West Bank - whose is it?

[Metaphor]

Is this because you are genuinely confused (even for a brief moment) as to whether the word is intended to mean "it is" vs. the possessive of it, or is this because the proper rule has been so ingrained into your mind? If the latter, perhaps the problem is the ingraining of a rule that should never have been ingrained in the first place?

It depends on what you mean by ingrained. I was taught the correct usage, I did not forget it, and I see no good reason to abandon it.

I'm not confused per se when I see the wrong usage, but the reason I'm taken out of the text is because I read 'it's' as 'it is' in my head (since that's what "it's" is).

Far more rare than the "it's" vs "its" error.

Not in my experience. I took a photo once of a sign proclaiming 'Tyre's deal's'. I see the mistake more often with nouns ending in a vowel (I bought two umbrella's at the shop, along with some salami's) but ending on a consonant is no barrier to apostrophe excess either (the magazine featured modern designs for bathroom's and kitchen's).

I can't speak to the apostrophe for a noun that is intended to be pluralized. At least the "it's" error makes some sense - the possessive form of a noun always has the apostrophe.

The possessive of a pronoun never has an apostrophe.

His bat.
The ball was hers.
Its quarterly profit report.

 

[Nexus]

Whenever I see them mixed up, I am 'taken out' of what I'm reading and have to re-read the sentence. That can't possibly be helpful to communication.

That's something you should work on. Phonetically they are exactly alike and the different spellings are solely due to the illogical nature of English spelling. Insisting on strict adherence to illogical spellings when they are unnecessary is unhelpful to communication.

Do you speak another language? If you get 'taken out' from minor spelling differences in your native tongue it probably indicates you would have terrible skills in acquiring another language. Or do you have difficulty when you encounter differences in British vs. American spellings? Unless you're a copy editor or proofreader this ability of yours is actually a hindrance and one you should strive to overcome.

edit

because I read 'it's' as 'it is' in my head (since that's what "it's" is).

This is where your error is. Phonetically they are bothˈɪts. Your mind should simply read what's written.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There was no chance of peace before that, either.

There certainly was, but who wants to admit a fuck up which can't be corrected, could have been avoided. Settlers in the West Bank guarantee no Israeli government will surrender military domination and sovereignty over the area, because it is not politically possible to do so and remain in power. The Palestinian leadership faces the same dilemma because if the settlers stay, they cannot remain in power. This hopeless stalemate gives rise to all the problems they face today. The Israelis have put themselves in a corner. In order to maintain control, they have no choice but to kill hundreds of Palestinians, which only keeps it going. It's like trying to put out a fire by feeding it little pieces of firewood.

You continue to assume that 67 borders will bring peace--never mind that there wasn't peace before the 67 borders.

- - - Updated - - -

The shrewd Palestinians pretty much got out long ago.

And it's not the Palestinians in control, anyway. The war is perpetuated by the Islamists, the Palestinians are puppets. They shouldn't really be considered a side, any more than you would consider Patton's army a side in WWII. (Which is also why peace talks never work--Israel can no more negotiate peace with the Palestinians than Hitler could negotiate peace with Patton.)

If this were true, then why does all recent violence emanate from the Gaza Strip and not the West Bank? If they are puppets, then certainly the war would be fought on every front?

The war is mostly fought on the most effective front: Hamas.

And you're wrong--there was fire from the West Bank. They just don't have anything like the number of rockets that Hamas does.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The purpose of language is communication - to be understood as intelligibly as possible by as many (of the intended audience) as possible. Is anyone really confused or is communication hindered when this mistake is made?

The idea of a post is to get the message across in a hurry . So communication is the key ; too much pedantry just creates hot air ; but there are a few pedantic operators residing in the forums of the net .. and also in Middle East , hence the West Bank conundrum.

Exactly--both "its" and "it's" are valid words, our brains are fallible, it's not exactly surprising to mix them up at times.

