MLP: Plurals aren't possessive
Who says wish’s don’t come true? Those tired of Mrs. Language Persons obsessive rambling’s can hold that Snitty Old Bitty true to her promise’s: Her head will explode, sayeth MLP, if she sees yet another plural posed as possessive, especially as readers keep asking her to repeat it.
Hallelujah. Good riddance to her, along with those misplaced apostrophe’s (shudder).
Got noun’s? No! No! NO!
Got nouns? Yes. Please.
Plurals vs. possessives — a mistaken switcheroo now made so often it’s (not its!) becoming the norm. That’s ending with an ’s when a simple “s” should suffice. Where do those overused apostrophes (not apostrophe’s, please) belong?
It’s pretty straightforward. A plural which is not possessive (not showing ownership, not having something) should never have a preceding apostrophe. So, if you refer to multiples of a thing, Dear Reader, leave that poor “s” alone.
Honored veterans. Dream vacations. Starving writers. Unlimited headaches.
Simple enough?
‘Tis (if you’re thinking, “Aha!,” stay tuned) only when the “s” shows ownership — as in “Patrick’s inane column” or “Cameron’s masterpiece” — that one may thus precede the “s” with an apostrophe. If that final “s” isn’t expressing ownership, please don’t burden it with an unwanted apostrophe.
If the “s” transforms a singular noun into plural — as in “Patrick writes awful columns” or “Cameron is addicted to Diet Cokes” — no apostrophe applies. Patrick’s awful columns and Cameron’s Diet Cokes notwithstanding.
Where do apostrophes (but not apostrophe’s) belong? Generally, in one of two places: (1) to show possession, and (2) to substitute for missing letters. An example of the latter is “don’t.” That apostrophe stands in for the missing “o” in not; “do not” is shortened to “don’t.” And yes, “it is” is shortened to “it’s” (patience, Dear Reader).
With such simple rules, how did we arrive at so many mistakes? Why are public errors such as “walk-in’s welcome” and “we have donut’s” so common? (A walk-in’s what is welcome? What does the donut possess, and why isn’t it “doughnut” anymore?)
Your MLP suspects the culprit is it. Actually — its.
There is a glaring exception to the apostrophe-for-possessive rule. Your MLP assures you that it’s (!) entirely forgivable.
To make “it” possessive, such as, “its ingredients are toxic,” we do not use the apostrophe. Why not? Confusion would result. Why? Because we so often use the word “it’s” to mean “it is” (“it’s bad for you”), to use the apostrophe (’s) to refer to both the contraction for “it is” and the possessive of “it” would be too confusing. Linguistic pandemonium could result.
So when one uses derivatives of it, “its” is the possessive, and “it’s” is a contraction meaning “it is.” One can only assume this is why so many people have misapplied this apostrophic exception to all other plurals (er, “plural’s” — sigh.)
Before she leaves plurals, one reader asked MLP to address compound nouns. Many are tempted to misplace the “s”; which word is plural? Ask: Which is the primary noun? That, not the modifying word, is what multiplies to become plural. So, it’s “daughters-in-law.” Mother-in-laws is incorrect. The words mother and daughter are the plural nouns, so this is where one should add the “s.” The laws are not multiple; the ladies are.
MLP hates unnecessary exceptions; why do we then accept cupfuls? Why not stick with the old cups full or cupsful? Yet another accepted exception derived from language’s misuse — so sad.
Before leaving plurals, a brief mention of Latin, that not-so-dead root language still present in English. Consider if you will “alum-” and its variations. MLP is an alumna of her alma mater (literally “bounteous mother,” i.e., school).
Alumni is (alumni are?) plural. MLP alone cannot be “an alumni.”
Latin, like most other languages, has different endings for plural (-i or -ae), singular masculine (-us), and singular feminine nouns (-a). Thus, alumna and alumnae are female singular and plural; alumnus and alumni are male singular and plural. However, at least in English, “alumni” is also accepted as the plural of either, or a combination of, gender.
Why we stick to this yet changed the plural of the Latin “stadia” to “stadiums,” MLP will never understand.
“If the English language made any sense, lackadaisical would have something to do with a shortage of flowers.” — Wisconsin columnist Doug Larson
•••
MLP and Sholeh Patrick are long-winded columnists for the Hagadone News Network. Contact them with linguistic obsessions, corrections, and peeves at Sholeh@cdapress.com.