Dan,

Actually Fluff's usage of "its" was o.k. by the rule of common usage. It is now considered correct to use its without the apostrophe unless denoting possession:thus "The vixen and its cubs" would still be considered incorrect, but Fluff's usage was o.k.

I am neither defending nor abusing the rule of common usage: simply citing it.

In fact I remember a stand up argument years ago with my editor over that old bugbear, the split infinitive. I maintained that no-one should "boldly go" even if common usage - not to mention Sci-Fi ad. blurb - had made people more forgiving. He accused me of joining the ranks of pedantic old reactionaries who would retard the progress of the English language if given the chance. I was 19 at the time.

Since then I rather grudgingly accept the common usage dictum and its application.

Actually Romany, you have it quite wrong. In fact you have it back to front. The possessive "its" has been the exception to the rule for eons, or at least a very long time. Whatever 'common usage' may decree (who is the arbiter of that one?) "its" connotes the possessive, and "it's" the shortened version of "it is".

Thus "The vixen and its cubs" is actually correct. Whereas "Its the vixen's cub" is incorrect and "It's the vixen's cub" is correct. Call your local qualified grammar expert to confirm or deny.

fluff4 et al,
This has got to be one of the most bestest topics literally ever.
I'm glad that you reminded us of "the seventy's" when things were gooderer, but I'm confused about renting a university qualification by becoming subject to a "lessor" degree.
English is a changing language. Its rules are a bit like sport, where nobody minds if you drop kick a tennis ball into the net.
Our aim should be to talk good, not proper.

Absoloutely

On the arms race that is gradually neutering the power of our vocabulary, has anyone noticed the increasing journalistic use of "profound" to describe every minor change in public life?

Pick up a copy of the Financial Review or the SMH or The Age and count how many "profound shifts" there are or "profound senses" or "nothing short of profound".

According to one article recently, we are witnessing a "profound shift" in the debate over dietary habits. It's ironic that the shallower we become, the deeper everything appears.

"Event" is another one. If you believe Channel Nine, their new US sitcom (which some daft programmer bought off the shelf for next to nothing on a drunken all-expenses 2-day trip to LA) is a "major television event".

Other examples of weapons of mass language destruction:

-- "shaking the foundations" (as in "The department's request for new stationery is 'shaking the foundations' of public service procurement procedures")
-- "undoubtedly" (this one is used when there usually is a doubt about someting. "The Home and Away newcomer is shaping up 'undoubtedly' as the greatest actor of his generation")
-- "inspiring" (someone who drags themselves into work with a headcold)
-- but number in the lexicon of the overused superlative has to be "legendary". EVERYONE is a legend this days. The bloke who mows your lawn is a legend. Someone who came fourth runner-up on Australian Idol in 2004 is a legend.

I blame it all on the American 'can-do' sales culture that is infesting every corner of our lives. In this world, anything less than unequivocal, 'I'm-the-best-that-I-can-be' 40 thousand watt overkill is a wimp-out.

Three cheers for the grumpy old men. They're grumpy for a damned good reason. The world has gone to the pack.

Hahaha - LOLed (really!) at your last sentence, Mr Denmore.

Some worthy additions to the list of abused superwords there, too, although I would contend that "legend" is in a slightly different category. The use of this word to describe nobodies is wilfully ironic, I think. Still, the joke has long run out of weeties.

Speaking of legends, Romany's post was a classic. Strewth, why do people find it so difficult to understand contractions (eg: it is > it's; we are > we're) and the difference between the possessive apostrophe "s" (eg: the cook's broth) and the plural form (eg: too many cooks spoil the broth)? It's not that bloody complex! Unlike some aspects of the language - spelling, for instance - contractions, the possessive apostrophe 's' and plurals are entirely rational in their grammatically correct forms!

Here's another flayed casualty of our beseiged language for good measure: iconic (grrrr).