assumed that (2) is correct, but then I remembered that we wouldn't put an apostrophe in "It eats its dinner", because "it's" is only used as an abbreviation for "it is" or "it has". So should there be an apostrophe in "one's", which plays the same grammatical role as "its"?


2 is correct.

*The exception to the possessive rule is that pronouns show possession without the use of 's. (my, mine, your, yours, his, her, hers, our, ours, their, theirs, its, whose, etc.)* 

_<< Broken link deleted. >>_


----------



## mtf

el alabamiano said:
			
		

> 2 is correct.
> 
> *The exception to the possessive rule is that pronouns show possession without the use of 's. (my, mine, your, yours, his, her, hers, our, ours, their, theirs, its, whose, etc.)*


 
Yes, but "one" is a pronoun in this case, just like "it". In French, for example, the words for "his", "her", "its" and "one's" are all written as "son", "sa" or "ses" (depending on the gender and number of the object). That's what I meant when I said the word "one's" plays a similar grammatical role to "its". We don't use "one" nearly as often as the French use "on" (one only uses "one" in very formal English, unless One is the Queen!), and its usage might even be rarer in the United States than in Britain. However, the pronoun "one" still a valid part of the language, and is found quite frequently in academic writing.

So my question is: should there really be an apostrophe in "one's" when none of the more commonly-used pronouns have an apostrophe in their possessive form? I doubt that the absence of an apostrophe in "its" can be attributed entirely to the existence of the contraction "it's = it is/has"; in fact I think "it's" is a newer word than "its" (Shakespeare would have written "'tis" rather than "it's"). And if there's some better underlying reason why "its" doesn't have an apostrophe, why doesn't the same rule apply to "one's" ?


----------



## Dorian

mtf said:
			
		

> So my question is: should there really be an apostrophe in "one's" when none of the more commonly-used pronouns have an apostrophe in their possessive form?


You can never really apply logic to English, especially when it comes to ancient words like it, him and her.  "One" came into the language a lot later, so it isn't surprising that it follows a different convention.

The best source for questions like this is always Fowler's Modern English Usage.  He says
... the impersonal _one _ always can, and now usually does, provide its own possessive etc. -- one's, oneself, and one; thus _One does not like to have one's word doubted; If one fell, one would hurt oneself badly._
But thirdly, in American, in older English, and in a small minority of modern British writers, the above sentences would run _One does not like to have his  word doubted; If one fell, he  would hurt himself  badly_.​


----------



## Cognitiophile

Consider the following alternatives instead:

"One's eating ones dinner."   
"One's eating one's dinner."
 Regardless of tradition, which is conducive to greater clarity?


----------



## ajplonka

2. One's eating one's cake with two birthday candles shaped like ones.


----------



## takkers

your example of  its dinner 

he she it are pronoun 
while one in your case is a noun (and not a countable noun in this case).  
you use 's to show pocessions.


----------



## mplsray

takkers said:


> your example of its dinner
> 
> he she it are pronoun
> while one in your case is a noun (and not a countable noun in this case).
> you use 's to show pocessions.


 
In "One eats one's dinner." the word _one_ is a pronoun. The possessive form of the pronoun _one_ is _one's._


----------



## cuchuflete

takkers said:


> Your example of  its dinner*:*
> 
> *H*e*,* she*, and* it are pronoun*s*,
> *w*hile one in your case is a noun (and not a countable noun in this case).
> *Y*ou use 's to show pocessions possession.



Welcome to the forums, takkers.  Please respect forum rules, and write in standard English, including capitalization and punctuation.


----------



## trajan2

originally the 's (genitive s) derives from his. Like 
Peter his book -> Peter's book

as there was no possessive form of "one", "one's" was simply created by combining the word + the common suffix. 

The could be confused with "one is", but at least not with the plural "ones"


----------



## panjandrum

trajan2 said:


> originally the 's (genitive s) derives from his. Like
> Peter his book -> Peter's book
> 
> as there was no possessive form of "one", "one's" was simply created by combining the word + the common suffix.
> 
> The could be confused with "one is", but at least not with the plural "ones"


Hello trajan2 - welcome to WordReference 

If you look around this forum you will discover that this theory of the origins of the 's genitive has other, more plausible, explanations.  "John's" is considered by linguists to be a contraction of the Old English singular genitive ending, "-es".  So supposedly "Johnes" became "John's" in Modern English.         
Source - see post #16​Otherwise, I agree with you


----------



## lovekat

jacinta said:


> "Its" is an exception.  A lizard loses its tail when caught.  There is no possesive apostrophe because there needs to be a distinction between this word and the contraction of it is: it's.



Just as there needs to be a distinction between posessive "its" and the contraction of "it is" (it's), there also needs to be a distinction between the contraction of "one is" (one's) and posessive "ones" (no apostrophe of posession, just as in the case of posessive "its": 

"It's losing its tail" and "One's eating ones dinner". (1) is correct.


----------



## JamesM

It might be logical but I don't think you'll find an authority to back that opinion, lovekat.

Sentence 2 is correct.


----------



## Nonstar

Could I say?:
_One eats their dinner?_


----------



## Loob

Nonstar said:


> Could I say?:
> _One eats their dinner?_


For me, it has to be "one eats *one's* dinner".

Post 5 above suggests that "one eats *his* dinner" is possible in AmE.

I don't think any variety of English says "one eats *their* dinner", but someone may well come along and prove me wrong...


----------



## Nonstar

Thanks, Loob! I will keep an eye on this thread.


----------



## Notafrog

There are too many attempts here at applying logic where it doesn't apply.

First, on the subject of dropping the possessive apostrophe when dealing with pronouns, the examples given show the wrong word form. "Hers", "ours", "yours" are possessive pronouns. "Its" and "one's" are possessive adjectives (you might answer "It's hers" to the question "Whose dog is that?" but you would never answer "It's its"!), therefore the lack of an apostrophe in the forms mentioned is irrelevant.

Second, just as the most common verbs are strong/irregular, the most common pronouns are too. You don't say "he's", "I's", "you's", or "we's"; you use the strong forms "my", "his", "your", "our". "Its" is just another of these irregular forms, another quirk, but one which has the misfortune to end in "s", causing people to seek invallid comparisons. I doubt the pronoun "one" was even around when these strong pronouns took root.

The pronoun "one" being neither common nor ancient (I bet you hear "it" as a pronoun several hundred times more often than "one"), no intelligent reason has existed to model it on an ancient set of words which in any case has absolutely no pattern. If the pioneers of the pronoun "one" had indeed attempted to find such a match, they'd have had pretty strong arguments for naming it "oner", as the "r"s outnumber the "s"s four to one!

So "one's" acquired an apostrophe, just like every other possessive adjective, and quite rightly so!


----------



## CapnPrep

Notafrog said:


> "Its" is just another of these irregular forms, another quirk, but one  which has the misfortune to end in "s", causing people to seek invallid  comparisons. I doubt the pronoun "one" was even around when these strong pronouns took root.


