"APOSTROPHE ABUSE!!! Plurals do NOT get 's!!!" Topic

When will you guys learn that you do NOT form the plural of a noun by adding an 's after a vowel???

The plural of Scenario is NOT scenario's! It is scenarios.
The plural of Nazi is NOT Nazi's! It is Nazis.

Get with the program!

This should be a DH punishable by at least 10 days.

S'o, what'z yez s'ayin'' i's s'ome peoples' i's us'in''' de'z apos'trophe's in'corrrectly?

I'z dat jus't about de gis't' of it?

Actually, John, I believe that in the case of foreign words, whose plurals are not the same in English, the pluralizing "esses" are offset with an apostrophe.

Of course words of foreign origin which have come into the language as part of common usage are exempt, so I think you're right about "Nazis" for the plural.

What drives ME crazy are folks who have no idea what purpose the comma serves, either never using them at all, or dropping them randomly into a line as if they were bringing a sentence up to an expected weight by just throwing some in randomly.

Note to Mako11--Thanks to you, Sir, I now require eye surgery.

TVAG

Don't forget people who say "disinterested" when they mean "uninterested".

Then, of course, there are those much abused words "reform" and "rebut". In Australia (and I am sure elsewhere, the politicians describe every dastardly plan as a "reform" and the idiot media just follow them in doing so (so sending children to work in the salt mines would be described as a "reform"). Every politician claims to have "rebutted" claims when they have merely denied them.

You don't have to be a noocyular scientist to use apostrophes correctly.

Ah John,

civilisation is in terminal decline my friend. If you could see the atrocities perpetrated by undergraduates you would fear for the future. We are not a very long way off from a point where the majority of the population will converse in some text-based patoi of their and Apple's devising while the vast body of knowledge generated over the last two millenia will be a (literal) closed book to most. I once read A Canticle for Leibowitz as an optimistic text (in part), I now think it essentially a despairing one.

While we're at it, let's also point out;

The plural of Lego is Lego, not Legos or Lego's
The plural of Jedi is Jedi, not Jedis or Jedi's

Whilst we are at it (Plurals do not get s), would you also note (a bit off topic) that the plural of most German words in Wargaming is not achieved by adding an "s". Examples:

Plural of "Panzer" is "Panzer", not "Panzers"
Plural of "Grenadier" is "Grenadiere", not "Grenadiers"
Plural of "Fallschirmjaeger" is "Fallschirmjaeger", not "Fallschirmjaegers"

And so on… ;-)

30 days at least.
200 hundred for "awesome"

Actually I didn't know Panzer didn't get an "s" to be pluralised. :(

The other one I see on here regularly is the use of "muted" when what is meant is "mooted".

And, while in the DH, they should have to copy out this volume 10 times:

link

I still don't know how to pronounce the possessive plural of Mrs.

People used to think that Readers Digest Condensed Books were a sin,too.Now,people dont even spell complete words out when they communicate via texting.:)

Of course a group of lightsabers belonging to a group of Jedi may be referred to as the Jedi's lightsabres, and the maker of one particular blade might be the lightsabre's Jedi.

Preach it, Brother John!

Of course a group of lightsabers belonging to a group of Jedi may be referred to as the Jedi's lightsabres"

Jedis' lightsabres. "Jedi's lightsabres" refers to a group of lightsabres belonging to one Jedi, as "Jedi's" is singular possessive.

The gaff that really gets me is describing a noun as a verb and vice versa, as in "a database is entering data so it can be saved".

Jedis' lightsabres. "Jedi's lightsabres" refers to a group of lightsabres belonging to one Jedi, as "Jedi's" is singular possessive.

As was noted above, the plural of Jedi is Jedi, so the possessive in both singular and plural form is "Jedi's".

what about us illiterate carrot crunchers out in the sticks?
I guess we will have to stick to cider abuse!!!!!!!!!

John is in the U.S. This automatically disqualifies him from dictating the proper use of English.

Now if you want to ask someone who studied English at University level in the UK….

Oh, and worked as a sub-editor, writes newspaper and magazine articles etc.

Scrabble challenge you'se all..

And here were I live, to deny the plurals any thing is being racist. Be careful John :)
My 2 cent's… If you understand what I'm trying to say, good, if not, ya ain't understaning squat.
Cheers and Master John, your wanted in the Heads office.

Must be that time of the month.

'

John you already ranted about this 13 years ago, give it a breaks :)

I could care less…

{he quickly puts on his hat and flees}

I agree with the OFM.

It's amazing how prevalent this misuse of apostrophes has become. Conversely, vast numbers of people have no inkling they should use a possessive apostrophe, and instead just form the possessive by adding an "s." For example, "grandmas cookies." That is wrong. If you are referring to the cookies made by or belonging to grandma, it should be "grandma's cookies."

Also, don't use "where" when you mean "were." The former refers to location, the latter to the past. And "loose" when you mean "lose." To "loose" means to release or make something less tight, while lose is the opposite if win.

For example, "We where beginning to loose," is wrong: what you mean to say is "we were beginning to lose" (unless you are referring to loosing arrows, bowels, etc.").

As was noted above, the plural of Jedi is Jedi, so the possessive in both singular and plural form is "Jedi's"

You and Rapier are right…. I did not catch the earlier reference to Jedi being both. My bad.

I edit reports at work and one guy always fails to use an apostrophe for possives, but almost always uses them for plurals.

Okay, since folks are running with the general theme of the frustrations of verbal as well as punctuation abuse/ignorance, let me throw another log on the fire.

