Grammar Question - pluralizing nouns

D

digdeep

Joined
Mar 19, 2005
Messages
1,739
Hope I'm not treading on toes with this question but I really am looking for an honest answer.

It seems as if I am seeing more and more people making a plural noun by adding an apostrophe s. ('s) Example: Instead of knives they spell it knive's. Instead of sellers they spell it seller's. And ad infinitum.

Is this the way teachers today are teaching their students? And yes, I know language and words have a tendency to change otherwise we would all be speaking old English and saying "I see thee" or "what art thou doing?"

But it seems to me that it is much easier to pluralize by simply adding an s instead of the extra step to add an apostrophe when it's not needed. In elementary school I was taught to add the apostrophe to designate ownership - as in seller's knife.

Again my question is: Is this the new way it's taught in school these days? Or am I just living in the past. Many thanks if someone can straighten this old fogey out. :)
 
Language changes, yes... but not like that. Apostrophes indicate possessives.
 
Apostrophes indicate possessives or omission. "Is not" becomes "isn't" with an apostrophe replacing the "o" when it isn't pronounced.

Unfortunately, we have exceptions. "It's" covers "it is" but "its" not "it's" stands for the possessive of "it". As a possessive pronoun, it gets by without the apostrophe, like "his" and "hers" and "theirs".

Other Indo-European languages also use the same word-form for nominative plural and possessive singular.

English nom. p. "girls" and poss. s. "girl's"
Latin nom. p. "puellae" and poss. s. "puellae"
Russian nom. p. "devushki" and poss. s. "devushki"

Oops! Why does English need the apostrophe? Just a habit we got into. At this point, we would do better to leave it off than to misuse it so often.
 
English is not a notably regular language when it comes to grammar or spelling. Our history of many related languages competing in the early days, with Angles, Saxons, Danes and other Scandinavians contributing to the language's richness. That richness comes from diversity but brings complexity.

Today we see "ect." for "etc." (from Latin et cetera).
We see "loose" for "lose".

loose [loos] adjective, loos·er, loos·est, adverb, verb, loosed, loos·ing.
adjective
1. free or released from fastening or attachment: a loose end.
2. free from anything that binds or restrains; unfettered: loose cats prowling around in alleyways at night.
3. uncombined, as a chemical element.
4. not bound together: to wear one's hair loose.
5. not put up in a package or other container: loose mushrooms.​

lose [looz] Show IPA verb, lost, los·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to come to be without (something in one's possession or care), through accident, theft, etc., so that there is little or no prospect of recovery: I'm sure I've merely misplaced my hat, not lost it.
2. to fail inadvertently to retain (something) in such a way that it cannot be immediately recovered: I just lost a dime under this sofa.
3. to suffer the deprivation of: to lose one's job; to lose one's life.
4. to be bereaved of by death: to lose a sister.
5. to fail to keep, preserve, or maintain: to lose one's balance; to lose one's figure.​
 
Last edited:
Cougar Allen said:
There's even a website: www.apostropheabuse.com
Click to expand...

I would never have dreamt there was a website dedicated to apostrophe abuse. Thanks!

As a sidenote I've always wondered why someone would take the extra time to add an apostrophe when it's (the proper abbreviation for it is) not needed. So laziness is not a reason. If the person was lazy they would not bother with adding it.
 
Last edited:
There's a website for everything.

The real question is: is there an app for that?
 
Believe me, that just scratches the grammatical misuse surface now. I was blessed and cursed with hard asses for english and spelling teachers all through school. And I am, unfortunately, now, very good at spotting errors, which is an especiaaly bad 'gift' online. My son is in kindergarten, just learning the letters and simple spelling thing. He's good, too, because Daddy's standards are a bit higher than the teacher's. Some counselor in high school a few years from now will probably say I scarred him by making him functionally literate. Oh well.
 
This one has always bothered me:

goose. plural = geese.

moose. WHY IS THE PLURAL NOT MEESE? ;):D
 
Mongo said:
This one has always bothered me:

goose. plural = geese.

moose. WHY IS THE PLURAL NOT MEESE? ;):D
Click to expand...

Because "goose / geese" (like mouse / mice) is an ancient Indo-European word, subject to vowel changes in different grammatical forms like plurals. "Moose" is an American Indian word, borrowed but not naturalized.
 
awesome, German guy gets free English lesson. I never understood (I've never understood?) the expression "it ain't yours", where does that come from (I know what it means)?
 
English is littered with words that don't quite match the standard dialect. Dictionary.com gives a good hint: "Nonstandard except in some dialects. am not; are not; is not." In other words, being a contraction of more than one original form, it doesn't exactly match any of them.
 
I blame auto correct and/or the reliance on it.

ex: Their going to take my knife's from me.

:)
 
Try reading the log entries of the Lewis and Clark Corp. Meriwether Lewis must have sat staring out the window during those parts of his schooling and look how that turned out for him. Bad spelling did not keep them from their duty to record each day's entry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top