Possessive apostrophes

[proximalhumerous]

Have I inferred correctly that, in cases where a singular noun ends in 's', some people seem to think that putting an apostrophe after the word makes it plural, even if no possession is applied?

For example, "I put all your syllabus' in a drawer."

Or, "All the cactus' are sitting on the windowsill."

In other words a complete misunderstanding of the rule.

I think I find things like this (and the classic "between him and I") more irritating than when people ignore all the rules.

I know it's nothing to do with possession! It's people confusing where you put an apostrophe with a plural noun and thinking the apostrophe itself makes the word plural so using it with the singular form of the noun to form a plural - which it doesn't.

I don’t think I have ever seen someone add an apostrophe under the impression it pluralises a singular noun (though obviously other depressingly frequent abuses of the apostrophe exist). Where are you seeing this? On Mn?

I know! They're not rocket science!

I mean, obviously I’ve seen ‘potato’s’, and ‘I’ve met lots of little Archie’s’ but that’s not what you’re talking about.

No. Gin and posting doesn't mix.

@thinkfast , OP is posting about people using an apostrophe thinking it makes a plural noun, e.g. bus (singular), bus' (plural).

It doesn't make the noun a plural, and the example OP gave it's not misusing 1. or 2.

The misuse is that the person thinks that bus' is the plural of bus.

Yes, on MN amongst other places. Something like "the syllabus' were on the desk".

@sesquipedalian , a better way is to avoid using contractions, then you would only be using them to indicate possession.

Yes! This is what I'm talking about.

Ah, ok. I’ve never seen that mistake before.

I see this a lot OP on social media. “We’ve had so many virus’ lately”. I think the people acknowledge pluralising something ending in S isn’t easy, so guess. I also see people do it with their surnames. “The Tomkins’ have had a nice Easter”.

Yes, it's worse because it displays such a fundamental misunderstanding of what's going on with the - really pretty straightforward, primary-level - grammar.

Do people not get taught this at school?

Yes, in early primary.

That's what I thought.

I think this stems from the attempts by grammarians like Dr. Johnson, who set out to improve the English language by using Latin as their model (the 'perfect language).
These sorts of errors seem to me to be evidence of Anglo-Saxon English asserting itself, and rejecting the sometimes awkward and arbitrary rules Johnson etc al tried to impose. Like weeds growing up through the patio slabs!
Example: the split infinitive. 'To go boldly.' Other pedants will doubtless be along soon with other examples of their own.
'

The Latin plurals problem (stadium --- stadia, etc.) is symptomatic of a lack of understanding of the etymology of these words. Anyone who does have that knowledge will take a pride in getting it right, even if the rest of the world continues to get it wrong quite merrily.
Come the revolution, this will be one of the first items on my agenda .. LOL 😂

Exactly.

What I can't understand is that the very same people have an innate and intuitive grasp of emojis and the like, and yet fail to grasp the far simpler concept of the apostrophe! Must be apathy or indifference.

Lynne Truss is very insightful on the subject of the apostrophe. She predicts its demise and then resurrection, as it dawns on Gen-Alpha that they are really very useful little chaps. 😂

eat's gra's's and leave's

sorry, I mean 'sorry

shoots not grass

The grocer's apostrophes need to be random e.g. menswear, ladie's wear and childrens cloth's.