Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 9:43:17 GMT
Did anyone else catch this on the radio this morning? I think he has more than a few sympathiser's here. link |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 10:09:17 GMT
We're not biting!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 10:23:38 GMT
.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 3, 2017 10:37:01 GMT
Im all forit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2017 12:05:56 GMT
!
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Apr 3, 2017 12:13:10 GMT
Theyre is a time and their is a plaice for this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 3, 2017 12:46:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Apr 4, 2017 7:30:42 GMT
^
We're all doomed !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2017 8:20:20 GMT
Perhaps he could be offered a job doing the expository lines for 24 Hours in A&E. They're clearly done by a chimp. Yesterday's featured a chap whose internal defibrillator had gone off 20+ times in fairly short order. His meds were changed, and their captions said he'd had 'no further shocks since.'
They might also understand that whilst the convention, for reasons unknown to an atheist like me, is to deal with Jesus' possessions (did he have any?) without a second 's', it's not the same for a 30 year-old fucktard who accepted a dare to be shot in the abdomen by one of his friends with an air rifle loaded with the inner part of a Bic biro...
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Apr 4, 2017 8:22:17 GMT
', it's not the same for a 30 year-old fucktard who accepted a dare to be shot in the abdomen by one of his friends with an air rifle loaded with the inner part of a Bic biro... Had they shot lower they'd have hit the ballpoint. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Apr 4, 2017 12:49:45 GMT
Perhaps he could be offered a job doing the expository lines for 24 Hours in A&E. He could also do the scrolling news feed on BBC's News 24. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Apr 4, 2017 14:07:35 GMT
I applaud this guy, he's taken a stand. The way our language gets butchered these days is depressing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Apr 6, 2017 9:55:25 GMT
I know we have some grammar Nazis on here so can someone knowledgeable settle something. Where does an apostrophe go (if at all) in the phrase "the childrens toys"?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2017 10:47:21 GMT
My guess, and I am no expert, would be "the children's toys"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2017 10:56:48 GMT
As the plural is already contained within the word children, that's right*. I seem to recall that there are only three plurals ending in 'en', the others being brethren and oxen. Doubtless someone will come up with another to make me look like the twat I am...
*Where the word can denote singular and plural, the apostrophe goes after the 's' for the latter. A soldier's breakfast, and the soldiers' breakfasts. But you can have 'the people's will', referring to us collectively, but 'the different peoples' cultures' when referring to more than one people!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Apr 6, 2017 11:26:47 GMT
Thanks, that's what I thought but one person was adamant it should be childrens'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2017 11:32:31 GMT
Would I be right in saying "the childs' toys"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2017 11:55:28 GMT
Child is singular, so the apostrophe goes before the 's'. It only goes before the 's' in children's because children is automatically plural. If the plural of child was childs, something belonging to one child would still be child's, but something belonging to more than one would be childs'.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Apr 6, 2017 12:09:18 GMT
Child is singular, so the apostrophe goes before the 's'. It only goes before the 's' in children's because children is automatically plural. If the plural of child was childs, something belonging to one child would still be child's, but something belonging to more than one would be childs'. ... but the plural of child is children, so something belonging to more than one child would be children's, not childrens', as children is already a plural although it does not end in s Confused ? One of the grammar issues that gets me is when, for example, the BBC say that there is a fuller report, or a more full report, of something elsewhere. Full = full, you cannot get any more into whatever-it-is. So there is no such term/comparative as fuller, meaning more full.... and if something is full, there cannot be a more full version somewhere else... a longer or more detailed report, maybe, but not a fuller one. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Apr 6, 2017 13:33:07 GMT
Child is singular, so the apostrophe goes before the 's'. It only goes before the 's' in children's because children is automatically plural. If the plural of child was childs, something belonging to one child would still be child's, but something belonging to more than one would be childs'. One of the grammar issues that gets me is when, for example, the BBC say that there is a fuller report, or a more full report, of something elsewhere. Full = full, you cannot get any more into whatever-it-is. So there is no such term/comparative as fuller, meaning more full.... and if something is full, there cannot be a more full version somewhere else... a longer or more detailed report, maybe, but not a fuller one. Following on from what Chris says I get irritated when presenters and reporters tell us something like "this car could cost up to £10, or more" (it doesn't have to be £ but its always about quantities).
Surely there's something wrong with that statement - it could cost as much as £10, it could cost at least £10 or it could cost more than £10 but what they say in the first statement is wrong because it effectively includes 2 statements that contradict each other?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2017 15:07:08 GMT
Child is singular, so the apostrophe goes before the 's'. It only goes before the 's' in children's because children is automatically plural. If the plural of child was childs, something belonging to one child would still be child's, but something belonging to more than one would be childs'. ... but the plural of child is children, so something belonging to more than one child would be children's, not childrens', as children is already a plural although it does not end in s Confused ?
Nope, but I fear that you might be!
No-one's saying childrens' is correct or in any way logical. The point is that boys/boy's/boys' necessitates the moving of the apostrophe to denote ownership so that it is clear that more than one boy is the owner. There is no such confusion with children, as one cannot have one children.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2017 18:43:18 GMT
:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2017 8:05:27 GMT
Oh dear. Ten...
Explains why I was irritated by the sign on an old episode of er saying 'Doctor's lounge'.
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Apr 19, 2017 11:25:08 GMT
^
Isn't that a Fiat trim level ??
|
|
