Grammar Check anyone please?

[Overseasmom100]

is it

over 17 years teaching experience
over 17 years' teaching experience
over 17 year's teaching experience

Thank you

@chomalungma

It's not just a case of whether the meaning is clear or not, though. Good grammar is often used as a marker of someone having a good, well-rounded education

So you can't give me an example.

Why on earth do you feel the need to see instances of incorrect grammar which may or may not end up getting your CV dumped in the bin? Of course good grammar matters. You seem to be attempting to prove that it doesn't.

How old are you?

Are you 1 year old?
17 years old?
50 years' old?

@chomalungma

As a pp has said, application letters with glaring mistakes often don't even get past the first hurdle and securing a job is difficult enough these days without self- sabotaging because of a belief that grammar is not that important

Do you think this example is a 'glaring' mistake?

It's a glaring mistake because it's something so very basic. It's not subjective usage.

Of course we can understand it. We are (presumably) native speakers of English. We can also understand the meaning of "I should of said something". The fact that we understand something doesn't make it correct.

If you change it to one, @Overseasmom100 you’d say
“One year’s experience” (ie the experience belonging to one year)
So logically, “seventeen years’ experience” is correct (just the plural possessive rather than the singular)

You seem to be attempting to prove that it doesn't

I am talking about this particular example - and how it makes no difference to the understanding with years or years'.

And no one can give an example where it makes a difference to comprehension - except to say that it matters on a CV.

I am sure it does.

But can anyone give an example where it makes a difference to the comprehension?

So you can't give me an example.

Well, I could give you hundreds but I am talking about ANY grammatical error (including all the ones on this thread). Any mistake could be the difference between you getting an interview or your letter being tossed in the bin.

It's a glaring mistake because it's something so very basic. It's not subjective usage

Honestly.
Do you think that if you asked most people in the UK who were native speakers to spot the mistake, what do you think they would say?

Well, I could give you hundreds

So can you give me an example?

So can you give me an example?

How about:
17 year's experience instead of 17 years' experience?

17 year's experience instead of 17 years' experience

See - that bugs me more than

17 years experience vs 17 years' experience.

I can't explain why - except because it looks like someone has used an apostrophe to pluralise.

But I am not at all bugged by 17 years experience.

But we're not talking about what bugs you. We are talking about what it would be best to write in a job application letter if you actually wanted to have a chance at getting the job.

@chomalungma

It's a glaring mistake because it's something so very basic. It's not subjective usage

Honestly.
Do you think that if you asked most people in the UK who were native speakers to spot the mistake, what do you think they would say?

They'd understand it. They'd know it was wrong. They'd rightly or wrongly attach the subjective judgement that the writer doesn't know basic English syntax.

@Sometimesonly

But we're not talking about what bugs you. We are talking about what it would be best to write in a job application letter if you actually wanted to have a chance at getting the job.

I am also trying to talk about comprehension though.

Although I would agree that 17 year's experience is still as comprehensible as 17 years' experience.

TBH though - I think that many people wouldn't see 17 years experience as incorrect when written - as it's seen in a lot of written examples that are out there.

They'd know it was wrong

I don't think most people would.

TBH though - I think that many people wouldn't see 17 years experience as incorrect when written - as it's seen in a lot of written examples that are out there.

You're right and, of course, language does change. That doesn't mean that we can just do what we like though - or at least not without consequences. There are loads of posts on mumsnet from parents who have been astonished by the poor grammar in letters coming home from school, for example. Companies who have glaring spelling or grammatical mistakes on their websites are more likely to have customers immediately click away. I know that when I was looking for someone to print my wedding invitations, I did not feel safe entrusting them to someone who advertised their "wedding stationary"!

years'

Considering everything I have said on this thread, I do get annoyed when I walk past this restaurant.

Idk where to start with that pic. The sexism or the grammar? The former would irk me considerably more.

The 17 year’s experience could be a contraction of the 17 year old’s experience, perhaps, at a stretch. For example, ‘I have a 12-year-old and a 17-year-old, the 17 year’s experience in x subject is greatly superior’. It’s obviously still grammatically incorrect.

I agree 17 years experience is written a lot. Either by those, who don’t know the difference or by those, who can’t be arsed to type an apostrophe when chatting on here.... I know I don’t bother. I touch type but have a smaller iPad so the hyphen has to be specifically selected and it automatically usually autocorrects dont to don’t for example.

If we chose a different noun, how about this?

The school years hit.
The school years’ hit.

Teacher of English here. Definitely number 1. A straight forward plural

Awkward

@chomalungma

Considering everything I have said on this thread, I do get annoyed when I walk past this restaurant.

This is sort of what I was talking about - though not quite.

I think sometimes, some people think adding apostrophes, full stops or comma ruins the aesthetics or effects of what they're going for. It can seem a bit cluttered to them

I'm just jumping to conclusions though but I often casually wonder.

@Mummyoflittledragon

Idk where to start with that pic. The sexism or the grammar? The former would irk me considerably more.

What's sexist about that pic? I see it as it's owned by a woman and either: a. Her husband is a fisherman and she's proud of that (What's wrong with that?)

b. She's not some random person who opened a fish and chip shop - her husband is a fisherman so they source their own fish.

c. Both.

Ok, I'm very very wrong according to Google. I still don't fully understand it though. Might be English as a second language thing as to why in some phrases it makes sense to me (a day's work, in 3 years' time etc) and not in this one. Either that or lack of exposure to the correct form.

I’d be very pleased with myself if I could have a discussion on the nuances of a grammatical point in a second language. English is my first language and I don’t fully understand it either . I think SPAG is important and wish my writing was better but these sort of points make my head hurt.

@ClutchingMyPearlsAppropriately

d) This is a woman who’s either being defined or defining herself in relation to her husband. Why can a woman not be a woman in her own right?

Or maybe it’s all ok as he’s named his boat ‘The Chippys husband’.... (apostrophe purposely omitted)?

I seriously doubt that the people who run The Fishermans Wife (sic) are either fishermen or even wives of fishermen. I think it's just meant to evoke an olde worlde feel of the ruddy-cheeked fisherman's wife, cooking up the freshly caught bounty (British of course) which is hauled in by her wooly-jumper wearing, pipe-smoking, cap-donning, white-beard boasting husband before they break into spontaneous sea shanties. Or something like that.