The OED is the dictionary you need! If you are interested in etymology, then grab a copy of this for your library today! But be sure to build an extra shelf, because it's enormous.
Words shift in meaning all the time, and lexicographers are bound to record that fact in their documents. The dictionary is 50% rule book for how to use words and 50% descriptive study of how words are and have been used. When the term "impact" began to see new life as a verb, for instance, it didn't mean that the population had been struck dumb . . . in fact, quite the opposite. The strength of the English language has always lain in its slippery syntax, and the rules of engagement clearly make it possible for a noun to suddenly become "verbed." So why on Earth should the makers of dictionaries fail to document this change?
Here's something interesting: the word "happiness" shares etymology with the term "happenstance." The link between the two has prompted scholars to proclaim the term "pursuit of happiness" as a radical idea for its day, since not long before the Enlightenment, happiness was not thought of as something one could pursue. One was either happy or not happy, as a general matter of fortune (or happenstance).
As for your mention of "its," vs. "it's," vs. "its,'" I'll tell ya what I know:
"Its" is a possessive pronoun, just like his or hers. Possessive pronouns do not get apostrophes.
"It's" is the contraction meaning "It is." The apostrophe stands in for the letter that has been elided. (Elided means left out on purpose.)
"Its'" (with the apostrophe after the s) is never correct, unless one is providing an example of something that is never correct, in which case it is, paradoxically, correct.
And then there's the question of the capital/capitol. Do I go to the capitol to spend my capital? Or has the capitol already taken all of my capital?
It seems to me that either of these homonyms is quite fitting in the context of this song title.
So there's my two cents. Finally, an argument I can get into!!!!
Herring405