I wonder what basis you have for making these statements. The pronominal use of _one_ discussed in this thread appeared around 1400. So it isn't "ancient", that's true. But you will no doubt be surprised to learn that _its_ appeared two centuries later, and that its structure was (and remains) completely transparent and regular: "Formed in end of 16th c. from IT + _'s_ of the possessive or genitive case, and at first commonly written _it's_, a spelling retained by some to the beginning of the 19th c." (_OED_, s.v. its, _poss. pron._)

Finally, the generalized use of the apostrophe for all genitives is even more recent: this convention only became established in the 18th century.

So I'm afraid there's no historical justification for the difference between _its_ and _one's_.


----------



## Thomas Veil

Cognitiophile said:


> Consider the following alternatives instead:
> 
> "One's eating ones dinner."
> "One's eating one's dinner."
> Regardless of tradition, which is conducive to greater clarity?


"One is eating one's dinner".  It is for this reason that if one is concerned about clarity, one should avoid contractions that don't involve full pronouns (and by saying "full" pronouns, I am excluding "one").



lovekat said:


> Just as there needs to be a distinction between posessive "its" and the contraction of "it is" (it's), there also needs to be a distinction between the contraction of "one is" (one's) and posessive "ones" (no apostrophe of posession, just as in the case of posessive "its":
> 
> "It's losing its tail" and "One's eating ones dinner". (1) is correct.


Does there need to be a distinction between "Mary's" as in "belonging to Mary" and "Mary's" as in "Mary is"?  Or can we just avoid saying "Mary's" when we mean "Mary is" and think there might be confusion?  The rules of English grammar say that "one's" is correct.  The fact that it "needs" to be different is irrelevant.  According to that logic, "that" should be spelled "thet" when it's used as a conjunction.  Standardization takes precedence over individuals making unilateral decisions about what is "needed".



CapnPrep said:


> So I'm afraid there's no historical justification for the difference between _its_ and _one's_.


Other than, historically (in the sense of, at least, the century) there has been a difference.


----------



## DallasDeckard

Amazing that no one has mentioned this in the six years this threat has existed. 'One' takes the apostrophe in the  possessive.  Only the personal pronouns have specific (non-apostrophe)  possessive forms ('one' is an indefinite pronoun). Is this the state of knowledge concerning the English language in the internet cloud? Ouch.


----------



## JulianStuart

DallasDeckard said:


> Amazing that no one has mentioned this in the six years this threat has existed. 'One' takes the apostrophe in the  possessive.  Only the personal pronouns have specific (non-apostrophe)  possessive forms ('one' is an indefinite pronoun). Is this the state of knowledge concerning the English language in the internet cloud? Ouch.



Welcome to the forum (I think!).
I assume you _did read_ the thread before making your "comment" .
Post 1 - The original question;


> should there really be an apostrophe in "one's" when none of the more  commonly-used pronouns have an apostrophe in their possessive form?


Answer in the very first reply, aka Post #2


> "One eats one's dinner" is correct.  This is the possessive apostrophe.


There was a lot of discussion, not unexpected, given the scope of the forum


> 'Discussions in English about the English language.


Then there was a quote from Fowler


> the impersonal_* one* _ always can, and now usually does, provide its own *possessive *etc. --* one's*, oneself, and one; thus _One does not like to have one's word doubted; If one fell, one would hurt oneself badly._



Any comment about the "state of reading" on the internet would be below the belt!


----------



## WordThief

In math, a person would write "ones column," and "ones" clearly shows possession. Also, I thought it was a rule that possessive pronouns never take apostrophes. 
 
Taken from the Washington State University website:
This is one of those cases where it is important to remember that possessive pronouns never take apostrophes, even though possessive nouns do (see it’s/its). “Who’s” always and forever means only “who is,” as in “Who’s that guy with the droopy mustache?” or “who has,” as in “Who’s been eating my porridge?” “Whose” is the possessive form of “who” and is used as follows: “Whose dirty socks are these on the breakfast table?” ​ 
The real question is: is "one" a pronoun when used to refer to an individual? I believe so. 
 
In any case, how language is popularly used defines and gives meaning to how we write and speak. It looks like "one's" is more popular, so perhaps go with the tyranny of the masses. 
 
(I do realize that this thread is quite old!)


----------



## mplsray

WordThief said:


> In math, a person would write "ones column," and "ones" clearly shows possession. Also, I thought it was a rule that possessive pronouns never take apostrophes.
> 
> Taken from the Washington State University website:
> This is one of those cases where it is important to remember that possessive pronouns never take apostrophes, even though possessive nouns do (see it’s/its). “Who’s” always and forever means only “who is,” as in “Who’s that guy with the droopy mustache?” or “who has,” as in “Who’s been eating my porridge?” “Whose” is the possessive form of “who” and is used as follows: “Whose dirty socks are these on the breakfast table?” ​
> The real question is: is "one" a pronoun when used to refer to an individual? I believe so.
> 
> In any case, how language is popularly used defines and gives meaning to how we write and speak. It looks like "one's" is more popular, so perhaps go with the tyranny of the masses.
> 
> (I do realize that this thread is quite old!)




_The Columbia Guide to Standard American English_ by Kenneth G. Wilson, lists the following under the entry "Indefinite pronoun": 

"Anyone, anybody, someone, somebody, none, each, either, neither, one...."

All of these take an apostrophe when forming the possessive. I can be confident of this because (1) none of them has a possessive form written simply with a terminal _s_ as an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary--and if any dictionary would list such forms it is the OED--and (2) the possessive forms using apostrophe-_s_ can be found in works archived in Google Books. (Even _none!_ Do a search in Google Books for none's business" for one example.)

My point is that the apostrophe-_s_ form of _one's_ is not a question of what the masses now use, but is the long-traditional form of that word.


----------



## WordThief

mplsray said:


> _The Columbia Guide to Standard American English_ by Kenneth G. Wilson, lists the following under the entry "Indefinite pronoun":
> 
> "Anyone, anybody, someone, somebody, none, each, either, neither, one...."
> 
> All of these take an apostrophe when forming the possessive. I can be confident of this because (1) none of them has a possessive form written simply with a terminal _s_ as an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary--and if any dictionary would list such forms it is the OED--and (2) the possessive forms using apostrophe-_s_ can be found in works archived in Google Books. (Even _none!_ Do a search in Google Books for none's business" for one example.)
> 
> My point is that the apostrophe-_s_ form of _one's_ is not a question of what the masses now use, but is the long-traditional form of that word.


 
Aye, that seems to wrap it up then. 
Thank you for clarifying the root of this discussion. 
Also, the bit about “none’s” is quite interesting!


----------



## WordDog

WordThief said:


> In math, a person would write "ones column," and "ones" clearly shows possession.



