Help please, grammar Nazis. Page 2

  • Page

    of 13 First / Last

  • Lutz 7 Jan 2009 21:02:54 48,854 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    ronuds wrote:
    peoples'
    You reckon?

    I thought it was just peoples. My friend thinks it's people's. Peoples' wasn't actually considered.

    Could it be said that English is a noun in that case, and that the "peoples" are in possesion of it?
  • phAge 7 Jan 2009 21:04:05 24,336 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Lutz wrote:
    phAge, you needed Englishman. Or just native.

    But yeah, you'd easily pass for English over here going by your typing. It's better than most college level kids.
    College is for like 18-24 year-olds innit?

    /is 27

    /must try harder
  • Chopsen 7 Jan 2009 21:04:27 15,713 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The noun is "people" so the possessive would be people's? No?

    If you were talking about peoples, which is a collection of people, well, that's nonsense innit?
  • angeltreats 7 Jan 2009 21:04:30 2,602 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It depends, Lutzie. Belonging to the people would be people's. Belonging to the peoples would be peoples'. It definitely needs an apostrophe, as it's a possessive.

    In your case I would think people's would be appropriate.

    I think the word "people" looks really weird, btw.
  • Lutz 7 Jan 2009 21:04:39 48,854 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Jeepers wrote:
    phAge wrote:i.e. how close am I, generally, to a convincing if not perfect native English?
    It's not completely fucked - "How close am I to perfect native English?" is fine, innit?

    Yeah, that's fine. But the use of the "a" by phAge threw it off from that.
  • Jeepers 7 Jan 2009 21:04:42 13,173 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    phAge wrote:
    Cool. Isn't it weird to have people from so many countries speak/write your language relatively well?

    Depressing more than anything: shows how isolationist and arrogant we are as a culture, because we're mostly monolingual.

    Do you think? I mean, the fact that the people of other countries are bilingual is to be admired, but the fact that English is the (ahem) lingua franca of the world isn't in itself a bad thing, is it?
  • Lutz 7 Jan 2009 21:06:40 48,854 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    phAge wrote:
    Cool. Isn't it weird to have people from so many countries speak/write your language relatively well?

    Depressing more than anything: shows how isolationist and arrogant we are as a culture, because we're mostly monolingual.
    This. I'd have loved to learn a second language.

    Unfortunatly my only choice at school was French, and the whole male/female thing pissed me off.
  • Chopsen 7 Jan 2009 21:06:46 15,713 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Jeepers wrote:
    Do you think? I mean, the fact that the people of other countries are bilingual is to be admired, but the fact that English is the (ahem) lingua franca of the world isn't in itself a bad thing, is it?

    Oh yeah, for convenience it's great! I just feel slightly embarrassed when I go to another country and there's some shop assistant who is functional in multiple languages and I struggle with 1. (Although I speak Welsh as well, but I don't count that)
  • Lutz 7 Jan 2009 21:07:41 48,854 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    phAge wrote:
    Lutz wrote:
    phAge, you needed Englishman. Or just native.

    But yeah, you'd easily pass for English over here going by your typing. It's better than most college level kids.
    College is for like 18-24 year-olds innit?

    /is 27

    /must try harder
    No, 16-18 year olds.
  • phAge 7 Jan 2009 21:08:24 24,336 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    /fails
  • angeltreats 7 Jan 2009 21:08:56 2,602 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Lutz wrote:

    Unfortunatly my only choice at school was French, and the whole male/female thing pissed me off.

    You get used to that pretty quickly. It doesn't seem weird to me at all anymore but it did when I started learning French when I was 11.
  • JetSetWilly 7 Jan 2009 21:09:45 5,721 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    phAge wrote:
    JetSetWilly wrote:
    I'd say you were indistinguishable from a native speaker.
    Cool. Isn't it weird to have people from so many countries speak/write your language relatively well?

    I find that when I realise a poster on here isn't a native English speaker I'm absolutely knocked-out by how well they know and use idiomatic English.

    I sincerely hope that doesn't sound patronising.
  • Lutz 7 Jan 2009 21:10:29 48,854 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    OK AT. Can you pluralise people, given that it's a plural already?

    This is a damned weird word BTW/.
  • Jeepers 7 Jan 2009 21:10:44 13,173 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    JetSetWilly wrote:
    phAge wrote:
    JetSetWilly wrote:
    I'd say you were indistinguishable from a native speaker.
    Cool. Isn't it weird to have people from so many countries speak/write your language relatively well?

    I find that when I realise a poster on here isn't a native English speaker I'm absolutely knocked-out by the fact that they can breathe thro' their nose and peck at a keyboard like a well-trained pigeon.

    I sincerely hope that doesn't sound patronising.

    Wacist!
  • Jeepers 7 Jan 2009 21:11:45 13,173 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Lutz wrote:
    OK AT. Can you pluralise people, given that it's a plural already?

    This is a damned weird word BTW/.

    Yeah - see A history of the English speaking peoples. Good enough for Churchill, good enough for me...

