Any grammar nazis around today?

[dustiseverywhere]

Please help me to solve an argument at work where we need to put a line on a website that starts:

"Pursuing children's interests helps to....."

Or should it be

"Pursuing childrens' interests helps to...."

I thought I was good at grammar but I think it's the second one but everyone else thinks it's the first one

It's the first one. The interests belong to the children, not the childrens. Childrens isn't a word, as children is already the plural of child.

children's

Children’s

"grammar nazis" is a pejorative term used of those who correct others on their language uninvited and often with adherence to ridiculous rules of style (eg don't split an infinitive).

Better to ask for the help of grammar pedants - some of them hang out here --> www.mumsnet.com/Talk/pedants_corner

I agree it's "children's", by the way.

(and I'm aware of the irony of my picking up on your choice of vocabulary, but "nazi" is somewhat offensive).

Children’s

Agree it's children's. Children is the plural of child.

Best report your thread to MN and ask them to change Nazi to something less inflammatory, before it gets filled up with complaints about its use.

It’s children’s because the word children is already a plural. If it wasn’t already a plural and you mean more than one has possession then the apostrophe goes after the s ie. the dog’s bowl (one dog) vs the dogs’ bowl (more than one).

Or you could just word it "Pursuing the interests of children helps to....". Less clumsy.

I was going to say that too, RatherBeRiding. At the moment, it sounds very clunky and unprofessional.

Yep, children's.

It's the first one.

Children’s. Autocorrect will tell you that, you didn’t need my first in English literature .

And don't call me a nazi. Being correct doesn't make me a nazi.