I think you’ve gone off the track on this one. In referring to a column of a table or to a column of positional value, one commonly names the column with the plural of the category the column is related to. So a column which is for different types of dogs is the dogs (plural) column. This is not a column owned by a dog (a dog’s column) or owned by a group of dogs (a dogs’ column) but a column relating to dogs (plural, an adjective qualifying column). Likewise, a ones column is a column relating to ones (plural) not a column owned by a one. Similarly, a “boys home” usually refers to a home run for the benefit of wayward boys, a particular kind of home, not a home owned by a boy (a boy’s home) or a home owned by a group of boys (the boys’ home).


----------



## macoda

]well guys can we put it this way, "John eats John's dinner", ("John" and "John's" )stand for ("One"and"One's"); "One"=(as subject of the sentence) eats=(verb pridicate/pridicator but since the subject is singular you have to put"s"on the end of the action word) "One's=(object of the sentence and you've got to put an apostrophe to show possession because it is his dinner that he is going to eat afterall),so "One eats One's dinner".


----------



## ElectricRay

There was a long discussion of this in a review of Lynne Truss's book _*Eats Shoots and Leaves*_: (I am not allowed to post links but if you google "It is only personal possessive pronouns (mine, his, her, our, etc) that do not take apostrophes" you'll find it)

The upshot is this: 

*Personal *pronouns in the possessive *DO NOT *take an apostrophe (his, hers, its)
*Indefinite *pronouns in the possessive *DO *take an apostrophe (one's, someone's, somebody's, something's). 

Hence, Virginia Woolf was quite correct to call her novel _*A Room of One's Own*_.


----------



## Notafrog

Let me restate a point I made earlier. You can't compare  _hers_ , _ours_, etc. to one's; they are not the same form of speech. _Hers_,  _yours_, _ours_, _theirs_ are possessive pronouns. _One's_ is a possessive adjective, not a pronoun. People might say "I prefer yours to hers" but they just don't say "I prefer yours to one's"; it'll never catch on, not even in the British Royal Family.

Therefore although it's not wrong to say "personal pronouns in the possessive do not take an apostrophe", it's not really relevant either because most of them (_my_, _your_, _her) _don't even take an "s". They are already self contained possessives, the full package. The "s" turns them into pronouns, not possessives.
_His_ has an s, sure, but it's _his_, not _hes_ or _hims_. The ONLY example of dropping the apostrophe when making a possessive is _its_, so you'd be pushing things to say it's setting a rule.


----------



## Critical_thinking

Strunk:
_<< Elements of Style_, by Strunk and White. >>

The pronominal possessives hers, its, theirs, yours, and ours have no apostrophe. Indefinite pronouns, however, use the apostrophe to show possession.


----------



## ex3031

Here is an empirical answer  google counts:

   232,000,000  one's
1,050,000,000  ones
       3,430,000  "one's own self" 
     12,400,000  "ones own self"
           27,200   "one's dinner"
           84,800   "ones dinner"

Rules aside, common usage is strongly in favor of (1) "One eats ones dinner."
Usage makes rules (and exceptions).


----------



## Loob

Hello ex3031 - welcome to the forums!

I think that if you click through to the last page of google results, you'll get rather different totals.  For example, clicking through to the last page of results on "ones dinner" gives 833 hits - including hits which separate_ ones_ and _dinner_ with a full stop: ... _ones. Dinner ..._

I agree wholeheartedly that "rules" reflect usage.  But I don't think we're at the stage yet where usage prefers *ones* to *one's*.


----------



## MirandaEscobedo

It seems entirely logical to me. "One" does not mean "it". "One" implies a person; "it" is a thing. So, one eats one's dinner.


----------



## panjandrum

Raw Google counts are an inadequate basis for comparisons like this.
Contrast the findings above with Google Ngram results - and again.

Clearly, common usage is in favour of the version with the apostrophe.


----------



## ex3031

The Ngram Viewer results are cool.  I've never seen it before.

I poked more and found that other words favor the appostrophe.  

Your data is better, I buy your conclusion:
Clearly, common usage is in favour of the version with the apostrophe.

The point stands that it is best to answer such questions by looking at the data.  As Loob
pointed out the "ones dinner" search has a lot of irrelevant results.


----------



## Coladar

I read through the thread, then quickly glanced again and didn't notice this portion answered and actually came away slightly confused by it. I've been finishing work on my own novel and was in the midst of reading one just now where one's was used as a possessive. (The double one usage was unintentional, sorry.) I fully understand the basis for the answer here. Pronouns drop the possessive apostrophe, one is an adjective; you keep the apostrophe. 

Likewise, and I'm clearly now going to have to find it in my own work to correct it, when I encountered reading the usage of an apostrophe to denote possession for "one" just now I remembered thinking about this very topic on my own during my writing. I believe I ended up dropping the apostrophe in the case of possession. My logic at the time was simple: if I contract one is, it would be one's. 

So I understand the reasoning for requiring a possessive apostrophe for one. My question, which I didn't see answered even though it was mentioned: what about one is?

Some folks wrote "one's eating ones dinner." Wrong because of the possession, but it was merely said to rephrase it to do away with the "one is" contraction. Perhaps my lack of studious English learning is showing (writing these past few months has been forcing me to learn all the adjective, pronoun, adverb, etc. stuff I was never taught in school, despite usually knowing the 'right' way by rote), but is the correct usage that 'one' can never contract "one is" into "one's?" Or simply that 'one' shouldn't contract "one is" in messy cases where possession could be confused?

If you can contract "one is" into "one's" yet also use an apostrophe for an adjective's possessive usage... Well, I guess it's just one of those English quirks where you simply work around it and rephrase as mentioned since the adjective rules for possession are clear and established. Sort of a case of "is is" or "had had" where there can be 'correct' usage of them, but you never actually write the doubles due to common sense.

So bottom line, and hopefully to put a cap on a thread that has been kicked around for years: Can "one is" be contracted, and if so would it be the same "one's" that also indicates possession? And if I've gotten anything else wrong in my understanding of the thread, feel free to correct where needed.

Thanks!


----------



## JulianStuart

If one's trying to be consistent in one's punctuation, one should consider the following parallel! Harry's going to fight Harry's battles.  Yes, " one's " could be either "one is" or the possessive form of one.


----------



## Tagkoz

Thank you, yes, this bothered me too!  I figured I'd read every thread to make sure my post wasn't redundant, and it looks like it would have been.  But I want to give the example too:
"It eats its dinner" vs. "Somebody eats somebody's dinner."

I think it'd be a bit harder to argue that the second sentence above should use "somebodys dinner."  (This comparison of "one" to "somebody" was, sadly, not my idea - but I think it's a smart one)

Personally, it seems the English language more and more requires a neuter singular pronoun to play opposite "they/their/them/theirs(etc.)."  Common usage has "one" taking that role, along with "he/she," "hir" (and other awkward portmanteaus), "it," and even "they" and "you."