For Gawd's Sake, you Talking-Heads, News Readers, and Politicians--The word "MILITARY" IS NOT A NOUN!

People do not "Join the Military." No one "Works for the Military."

Get a life, you ignorant twits! Don't keep trying to turn a perfectly good Adjective into a Noun!

What's wrong with saying "He Joined the Armed Services," if you don't know specifically which branch? When was the last time you heard those same speakers actually use the phrases "United States Army," or "U.S. Navy," or U.S. Air Force," etc?

Most of the time these are the same thickies who, if they mention specific military vehicles at all, come up with items like "Anti-Personnel Carriers," "Artillery Guns," and "Military Tanks" (to avoid confusion with "Civilian Tanks," I suppose).

Is pseudo-intellectual contempt for "the Military," so great and pervasive that even attempting to speak of its elements with anything like the correct, specific terms is considered bad taste or barbarous?

Rant subsiding….

TVAG

My pet peeve is the misuse of "their" and "there". Also "than" and "then"

And than theirs the seemingly universal. Ignorance of the rules of sentence construction and punctuation. Even amongst so-called journalists.

Esses' ain't asses'

Ect. ect,ect.

May as well live with it. You are not going to change it. The rules of grammar are just that, rules. Every wargamer tinkers with rules.

Yes, but this is not conscious tinkering, it is blind ignorance.

English:
He figuratively exploded when a couple of cavalry units routed.

Not English:
so he literally exploded when a couple calvery unit's routed,,,,,,,,

The word "MILITARY" IS NOT A NOUN!

But why cant it be used as a noun? Thousands of words can be used as any of nouns, verbs or adjectives etc many start off one and end up as several or a different one,The Bard himself inflicted this transformation or diversification on more than a few. Why is the word "military" so special that it is an exception to the ability to take words and use them in a multitude of ways?

Why does the English language have to be immutable- its been evolving quite happily for thousands of years, so why stop it now?

Because "feel good" English prevents clear communication--the very purpose of punctuation, consistent spelling, and basic rules of grammar.

The evolution of language has, generally, been in the direction of greater capacity to communicate ideas, particularly new ones. Making nouns into verbs, adjectives into nouns, and generally encouraging chaos of thought is NOT "evolution."

Iff I wanna spel werdz thuh way I feel iz gud, lyk thuh wa thay did 3 hunnerd yeers uhgo, that sher wuhd bee prahgrez!

So, you like that better?

From "situational ethics," to "moral relativism," to what… "freewill grammar?"

TVAG

Some people conflate linguistic evolution with semi-literacy. The first is a gradual shift in the usage of particular words and phrases of spoken language over time, whilst the second is ignorance of, or disregard for, the rules of written language as they stand.

a couple calvery unit's routed

I was in a Christmas parade yesterday and when I asked where my unit was to form I was told "Behind the trailer with the cavalry scene." I didn't see any horses, just a nativity scene…

Shouldn't a Calvary scene have a crucifixion motif instead of a Nativity scene?

Henry Martini!

Well Said, Sir, and better than I could!

Good on you!

TVAG

I have finally broken due to internet pressure. I use, and sometimes go out of my way to use, nouns as verbs.

I call it verbing.

"Because "feel good" English prevents clear communication--the very purpose of punctuation, consistent spelling, and basic rules of grammar."

yeah…except this:
"Iff I wanna spel werdz thuh way I feel iz gud, lyk thuh wa thay did 3 hunnerd yeers uhgo, that sher wuhd bee prahgrez!" required very little effort to decipher and thus your message was communicated effectively…though I suspect was harder to write than to read.
Its not too long since writers of dictionaries were advocating such a way of writing in order to make English easier for people to ride and write…

"The first is a gradual shift in the usage of particular words and phrases of spoken language over time,"
Im not sure how single words can shift gradually…does everyone keep on using it in its original way, but also occasionally in the new "incorrect" way, and slowly vary their usage of it till the mostly use it wrong and only rarely use it right. Or do most people use it correctly, and then one person get its wrong, and it catches on? There must be a period when both uses are used alongside each other.

If we were take the word "military" that time would be now.

In this part of world "Lend" and "borrow" are repeatedly used "the wrong way round". I think its a local thing…county wide and maybe a bit beyond. And its sort of waxes and wanes. When I first moved here it was very noticable, then it seemed to stop. Now its back again and used by people from a variety of backgrounds. Im keeping an ear out for it because I'd like to see if we can pinpoint the moment when "lend" and "borrow" swap meanings for good. Whenever someones is lent a pen after uttering the phrase "can I lend a pen off you?" without correction the new meaning is handed another seal of approval. As you say, only time will tell.

So unless you think some sort of Academie Anglaise is in order to rail impotently against every perceived threat to the purity of this bastard language I can suggest only one solution.

Our language changes, you cant stop it, live with it.

Two countries seperated by a common language anyone?

I find that the funniest thing is from the title I knew it was from John.

The proof that the lunatics had taken over the asylum was when the OED agreed with the Thick-as-Pig that the word 'literally' can mean whatever you want it to mean.

My sister last year told me "We literally skidded off the road and died!"

"Really? That's great news! I never liked you anyway. Can I have your scuba gear?"

"Why would I give it to you?"

"You said that you were literally dead."

Didn't Cicero or Cato complain about J. Caesar's Gallic Wars? He said his latin was common and ungrammatical.

If we make a mistake in grammar, we walk in the caligulae of The Divine Caesar!!!!!….then again, look how good he turned out "Et Tu, OFM!".

I was taught by Sister Merry Mayhem-John is correct.