    Edit: Stoopid links
  • ronuds 7 Jan 2009 21:11:53 21,788 posts
    Seen 11 months ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Lutz wrote:
    ronuds wrote:
    peoples'
    You reckon?

    I thought it was just peoples. My friend thinks it's people's. Peoples' wasn't actually considered.

    Could it be said that English is a noun in that case, and that the "peoples" are in possesion of it?

    It's a plural of a plural...so to speak.

    The many "people" equal "peoples" and those "peoples" are in possession of something and it is therefore the "peoples'" possession.

    You can do the apostrophe in between as well, and nobody would think less of you.
  • phAge 7 Jan 2009 21:12:41 24,336 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    JetSetWilly wrote:
    phAge wrote:
    JetSetWilly wrote:
    I'd say you were indistinguishable from a native speaker.
    Cool. Isn't it weird to have people from so many countries speak/write your language relatively well?

    I find that when I realise a poster on here isn't a native English speaker I'm absolutely knocked-out by how well they know and use idiomatic English.

    I sincerely hope that doesn't sound patronising.
    Not at all. I get weirded out enough when some Swede on here throws a few broken bits of Danish my way.
  • JetSetWilly 7 Jan 2009 21:13:26 5,721 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Jeepers is a scoundrel.

    :D
  • UncleLou Moderator 7 Jan 2009 21:15:23 35,423 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Lutz wrote:
    Unfortunatly my only choice at school was French, and the whole male/female thing pissed me off.

    Hm. Which language exactly did you expect to be on offer that doesn't have the male/female thing? ;p

    French is obviously a paupers' language anyway with its only two genders.
  • Jeepers 7 Jan 2009 21:15:33 13,173 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    JetSetWilly wrote:
    Jeepers is a scoundrel.

    :D

    I say what I see!
  • Lutz 7 Jan 2009 21:20:32 48,854 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    ronuds wrote:
    It's a plural of a plural...so to speak.

    The many "people" equal "peoples" and those "peoples" are in possession of something and it is therefore the "peoples'" possession.

    You can do the apostrophe in between as well, and nobody would think less of you.
    Ok, so can you posses something like the English language? Does it belong to the people? If not, would you actually put the apostrophe there?

    If you can pluralise poeple and you cannot posses english, then there shouldn't be an apostrophe
  • phAge 7 Jan 2009 21:20:41 24,336 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    :D

    EDIT: @ Jeepers
  • Lutz 7 Jan 2009 21:22:17 48,854 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    And if the many people equal peoples, what do the many sheep equal?
    UncleLou: Dunno! Something like English I guess! What about Russian?
  • Jeepers 7 Jan 2009 21:22:43 13,173 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Lutz wrote:
    ronuds wrote:
    It's a plural of a plural...so to speak.

    The many "people" equal "peoples" and those "peoples" are in possession of something and it is therefore the "peoples'" possession.

    You can do the apostrophe in between as well, and nobody would think less of you.
    Ok, so can you posses something like the English language? Does it belong to the people? If not, would you actually put the apostrophe there?

    If you can pluralise poeple and you cannot posses english, then there shouldn't be an apostrophe

    In grammatical terms, yes.

    I think. I'm skating on thin ice here :)
  • Lutz 7 Jan 2009 21:23:45 48,854 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Jeepers wrote:
    JetSetWilly wrote:
    Jeepers is a scoundrel.

    :D

    I say what I see!
    If that's not a link to Roy Walker or Catchphrase I'm gonna be mightily annoyed.
  • ronuds 7 Jan 2009 21:25:16 21,788 posts
    Seen 11 months ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Lutz wrote:
    ronuds wrote:
    It's a plural of a plural...so to speak.

    The many "people" equal "peoples" and those "peoples" are in possession of something and it is therefore the "peoples'" possession.

    You can do the apostrophe in between as well, and nobody would think less of you.
    Ok, so can you posses something like the English language? Does it belong to the people? If not, would you actually put the apostrophe there?

    If you can pluralise poeple and you cannot posses english, then there shouldn't be an apostrophe

    It's not so much that they possess the English language, but they do use it. It's "their" English...they use it, they own it, it's theirs. It can be good or bad, light or heavy, dry or wet.

    Sheep has no plural...like deer or moose.
  • Lutz 7 Jan 2009 21:25:23 48,854 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    :D
  • Jeepers 7 Jan 2009 21:25:58 13,173 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Lutz wrote:
    Jeepers wrote:
    JetSetWilly wrote:
    Jeepers is a scoundrel.

    :D

    I say what I see!
    If that's not a link to Roy Walker or Catchphrase I'm gonna be mightily annoyed.

    I'm an appeaser, Lutzie!
  • UncleLou Moderator 7 Jan 2009 21:26:02 35,423 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Lutz wrote:
    UncleLou: Dunno! Something like English I guess! What about Russian?

    Three genders, I am afraid.

    Papiamentu would have been an option, of course. :)
  • Lutz 7 Jan 2009 21:27:51 48,854 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Three? Greedy fuckers.
  • Page

    of 13 First / Last

Log in or register to reply