There are two perspectives when considering grammar: descriptive and prescriptive.  Descriptive grammar accepts "common usage" as a legitimate source - encourages it, even (and now I'm quite happy to have that source - thank you Panjandrum for the Ngram referral ).  Communication is defined by the speaker and listener, and as an extension of that, words and grammar need only follow the rules that allow for understanding.  I don't think we are talking about that sort of grammar here though, since otherwise one could just say "he ate his dinner" or "they ate their dinner," and in context, the gender, general/hypothetical quality, and singular quality of the "he" and "they" could still be communicated by context.  In other words, "ones" and "one's" are equally acceptable simply because they are both easily understood in context.

As for prescriptive grammar:  I couldn't find a good source that specifically says "it/its/it's" is specifically an exception to the possessive "'s," nor for one that states that personal possessive pronouns do not use the single apostrophe, and instead have idiosyncratic possessive versions.  The latter rule seems to me to be a bit more inclusive, but if anyone has a good source for either, I'd love to see it.  Also, if anyone could somehow make "one" a personal pronoun, as I believe it should be, I'd be disproportionately, irrationally happy...though I suppose that's just crazy-wishful thinking.


----------



## JulianStuart

Tagkoz said:


> As for prescriptive grammar:  I couldn't find a good source that specifically says "it/its/it's" is specifically an exception to the possessive "'s," nor for one that states that personal possessive pronouns do not use the single apostrophe, and instead have idiosyncratic possessive versions.



The possessive "its" according to my Oxford English Dictionary (I have a hard copy, so perhaps someone with access the the huge volume on line can chime in) :





> ... at first, commonly written as "it's" , a spelling retained by some until the 19th century. ...


----------



## Tagkoz

JulianStuart said:


> The possessive "its" according to my Oxford English Dictionary (I have a hard copy, so perhaps someone with access the the huge volume on line can chime in) :



I was thinking more of a respected textbook on grammar, and the _stated rule _regarding why "its" is the correct possessive form while "it's" is incorrect; I think it is pretty well established that "its" is the possessive form of "it".


----------



## JulianStuart

You are not suggesting that the OED is not respected, I hope   I think the answer to the question of WHY? is the simple fact of usage (at least since the 19th century)   "Rules" are deduced from usage .


----------



## mplsray

JulianStuart said:


> You are not suggesting that the OED is not respected, I hope   I think the answer to the question of WHY? is the simple fact of usage (at least since the 19th century)   "Rules" are deduced from usage .



In fact, *Tagkoz* was trying to find a "prescriptive" source. The OED is, by its very design, about the ultimate descriptive source, and thus has prescriptive opinions expressed only quite rarely (making them out of character with the rest of the work).


----------



## JulianStuart

I appreciate that, but any _prescriptive_ "source" declaring a "rule" would have to have derived the rule's validity from patterns of usage - and those would have to come (in my opinion) from a respected descriptive "source" - sorry if my point wasn't very clear (or possibly too succinct with my comment ""Rules" are deduced from usage .").


----------



## Tagkoz

JulianStuart said:


> I appreciate that, but any _prescriptive_ "source" declaring a "rule" would have to have derived the rule's validity from patterns of usage - and those would have to come (in my opinion) from a respected descriptive "source" - sorry if my point wasn't very clear (or possibly too succinct with my comment ""Rules" are deduced from usage .").



Certain language rules are created by the government or a government-entity.  For example, I think Korean is one of them.  There are accents and regional dialects and idioms and all that, but what's considered "proper Korean" is decided by the government.  I agree that English is not one of those languages - but there is a prescriptively defined set of rules that our language follows; some authorities on the subject create the rules for "standard English" (or standard American English, as I'm used to).

So no, I'm not suggesting that the Oxford English Dictionary isn't respected; I'm suggesting that it's not listing those rules.  The aforementioned authorities may use the OED to help them in forming and maintaining said rules, but I doubt it's even their primary source.  Now if the OED has a listed rule, I'd be happy to hear it.  So far, you've only given me a definition and some faulty logic.

[the main fallacy:  "affirming the consequent" - if A, then B; B, therefore A.  If prescriptive rules, then derived from patterns of use; patterns of use (in OED), therefore prescriptive rules.]


----------



## Loob

I don't understand your point, Tagkoz.

"Its" parallels "his".

The eighteenth-century grammarians who pontificated on the use of the apostrophe could, if they had so decided, have determined that the possessive "its" required an apostrophe.  But they didn't; so it doesn't.

What's your problem?


----------



## Tagkoz

Loob said:


> I don't understand your point, Tagkoz.
> 
> "Its" parallels "his".
> 
> The eighteenth-century grammarians who pontificated on the use of the apostrophe could, if they had so decided, have determined that the possessive "its" required an apostrophe.  But they didn't; so it doesn't.
> 
> What's your problem?



"What's your problem" feels a bit argumentative, but maybe I'm reading it wrong.  Anyway, I don't think I have a problem.  I was just hoping someone had a reference to a particular rule (for example, a 'pronoun' rule, a 'personal pronoun' rule, or an 'its' rule).  Mplsray gave an answer but it didn't really satisfy my curiosity and I didn't want the topic to be considered resolved in case someone else could chime in.

But I'm not concerned with 'it's' versus 'its', or even 'one's' vs 'ones'; I'm just looking for a more generally-stated rule, if one exists.


----------



## wandle

'His', 'hers' and 'its' are the possessive forms of the third-person personal pronoun. (Its nominative forms are 'he', 'she' and 'it'.) The possessive in this case is one of the rare examples of a declined form in English.

'One' does not belong to the above set and therefore does not have its own declined form.
Therefore it becomes possessive in the same way as most other words: with the apostrophe and 's'.


----------



## JulianStuart

Tagkoz said:


> Certain language rules are created by the government or a government-entity.  For example, I think Korean is one of them.  There are accents and regional dialects and idioms and all that, but what's considered "proper Korean" is decided by the government.  I agree that English is not one of those languages - but there is a *prescriptively defined set of rules that our language follows;*


I think this is the "problem" you are running into in the posts of others. There is *no such thing.*  There are many "rules" that all agree on, then we get into a series of choices that there is no complete agreement on.  These are the issues described in a bewildering array of style guides, not by "authorities" that everyone accepts.

Incidentally, I was not suggesting the OED contains "rules" only that it is a respected source of information on usage and the citations often indicate changes in usage or spelling over time.  No logic was presented


----------



## Loob

Tagkoz said:


> "What's your problem" feels a bit argumentative, but maybe I'm reading it wrong.  Anyway, I don't think I have a problem.  I was just hoping someone had a reference to a particular rule (for example, a 'pronoun' rule, a 'personal pronoun' rule, or an 'its' rule).  Mplsray gave an answer but it didn't really satisfy my curiosity and I didn't want the topic to be considered resolved in case someone else could chime in.
> 
> But I'm not concerned with 'it's' versus 'its', or even 'one's' vs 'ones'; I'm just looking for a more generally-stated rule, if one exists.