It's not like the all too common mistake of putting an apostrophe before the s of a plural when there's no reason for it at all.

 

[Togo]

You continue to assume that 67 borders will bring peace--never mind that there wasn't peace before the 67 borders.

Even the average of 1-2 attacks incidents year that were occurring from before 1967 is surely better than the 60-70 rockets a day we have now.

 

[ryan]

Historically, land belongs to those who can take and secure it.

Agreed. The land belongs to Israel until the Palestinians are able to do something about it and then the ownership could change hands. Nobody has anymore "right" to a bit of land than anyone else and the only claim that anyone has to it is based on their ability - or the ability of the government or whatever other group which represents them - to enforce that claim.

Sure, but this is more about the integrity - or lack there of - of the international community. As far as I know, even the U.S.A. considers the West Bank as occupied, so why are they taking Israel's side?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Sure, but this is more about the integrity - or lack there of - of the international community. As far as I know, even the U.S.A. considers the West Bank as occupied, so why are they taking Israel's side?

So, your question is why the people who stole half a continent by killing the people who were living there and then building houses on what used to be those guys' land would support Israel's current actions?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You continue to assume that 67 borders will bring peace--never mind that there wasn't peace before the 67 borders.

Even the average of 1-2 attacks incidents year that were occurring from before 1967 is surely better than the 60-70 rockets a day we have now.

1) 60-70/day is not normal.

2) The Islamists have a lot more money to fund such things now.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed. The land belongs to Israel until the Palestinians are able to do something about it and then the ownership could change hands. Nobody has anymore "right" to a bit of land than anyone else and the only claim that anyone has to it is based on their ability - or the ability of the government or whatever other group which represents them - to enforce that claim.

Sure, but this is more about the integrity - or lack there of - of the international community. As far as I know, even the U.S.A. considers the West Bank as occupied, so why are they taking Israel's side?

It's a case of the lesser evil.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Sure, but this is more about the integrity - or lack there of - of the international community. As far as I know, even the U.S.A. considers the West Bank as occupied, so why are they taking Israel's side?

So, your question is why the people who stole half a continent by killing the people who were living there and then building houses on what used to be those guys' land would support Israel's current actions?

Hey, don't blame us, that was the British!!

 

[Bronzeage]

The shrewd Palestinians pretty much got out long ago.

And it's not the Palestinians in control, anyway. The war is perpetuated by the Islamists, the Palestinians are puppets. They shouldn't really be considered a side, any more than you would consider Patton's army a side in WWII. (Which is also why peace talks never work--Israel can no more negotiate peace with the Palestinians than Hitler could negotiate peace with Patton.)

If this were true, then why does all recent violence emanate from the Gaza Strip and not the West Bank? If they are puppets, then certainly the war would be fought on every front?

Put yourself in the Palestinians position and take a long term view. No war with Israel has gained anything and most of them resulted in Israel gaining territory.

The only potential path to regaining some kind of Palestinian state is bringing international (which means, the US and the EU) pressure on Israel. For this to happen, Israel must be put in a position which the US and EU can no longer politically support. Military action against civilian populations can lead to this. This is how apartheid was defeated in South Africa. It was not overcome by street fighting and bombs. The South African government came to the realization they could no longer depend upon the rest of the world to back them. This meant an end to international trade, which would make a country with some of the world's richest resources a beggar nation.

The Palestinian strategy is much the same, but at a relatively higher cost. They have no incentive to convince the Israelis to stop shelling Gaza. Every dead Palestinian and every collapsed building, forwards their strategy and pushes Israel closer to international condemnation. They have no incentive to concede. As I said, this is a very high cost strategy.

 

[untermensche]

As I said, this is a very high cost strategy.

American opinion is shifting towards the Palestinian position. It looks like gratuitous killing on the part of the Israelis. It looks like Israel cares more about doing this quickly and less about doing it humanely.

John Kerry is certainly frustrated with the Israelis.

