Same issuewith “its” and “it’s”. It’s arbitrary when the apostrophe-s is used with other nouns.
“John’s house has a cracked foundation.”
“The house’s foundation is cracked.”
“John’s house has a crack in it’s foundation.”
It’s perfectly understandable and complaining about it is just being pedantic with no purpose. The Oxford comma is no longer seen as always being necessary because language evolves, and we should be moving that direction with other arbitrary language and spelling rules. If the meaning isn’t changed by the presence of the apostrophe, then it doesn’t matter whether or not it’s there.
“Whose” is a stupid word that doesn’t deserve to exist. Anything else possessive the “'s” works, and we all understand “Who’s”.
It’s to distinguish from the contraction that who’s already expands to: “who is”. In this sentence saying “who is” makes no sense.
Do you have an example of a sentence where “who is” would make sense in place of a posessive?
Ya know, I never thought about it that way. No I can’t think of an example.
Apostrophe-s isn’t always what you’d use for a possessive.
“Its” is the possessive. I took its temperature.
“It’s” is a contraction of “it is”. It’s cold outside.
Same issuewith “its” and “it’s”. It’s arbitrary when the apostrophe-s is used with other nouns.
“John’s house has a cracked foundation.”
“The house’s foundation is cracked.”
“John’s house has a crack in it’s foundation.”
It’s perfectly understandable and complaining about it is just being pedantic with no purpose. The Oxford comma is no longer seen as always being necessary because language evolves, and we should be moving that direction with other arbitrary language and spelling rules. If the meaning isn’t changed by the presence of the apostrophe, then it doesn’t matter whether or not it’s there.
“Its” is not arbitrary.
his hers theirs its
Start adding apostrophes before the s and see what happens.