I'm sorry, I really didn't mean to sound argumentative.

I understand now that you're looking for a generally-stated 'rule'.  Wandle's formulation in post 47 seems very helpful to me; but if you need a published source, perhaps the quotation from _Elements of Style_ in post 30 would fit the bill?


----------



## JulianStuart

Loob said:


> I'm sorry, I really didn't mean to sound argumentative.
> 
> I understand now that you're looking for a generally-stated 'rule'.  Wandle's formulation in post 47 seems very helpful to me; but if you need a published source, perhaps the quotation from _Elements of Style_ in post 30 would fit the bill?


It seems that Tagkoz might prefer the "published" version over Wandle's formulatiom, simply because it is published?  Both versions are what I would call descriptive statements (essentially identical) that can be viewed as "rules" but could also be called prescriptive.   I remain a little confused on the concern over the distinction in this case.


----------



## mplsray

For what it is worth, Kenneth G. Wilson identifies his work _The Columbia Guide to Standard American English_ as _both_ prescriptive and descriptive, accepting that there are, indeed, prescriptive rules, but that they do not cover all usage questions. Perhaps he includes genitive _its_ under the prescriptive rules when he says:



> its, it's
> The genitive of the pronoun _it_ is _its_, without an apostrophe; the contraction of _it _is is spelled _it's_, with an apostrophe. Most errors involve using the contraction when the genitive is intended; these are usually the errors of inattention or carelessness, but they're often judged as though ignorance caused them, so inspect carefully what you write.



I actually consider Wilson to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, in the fashion of _Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage_. When it comes down to it, every dialect has rules that must be obeyed in order for the speaker or writer not be thought of as odd. Even when English spelling had no standard rules, as we think of as standard today, someone who wrote _toag_ for the word _goat_ would have been seen as being in error. It just so happens that genitive _its_ as the acceptable spelling is a rule agreed upon by both sides of the usage debate.


----------



## JulianStuart

Thanks Ray
It's good to know the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive is not always  black and white!  The toag vs goat is a clear example of something I would have no trouble supporting as prescriptive - I cannot imagine any serious dispute, given the sound values for the two consonants.  The presence or absence of an apostrophe as "acceptable" has moved from dsiputed/variable in the 18 th century and has settled down since then to a clear description of current usage.  One's has, however, remained steadfastly resistant to deapostrophication, attested by usage, despite proponents of its removal.  A straddling version is the two well-populated camps of adding " 's " vs. simply " ' " to form the possessive of a name which is singular but ends in s. We can describe the two camps, but the choice is left to style guides rather than "authorities" who prescribe.  Newspapers will say "You will follow our style guide" but that is in the interests of consistency, rather than trying to assert that other style guides are "incorrect"


----------



## Gregorius24

In regard to the possessive adjective "its," I don't have an issue understanding the difference between "its" and "it's" ("it + is").  I do, however, sometimes tell students to think of "itself," which never uses an apostrophe, whenever they have difficulty remembering the usage of "its."


----------



## Mog86

One'd like to think one's one's own law on this one.  Maybe this one's one of those ones where noone's won?  One'dn't've thought one couldn't've figured out this one by one'sself... oh wait, that one's 'oneself'!  I've not won now I've gotten 'one's' wrong once meself too!!1


----------



## Notafrog

wandle said:


> 'His', 'hers' and 'its' are the possessive forms of the third-person personal pronoun.


OK then, consider this:
1) His book, her book, its book.
2) The book is hers, The book is his, The book is its.

Do any of those look wrong?


----------



## Mog86

1) 'his' / 'her' / 'its' [book] = possessive adjective/determiner
2) [The book is] 'his' / 'hers' = possessive pronoun; [The book is] 'its' = error. (I don't think 'its' is ever a possessive pronoun?)


----------



## JamesM

There are times when it is used in the possessive, but "The book is its" sounds very odd.  Are we talking about a space alien's book?  A dog's book?  A computer's book?   There aren't many creatures who can own a book and be referred to as "it".  

Here's an example of "its" as a possessive pronoun (at least, I _think_ it's an example):



> Through no fault of its own, Texas has now lost 2.3 million acres of land to a freak weather combination that has ignited 9,000 wildfires across the state well ahead of summer.
> 
> Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/050411-571150-texas-twisted.htm#ixzz2e971InNM



Without the "own", however, it would sound odd to me, even as "Even though it's not its fault, ..."


----------



## Mog86

This example, 'Through no fault of its own', uses the possessive determiner 'its', not a possessive pronoun.
If you were to change this 'its' to its feminine variant, it would be the possessive determiner 'her', not the possessive pronoun 'hers'.

The 'its' here is simply determining who or what the 'own' belongs to. You can say: his own, her own, its own, their own, ... However, saying 'hers own' or 'theirs own' would be using possessive pronouns wrongly, where possessive determiners are needed instead.


----------



## ElectricRay

Notafrog said:


> _One's_ is a possessive adjective, not a pronoun.



How do you figure that, exactly? If it is an adjective, what is it describing? One is an indefinite pronoun.


----------



## mplsray

ElectricRay said:


> How do you figure that, exactly? If it is an adjective, what is it describing? One is an indefinite pronoun.



From the Wikipedia article "Possessive determiner":



> *Possessive determiners* constitute a sub-class of determiners which modify a noun by attributing possession (or other sense of belonging) to someone or something. They are also known as *possessive adjectives.
> *
> Examples in English include possessive forms of the personal pronouns, namely _my, your, his, her, its, our_ and _their_, but excluding the forms such as _mine_ and _ours_ that are used as possessive pronouns and not as determiners. Possessive determiners may also be taken to include possessive forms made from nouns, from other pronouns and from noun phrases, such as _John's, the girl's, somebody's, the king of Spain's_, when used to modify a following noun.



_One's_ and _somebody's_ are examples of possessive determiners made from a pronoun.


----------



## JamesM

Also known as possessive adjectives, according to that article, so it may just be a matter of different terms for the same thing.


----------



## Binzi

Nonstar said:


> Could I say?:
> _One eats their dinner?_



I think it's a uniquely American thing, but 'their' is an accepted generic 3rd person singular term replacing 'he, she, or it' when the gender is either unknown, unspecified, or changeable. 

"The head chef features their special each thursday."

'One eats their dinner' would seem to be fine, although it would be mixing styles of The Queen's English and the Yank English with which I grew up. (!)


----------



## Dale Texas

On the way-above questions of whether or not certain contractions should take place or not to avoid confusion, there's the well-known problem of "it's" never being placed at the end of a sentence when it's used as emphatic denial alone:

"Your name is not Harry!"

Answer of refutal:  "Yes, it is!" NOT, "Yes, it's!   
This is sound pattern usage sounding wrong because it sounds wrong because it just sounds wrong because we just don't say it that way. I'm unaware of any grammatical rule which would forbid this.
Yet...
"In English you have one dictionary which settles all questions of word usuage and punctution!"

