Ross, possessive apostrophes might be rational, but it depends what the speaker's inbuilt "rule" is. For many people, apostrophes are associated with the possessive form, no matter what type of noun it is. So to use an apostrophe for the possessive form of "it" makes sense. Because it's wrong, we have to learn another rule that says: apostrophes aren't used for the possessive for pronouns like "it". That rule ends up getting over-generalised: "don't use an apostrophe for its", and everyone is thoroughly confused.
It's a mistake I still make regularly, and almost every time I write the word I have to think about it. I'm all for scrapping the apostrophe entirely - it adds very little of value to the language.

Its not like you cant understand written language without it. I dont think its needed. Maybe one day itll disappear - well see.

Dan,
I learned more than one lesson from your post. The first was, of course, that I have been using the words "its" incorrectly for the last ten years. Thank you for so clearly - and objectively - putting me right.

The second was how damn lazy I am. Having been "corrected" on my usage the first time, I never once checked that in fact the information I was given was correct.

Both of these were somewhat embarrassing lessons to learn in a public forum!

But the third lesson was, for me, a little more positive. I also learned how much I had progressed in the last ten years.

The arbiter of what is and isn't "common usage" in these two (and other)cases was the editor of a weekly column I used to write, who reserved the right to standardise my copy. Back then I viewed this person in awe. The split infinitive argument was the only one I ever nerved myself to have in the eight years of our association.

Since then I have "nerved myself" to do a lot of things - one of which was returning to Uni where, presumably, I spent four years mis-using "its" in certain contexts. I can't imagine myself these days allowing someone to have the sort of power over me that I gave to that woman - in more ways than spurious grammatical rulings.

Sometimes I get really peed off with OLO posters but then something happens that reminds me how of much one learns through these forums and why I joined in the first place. Thanks.

BTW - To the poster who "couldn't understand" how some people got things wrong that he found easy to remember? Why, its easy-peasy. One just keeps in mind that fallibility is a human attribute. And, if one is in danger of forgetting this, is also careful never to invest in a house that features too much glass.

Romany
Thank you - that was a very gracious post you made.

My wife was taught by experts (Irish Josephite nuns) and she is always pointing out my many grammatical mistakes.

I was also taught by the Josephites, but wasn't such fertile ground for them in the grammatical field.

However, they did have some simple ways to make us remember some of the more difficult examples, and the "its/it's" rules have always stuck in my mind.

As another person commented here, a lot of these things are in fact quite logical and rational once you realise the basis for the variations.

Maybe it has been forgotten by some teachers that there are fairly easy formulae or tricks that once explained to students can help them to remember some of these peculiarities of standard English grammar and spelling.

Of course these days it is becoming more difficult for each of us to maintain consistency as we are being engulfed by American media with their (standardised) variations from Australian standard English, and this phenomenon has been exacerbated by the ubiquitous American default spellings on computerised word processing programs.

This makes it easy to see why young people and newcomers to English get very confused about both grammar and spelling.

Undoubtedly a new 'international standard English' is emerging, but at the moment we are still in a difficult phase where different versions are contending and many people are thus befuddled.

I imagine that people coming to English later in life would probably benefit a lot from having access to the kinds of tricks that the Josephites were able to teach in the past.

I suppose some of them are fortunate enough to get some of this style of teaching, whilst others are left high and dry!

"back to the drawing board for me"
Just two days ago I invested in a spell check.
I'm on a mac and don't know a lot about windows. For years I used the
"lite" version which while free, only one dictionary was available in the version, American English.
With my new investment other dictionaries/thesaurus became available namely British English, no Australian version.
Little had I realised, "there, I've said it again" that ten years of using American English, moulded my expression.
Just in these passages I've had the dreaded underline indicating the incorrect spelling of something. Nisus thesaurus and an English-english spell checker can't work together, three corrections to be exact.

What to do? ignore my spell checker or throw the thesaurus out?
Gee this is fun!

fluff4

Fluff, go on, dare to be different: keep the English/English spell-check. Wish I had one. I not only steadfastly ignore the red decoration to words like colour and formalise but actually talk back and tell 'em to get outta my face. Drawback being, of course, that I subsequently often miss a word that actually is spelled incorrectly by accusing it of being a trans-Atlantic wannabe.

I am in fact hugely concerned by the incursion into China not just of American spelling but of American culture. Not, I hasten to say, that I am running down American culture. But the idea is gaining ground that American = Western. The ramifications of this, now that China is opening trade/goodwill links all over the world, are more serious than the matter may at first seem.

So in my classes I insist on standard British English spelling and received pronunciation ( especially of words like Zeebra) as an introduction to an entire semester during which I try to open up the world a little more to my students.

Romany, Could I sugest your fighting a losing battle, but I'm glad there are those of us who would protect English from sloppy use.
In the "history" there is pointed remarks about the arbitrary decisions on spelling, when first determining dictionary spelling. This I think could/should change as the logic is suspect, sometimes based on historical premise, to appease authors of little merit, IMO.
fluff4