 

[Metaphor]

That's something you should work on. Phonetically they are exactly alike and the different spellings are solely due to the illogical nature of English spelling. Insisting on strict adherence to illogical spellings when they are unnecessary is unhelpful to communication.

So who gets to determine which spellings are 'illogical'? You?

Do you speak another language? If you get 'taken out' from minor spelling differences in your native tongue it probably indicates you would have terrible skills in acquiring another language.

I speak Croatian, but I can't imagine you were really interested in knowing that. You appear to just have wanted to impugn my intelligence.

Or do you have difficulty when you encounter differences in British vs. American spellings? Unless you're a copy editor or proofreader this ability of yours is actually a hindrance and one you should strive to overcome.

Your advice is to lower my standards, because others certainly won't lift theirs. Well, I'm not going to do that.

This is where your error is. Phonetically they are bothˈɪts. Your mind should simply read what's written.

Oh, I see. It's my brain that's wrong. Me. Not the people who don't know how to write.

If these were arcane rules that were being violated. I'd see the point in not caring. But the rules don't seem that complex to me. Hell, I remember in primary school (elementary school for you Americans (and Canadians?)), we were taught that you capitalise the 'important' words in titles--but apparently that advice was simply too difficult for the world to understand. (Even though I understood it in Year 2 and never forgot it).

 

[Bronzeage]

As I said, this is a very high cost strategy.

American opinion is shifting towards the Palestinian position. It looks like gratuitous killing on the part of the Israelis. It looks like Israel cares more about doing this quickly and less about doing it humanely.

John Kerry is certainly frustrated with the Israelis.

The last time anyone tried to justify the fast and widespread death of civilians, for humanitarian reasons was exactly 69 years and one day ago, when when President Harry Truman explained why the US used the atomic bomb on Japan. The Israelis are stuck in their rut and can't turn. It would be the political equivalent of Abraham Lincoln offering to give California back to Mexico.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Historically, land belongs to those who can take and secure it.

Agreed. The land belongs to Israel until the Palestinians are able to do something about it and then the ownership could change hands. Nobody has anymore "right" to a bit of land than anyone else and the only claim that anyone has to it is based on their ability - or the ability of the government or whatever other group which represents them - to enforce that claim.

The Israelis are taking possession of Palestinian territories but it doesn't mean they own it as their own.

 

[Bronzeage]

Agreed. The land belongs to Israel until the Palestinians are able to do something about it and then the ownership could change hands. Nobody has anymore "right" to a bit of land than anyone else and the only claim that anyone has to it is based on their ability - or the ability of the government or whatever other group which represents them - to enforce that claim.

The Israelis are taking possession of Palestinian territories but it doesn't mean they own it as their own.

Of course it does. The essence of government is the ability and will to enforce and protect property rights. In simplest terms, one cannot own what one cannot secure and protect. We could fortify our property and live under siege, but it's much more efficient to hand this problem to our government. Whether I am threatened by a burglar or a foreign country, my government will handle the problem. It's a great deal for me. The Palestinians have made a poor bargain with their government.

 

[Nexus]

So who gets to determine which spellings are 'illogical'? You?

Google "illogical spelling of English" if this surprises you.

I speak Croatian, but I can't imagine you were really interested in knowing that. You appear to just have wanted to impugn my intelligence.

Incorrect, first knowing a second language has little to do with intelligence. Even people that are clinically retarded acquire languages. But I did ask the question to for a reason. You were under the impression that your innate attention to spelling was an asset. I wanted to disabuse you of that notion by pointing out ways it would hinder someone.

Or do you have difficulty when you encounter differences in British vs. American spellings? Unless you're a copy editor or proofreader this ability of yours is actually a hindrance and one you should strive to overcome.

Your advice is to lower my standards, because others certainly won't lift theirs. Well, I'm not going to do that.

No, my advise was to take steps to improve your reading ability. If you have trouble reading because of misplaced apostrophes that's only harming you. BYW you didn't answer whether or not you have difficulty between American and British spellings.