Answer of refutal: "No we don't!" OR "No we do not!"  both sound patterns perfectly acceptable.

I belive in "correctness" and going to sources for guidance, but sometimes English is just plain quirky this way.


----------



## lovekat

jacinta said:


> There are two different ways to use the apostrophe in English.  One is to show a possesive and the other is to make a contraction.
> 
> "One eats one's dinner" is correct.  This is the possesive apostrophe.
> The dinner belongs to Mary.  The dinner is Mary's.



Personal pronouns never take an apostrophe. "One eats ones dinner" is correct - "one's" is always a contraction of "one is" 

"One eats one's dinner" translates to "One eats one is dinner".

In short, "ones dinner" is correct.


----------



## JulianStuart

Welcome back, Lovekat!
Your second post in the forum is remarkably like your first (#13 in this very thread almost 5 years ago).
Could you possibly supply some support for your assertion - a link to a dictionary, style guide, that sort of thing?

Edited to add 
For example:
CollinsDictionary.com has 


> *one's* (wʌnz)
> adjective (_formal_) a third-person singular possessive corresponding to one
> _One has cut one's finger. One must wash one's hair._


Random House also cites one's (Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2014.)


> a person of the speaker's kind; such as the speaker himself or herself: _to press one's own claims._


My hard copy 2Vol Compact OED has this entry under one





> One : indefinite pronoun (with genitive _one's_)


----------



## Lord Wallace

Many apologies for jumping into this ancient thread (and it's my very first post here - I found this fabulous website as a result of a grammatical enquiry, thanks to Google), but:



Loob said:


> Nonstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could I say?:
> _One eats their dinner?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me, it has to be "one eats *one's* dinner".
> 
> Post 5 above suggests that "one eats *his* dinner" is possible in AmE.
> 
> I don't think any variety of English says "one eats *their* dinner", but someone may well come along and prove me wrong...
Click to expand...


Surely this could be construed as speaking in the third person?
Fair enough, perhaps not 'eats', but 'eating'.
Ergo, I could say 'Bah! That damned telephone. Always rings whilst _one eats/is eating their dinner'.
_
Additionally, it could also be descriptive of one eating _someone __else's _dinner, I would have thought?


----------



## wandle

lovekat said:


> In short, "ones dinner" is correct.


May I respond to this by referring to an earlier post?


----------



## Pedro y La Torre

wandle said:


> 'His', 'hers' and 'its' are the possessive forms of the third-person personal pronoun. (Its nominative forms are 'he', 'she' and 'it'.) The possessive in this case is one of the rare examples of a declined form in English.
> 
> 'One' does not belong to the above set and therefore does not have its own declined form.
> Therefore it becomes possessive in the same way as most other words: with the apostrophe and 's'.



That, as they say, answers that.


----------



## HazyCar

Would it be correct to not use an apostrophe for contracting one has?


----------



## Loob

HazyCar said:


> Would it be correct to not use an apostrophe for contracting one has?


No.

Welcome to the forums, HazyCar!


----------



## HazyCar

Loob said:


> No.



How would you correctly write "No one(')s ever done this before"?


----------



## Loob

I would write "No-one's ever done this before."


----------



## HazyCar

According to the oxford dictionary one's is used to show possession and is an exception to the general rule. However, on here there are conflicting answers. So which one is correct?


----------



## JulianStuart

HazyCar said:


> According to the oxford dictionary one's is used to show possession and is an exception to the general rule. However, on here there are conflicting answers. So which one is correct?


There seems to be only one (  ) who asserts that "ones" is a correct possessive from and never returned to explain the assertion.  No-one else agreed with lovekat.  One's is both the possessive form and the contraction of "one has" (or, in your case "No-one has...") or "one is ...".


----------



## PennyG

mtf said:


> Which of the following is correctly punctuated:
> 
> (1) "One eats ones dinner."
> (2) "One eats one's dinner." ?
> 
> I've always assumed that (2) is correct, but then I remembered that we wouldn't put an apostrophe in "It eats its dinner", because "it's" is only used as an abbreviation for "it is" or "it has". So should there be an apostrophe in "one's", which plays the same grammatical role as "its"?



I'm joining in not to answer the question because that has been answered but to refute the statement made in several of the answers that "its" is an exception, or that "its" somehow loses its apostrophe in order to distinguish it from it's. 

Its is a pronoun. It has no apostrophe to lose. It is not an exception. 

An apostrophe is almost always used to denote something missing - a missing word, a missing letter - and this is the same for the possessive which comes from the old English forms where you would not say The man's coat, but would say The man his coat or The dog its tail or The woman her shoes. 
The so-called possessive is a contraction denoting the missing word. The man's coat, the dog's tail, the woman's shoes. 
You could also say His coat, its tail, her shoes. If you follow the spurious 'exception' statement, you would expect to write Hi's coat and He'r shoes, which is clearly absurd. Equally absurd is It's tail, but because we have a widely used word "it's" it doesn't look so obviously wrong as hi's or he'r. 

A good rule of thumb when deciding whether and where to use an apostrophe is to imagine the sentence in the old English style. The dog his coat => The dog's coat. The dogs their coats => The dogs' coats.


----------



## Loob

Hello Penny - welcome to the forms!

Actually, it's not true that 





PennyG said:


> the possessive [...] comes from the old English forms where you would not say The man's coat, but would say The man his coat or The dog its tail or The woman her shoes.



The possessive *'s* derives from the Old English *-es* ending of the genitive singular of (1) most strong declension nouns and (2) masculine and neuter strong adjectives.  This ending was subsequently generalised, first to all strong declension nouns, and later to all nouns.

To quote from the Wiki article _English possessive_ (my highlighting):
The spelling *-es* remained, but in many words the letter *-e-* no longer represented a sound. In those words, printers often copied the French practice of substituting an apostrophe for the letter *e*. In later use, *-'s* was used for all nouns where the /s/ sound was used for the possessive form, and when adding *-'s* to a word like *love* the *e* was no longer omitted. [...]
In the Early Modern English of 1580 to 1620 it was sometimes spelled as "his" as a folk etymology​
That said, if rules of thumb help, then they're helpful!


----------



## entangledbank

Except that the genitive endings don't actually come from that. The strong masculine and neuter nouns of Old English had the ending _-s_ or _-es_ and this spread to all words in the Middle English period. Around that later time the  of unstressed 'his' was lost, and so while the vowel of _-es_ was still pronounced as a separate syllable, 'the man's coat' and 'the man his coat' happened to be pronounced the same way, which gave rise to the myth that the genitive was a contraction of the pronoun, and might actually have been the reason the apostrophe was adopted.

_cross-posted_ . . . like Loob says too.


