Silly Apostrophe, Tricks are for Kids

I would like to start off discussing contractions — not the kind that the google search first refers to (I’m here to talk about grammar, not give prenatal advice). I don't want you to get the wrong idea here — but rather the contractions that are formed by joining two other words in an attempt to make it shorter. Contractions are most prevalent in casual speaking or writing. A hurdle for a lot of people is differentiating between “its” and “it’s.”

 

 

The contraction “it’s” is a shortened version of “it is” or “it has.” Not that either of those really needs much shortening. “Its” shows possession. Here are a few examples showing the correct usage of both:

Judging from this weather, it’s going to be a long winter.

This is the same as:
Judging from this weather, it is going to be a long winter.

The dog chewed on its bone.

This sentence would not work using it’s because it would then look like this:
The dog chewed on it is bone.

Other contractions people will sometimes confuse are “would’ve” and “who’s,” although not with each other. While, the contraction “would’ve” is short for “would have,” many often mistake “would’ve” for meaning “would of,” which is incorrect. There are even some versions of Microsoft Word that recognize “would of” as being correct. Don’t fall for this grammar check mistake. Now, looking at “Who’s,” we see that it's similar to “it’s” in that you just add an “is” to the first part of the contraction. “Who’s” then becomes “who is,” and this contraction has a different meaning than “whose." “Whose” is the possessive form of both "who" and "which." Here are a few examples that will hopefully help to clear up some of the confusion.

Had I known you would be stopping by, I would've gotten ready.

This is the same as:
Had I known you would be stopping by, I would have gotten ready.

Who's going to help me throw a birthday party for Jack?

I want to throw a birthday party for Jack whose age remains a mystery.

With a little practice and some hints here and there, we get closer and closer to having a better understanding of grammar and all of its quirks.