This is where your error is. Phonetically they are bothˈɪts. Your mind should simply read what's written.

Oh, I see. It's my brain that's wrong. Me. Not the people who don't know how to write.

Yes it is your brain that's wrong if it reinterprets ˈɪts as"it is' because they sound differently when spoken. Indeed 'it is' is two syllables whereas ˈɪts is simply one.

If these were arcane rules that were being violated. I'd see the point in not caring. But the rules don't seem that complex to me. Hell, I remember in primary school (elementary school for you Americans (and Canadians?)), we were taught that you capitalise the 'important' words in titles--but apparently that advice was simply too difficult for the world to understand. (Even though I understood it in Year 2 and never forgot it).

It's not that these rules are too difficult for most people rather they just aren't that important enough for their communication needs.

 

[Bronzeage]

Unless the current troubles in Gaza can be related to grammatical differences in Hebrew and Arabic, further discussion along this line is a derailment. Please keep a little closer to the topic, or take it up with each other in private messages. Both are certainly welcome to create a thread in the lounge, if you want to keep it in public.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If this were true, then why does all recent violence emanate from the Gaza Strip and not the West Bank? If they are puppets, then certainly the war would be fought on every front?

Put yourself in the Palestinians position and take a long term view. No war with Israel has gained anything and most of them resulted in Israel gaining territory.

The only potential path to regaining some kind of Palestinian state is bringing international (which means, the US and the EU) pressure on Israel.

They've never tried peace.

For this to happen, Israel must be put in a position which the US and EU can no longer politically support. Military action against civilian populations can lead to this. This is how apartheid was defeated in South Africa. It was not overcome by street fighting and bombs. The South African government came to the realization they could no longer depend upon the rest of the world to back them. This meant an end to international trade, which would make a country with some of the world's richest resources a beggar nation.

And Israel would prefer to be a beggar nation than dead--and that's the choice you want them to be offered.

The Palestinian strategy is much the same, but at a relatively higher cost. They have no incentive to convince the Israelis to stop shelling Gaza. Every dead Palestinian and every collapsed building, forwards their strategy and pushes Israel closer to international condemnation. They have no incentive to concede. As I said, this is a very high cost strategy.

I'm glad you see that the Palestinians are doing this to themselves. You still seem to think it's justified.

How about the parents in some poor places that horribly cripple their kids to use as beggars. Also justified? Same thing, just on a smaller scale.

 

[Rhea]

Although I thank my lucky stars I come from a culture that can spell metre and colour proper.

properLY

 

[Bronzeage]

Put yourself in the Palestinians position and take a long term view. No war with Israel has gained anything and most of them resulted in Israel gaining territory.

The only potential path to regaining some kind of Palestinian state is bringing international (which means, the US and the EU) pressure on Israel.

They've never tried peace.

For this to happen, Israel must be put in a position which the US and EU can no longer politically support. Military action against civilian populations can lead to this. This is how apartheid was defeated in South Africa. It was not overcome by street fighting and bombs. The South African government came to the realization they could no longer depend upon the rest of the world to back them. This meant an end to international trade, which would make a country with some of the world's richest resources a beggar nation.

And Israel would prefer to be a beggar nation than dead--and that's the choice you want them to be offered.

The Palestinian strategy is much the same, but at a relatively higher cost. They have no incentive to convince the Israelis to stop shelling Gaza. Every dead Palestinian and every collapsed building, forwards their strategy and pushes Israel closer to international condemnation. They have no incentive to concede. As I said, this is a very high cost strategy.

I'm glad you see that the Palestinians are doing this to themselves. You still seem to think it's justified.

How about the parents in some poor places that horribly cripple their kids to use as beggars. Also justified? Same thing, just on a smaller scale.

I didn't said I think it's justified. I think it's stupid, but I understand the dynamics of the situation. It's something few people seem to grasp.