----------



## PennyG

Thank you, Loob & entangledbank for the welcome and the response. I'm not convinced that we're not all right to some degree. But what I am convinced of is that the pronoun "its" does not "lose" its apostrophe in order to distinguish it from the contraction "it's" which is an explanation that I keep seeing and cringing at, and what prompted me to join in with my explanation. Perhaps I should say with m'y explanation


----------



## Loob

It's only in historical terms that posters in this thread have suggested that possessive _its_ has lost an apostrophe - and in historical terms, it's true....

(Personally, I'm convinced that apostrophes in general are on their  way out.  The sooner they disappear, the better, say I!)


----------



## Andygc

Loob said:


> (Personally, I'm convinced that apostrophes in general are on their way out. The sooner they disappear, the better, say I!)


That might adversely affect one's enjoyment of forums such as this. There'd be nowhere for one to observe one's digital friends debating one's observations on one's views of English grammar and punctuation. Where would one find discussions of Jesus' versus Jesus's and St James' Park versus St James's Park? What a sad world you wish for, Mrs L!


----------



## JulianStuart

(Youd be happy with St Jamess Park?)


----------



## Notafrog

Just to pour a bit of oil on the fire, the word "ones" is a perfectly valid word in English.
...
...
...
...
...

It doesn't mean "belonging to one", though.


----------



## deprogramming services

It is correct that _one_ is a pronoun and therefore is not technically supposed to qualify for an apostrophe', but given the problems in clarity and ambiguity mentioned above I would say the best rule would be to not use it.  I'm ok with using it too though.  But the rule should be clear.  Lacking a standard and commonly followed rule of usage creates ambiguity, or at least the risk of it.  With or without the apostrophe' it will look like the same word being used in a different sense.  But it's no big deal, since ambiguity is already common in words; it's like a few grains of sand thrown into a bucket of sand.  So it doesn't matter.  There just needs to be a standard rule of usage.   

One has to be able to distinguish between _ones_ plural, as in more than one one, and ones ones, as in the number of ones one possesses.  Example: The number of ones in ones possession goes up when one's spending bigger bills.  Here's the same sentence in classical usage: The number of ones in a man's possession goes up when he's spending bigger bills, (or ...ones in his possession... when he's...).  Or colloquial: the number of ones in your possession go up when you're spending bigger bills.

The use of the word _ones_ where _his_ used to be commonly used is a bastardization of language done for the purpose of cultural and societal engineering.  It's one of many examples.


----------



## JamesM

deprogramming services said:


> The use of the word _ones_ where _his_ used to be commonly used is a bastardization of language done for the purpose of cultural and societal engineering.  It's one of many examples.



The use of "one" to mean "an unspecified person" is not about societal engineering.  It has been around for hundreds of years and certainly wasn't introduced recently, no matter what nefarious purpose one might imagine is behind it.

The recommendation to use "one" appears in an 1892 book entitled "Every-day English", published in Boston, and discusses its origins going back to at least the Elizabethan period.  It may have become more formal in American English over the years but it is an old standby in the language.


----------



## JulianStuart

deprogramming services said:


> It is correct that _one_ is a pronoun and therefore is not technically supposed to qualify for an apostrophe',
> .


Welcome!

Is there some technical rule for correctness you are citing?  Only one other poster in the thread feels that the possessive of one is or should be ones. 

The evidence from the printed word is against this.  The printed book database (millions of books scanned by Google) allows one to display the frequency of words over time (in graph form) and to find examples of individual uses (by clicking links below the graph).  This shows the plots for ones and one's. Clicking the links for "ones" finds only plurals (of the word one) while "one's" finds both possessive and contractions of "one is". (Disclaimer:I've not looked at _all_ the citations of "ones" )


----------



## Andygc

JamesM said:


> The use of "one" to mean "an unspecified person" is not about societal engineering. It has been around for hundreds of years and certainly wasn't introduced recently


Just for the record: the OED has it first appearing in that sense in approximately 1400. The possessive "one's" earliest citation is dated 1655. The OED also states quite clearly that the genitive form for this meaning is "one's", and I think I can assume that the editorial staff put some effort into ensuring that this is an accurate record of normal English usage.


----------



## deprogramming services

As I said, I'm ok with either ones or one's used for the possessive of one; I just want there to be one common rule on the matter.  It's my understanding though that there is a rule that pronouns do not qualify for an apostrophe when used in a possessive case.  _Its_ instead of _it's_ is the example that's most commonly given.  This is the rule I was taught when I was in school.  If there is not such a grammatical rule, let me know, and let me know why _its_ is used for the possessive case instead of _it's_.  Or if _One_ is not a pronoun let me know that.


----------



## Loob

To quote from a previous post:





Loob said:


> ... I understand now that you're looking for a generally-stated 'rule'.  Wandle's formulation in post 47 seems very helpful to me; but if you need a published source, perhaps the quotation from _Elements of Style_ in post 30 would fit the bill?


----------



## Andygc

deprogramming services said:


> Use of it in modern language where the masculine pronoun used to be commonly used is social engineering.


Could you provide an example of the use of "one's" instead of "his" in modern English? I rarely see "one's" used in modern BE, and when it is used it is never as a substitute for "his".


----------



## Dale Texas

Im gainst some peoples desire for the *total* limination o postrophes and believe itd be a sad day for printers, writers trying to indicate dialectal pronunciations, and readers if thatd ever come to pass. Oned think itd be good for lazy typists fingers, though.


----------



## velisarius

I think this must have been said somewhere already in this very long thread, but in my experience "one" is used when we want to avoid the use of over-familiar/informal "you". It isn't used to camouflage a male gender pronoun.

_You shouldn't eat peas with your knife.
One doesn't eat peas with one's knife._

_A person dining out should never eat his or her peas with his or her knife _- this is awkward
_People who dine out should never eat peas with their knives _- using the plural is an easy workaround. If that is also
"societal engineering", so be it.


----------



## deprogramming services

velisarius said:


> I think this must have been said somewhere already in this very long thread, but in my experience "one" is used when we want to avoid the use of over-familiar/informal "you". It isn't used to camouflage a male gender pronoun.
> 
> _You shouldn't eat peas with your knife.
> One doesn't eat peas with one's knife._
> 
> _A person dining out should never eat his or her peas with his or her knife _- this is awkward
> _People who dine out should never eat peas with their knives _- using the plural is an easy workaround. If that is also
> "societal engineering", so be it.


I agree with this.  But the word _one_ is used for that purpose sometimes.  I would add that except in formal writing I prefer the use of the indefinite _you_ to _one_.  _One _is grammatically correct but _you _is correct by virtue of common usage, in informal writing, and _one _in such writing reeks of hyper-correctness.


----------



## JulianStuart

deprogramming services said:


> I agree with this.  But the word _one_ is used for that purpose sometimes.  I would add that except in formal writing I prefer the use of the indefinite _you_ to _one_.  _One _is grammatically correct but _you _is correct by virtue of common usage, in informal writing, and _one _in such writing reeks of hyper-correctness.


I wonder if you are aware of the big difference in usage between AE and BE of _one_ as an impersonal pronoun. In BE it used to be more common to use _one_ as a replacement for _you_ with the intent of being less direct (see velisarius's example) when insinuating that the listener should or should not engage in the activity. It clearly has nothing to do with gender - _you_ is already neutral, so no conspiracy need be invoked here, because "one" was never a replacement for he or she.  (Over-use of one, for example many times in one sentence, marked the speaker as aloof - "One should never get one's knickers in a twist when one is arguing with one's adversaries").  The AE usage of one differs from BE in that AE will usually only use it once, as a substitute for "someone", and is then faced later in the sentence with the his/her dilemma you seem to be mainly concerned with.

*BE: One shouldn't eat one's peas with one's knife.* (A less direct reprimand than using _you_ - no gender avoidance or brainwashing involved here, it truly is an impersonal pronoun all the time.)

*AE: One shouldn't eat his/her/their peas with his/her/their knife*. (Treating the word one as meaning "(some)one" - distinctly different from the BE usage). If an AE speaker were to use "one's" I suspect you would think they were avoiding the gender dilemma and that this is what you seem to be railing against, right?  But "one's" is rarely used by AE speakers in that situation.

As noted above, the issue of which word to use when the gender of the person is unknown is not new and they/their has been used in such a situation for centuries, despite complaints from those who were taught that they/their can only refer to multiple people.  In contrast, the use of "one" as a "politically correct" substitute for he/she seems pretty rare, so raising the issue in a thread discussing whether _one_ deserves an apostrophe or not, is a red herring

Back to the topic

I am intrigued that a teacher _actively_ taught you this "rule" on pronouns and apostrophes.  Did they/he/she extend it to "anyone", "someone", "everyone" and "no-one" and told you those did not deserve apostrophes either? They are all listed as pronouns, too.  The vast majority of members in the thread and the evidence from printed books show that the "rule" only exists in the minds of extremely few people. Here's a plot of "anyones" and "anyone's" showing the latter to be about 500 times more common (many of the anyones are plurals anyway!). So what do you call a situation where everyone is in on the conspiracy except a handful of people? I think we'd say that handful of people were the conspirators


----------



## deprogramming services

JulianStuart said:


> I wonder if you are aware of the big difference in usage between AE and BE of _one_ as an impersonal pronoun. In BE it used to be more common to use _one_ as a replacement for _you_ with the intent of being less direct (see velisarius's example) when insinuating that the listener should or should not engage in the activity. It clearly has nothing to do with gender - _you_ is already neutral, so no conspiracy need be invoked here, because "one" was never a replacement for he or she.  (Over-use of one, for example many times in one sentence, marked the speaker as aloof - "One should never get one's knickers in a twist when one is arguing with one's adversaries").  The AE usage of one differs from BE in that AE will usually only use it once, as a substitute for "someone", and is then faced later in the sentence with the his/her dilemma you seem to be mainly concerned with.
> 
> *BE: One shouldn't eat one's peas with one's knife.* (A less direct reprimand than using _you_ - no gender avoidance or brainwashing involved here, it truly is an impersonal pronoun all the time.)
> 
> *AE: One shouldn't eat his/her/their peas with his/her/their knife*. (Treating the word one as meaning "(some)one" - distinctly different from the BE usage). If an AE speaker were to use "one's" I suspect you would think they were avoiding the gender dilemma and that this is what you seem to be railing against, right?  But "one's" is rarely used by AE speakers in that situation.
> 
> As noted above, the issue of which word to use when the gender of the person is unknown is not new and they/their has been used in such a situation for centuries, despite complaints from those who were taught that they/their can only refer to multiple people.  In contrast, the use of "one" as a "politically correct" substitute for he/she seems pretty rare, so raising the issue in a thread discussing whether _one_ deserves an apostrophe or not, is a red herring
> 
> Back to the topic
> 
> I am intrigued that a teacher _actively_ taught you this "rule" on pronouns and apostrophes.  Did they/he/she extend it to "anyone", "someone", "everyone" and "no-one" and told you those did not deserve apostrophes either? They are all listed as pronouns, too.  The vast majority of members in the thread and the evidence from printed books show that the "rule" only exists in the minds of extremely few people. Here's a plot of "anyones" and "anyone's" showing the latter to be about 500 times more common (many of the anyones are plurals anyway!). So what do you call a situation where everyone is in on the conspiracy except a handful of people? I think we'd say that handful of people were the conspirators



I actually came to this site because I wanted to know what the rule on use of an apostrophe with the word _one_ is.  I thought I made that clear.  I'm fine with either way, and was not arguing for one over the other.  I was just bringing up what I had been taught.  I do remember being taught in English class that pronouns do not get apostrophes.  That was a long time ago.  But if that rule does not include all pronouns I'm glad to have it clarified now.  

As far as my mentioning the PC usage of the pronoun _one_, I just thought it was an interesting thing to mention.  I wasn't bringing it up to confuse the issue, which is what a red herring is.  The word one can either have or not have an apostrophe and still be or not be PC, and I wasn't trying to argue one side or the other of the apostrophe argument anyway.  I agree the point was not relevant to the thread; I just don't think it confused the issue being discussed here.  

But thank you for the information on what I came here to find out.  It was very nice of you to take the time to give me that.  It looks like this is a good place to find answers to questions on grammar.


----------



## PaulQ

The addition of the apostrophe of the genitive 's' is not possible with *personal possessive pronouns*, which is probably what the OP's teacher meant when they said


deprogramming services said:


> there is a rule that *pronouns * do not qualify for an apostrophe when used *in a possessive case*. _Its_ instead of _it's_ is the example that's most commonly given. This is the rule I was taught when I was in school.


 "The car is mine/yours/his/ours, etc." (and adjectivally "It is my/your/his/our, etc., car.")

*One *takes the genitive 's' as it is not a true *personal possessive* pronoun but it is a pronomial as it has a referent.


----------



## JamesM

An easy way to remember (for me, at least) is that "someone" performs the same role, and people don't seem to have trouble with adding the genitive "s" to someone.  Another way is to adopt the old (American?) expression "a body" or the more standard "a person" to test the genitive:

"Someone should never get someone's knickers in a twist when someone is arguing with someone's adversaries."
"A body/person should never get a body's/person's knickers in a twist when a body/person is arguing with a body's/person's adversaries."


----------



## Notafrog

deprogramming services said:


> I do remember being taught in English class that pronouns do not get apostrophes.


Which is true. They get to be an entirely different word. His, not he's or him's. Our, not we's or us's. Your, not you's. Sometimes that entirely different word looks a lot like it might have done with an apostrophe (its) or might not be a different word at all (her).
Maybe nobody thought "one" was important enough to have its own separate word. Maybe it's because its actually a whole family of pronouns along with someone, anyone, everyone, no one — which unlike I, you, he, she, or it, do not point to anybody or anything directly identifiable.

Sigh. That's the mysteries of English for you; but then what else would we talk about?


----------

