Inappropriate womens'

Anything about use of this forum : NOT about cycling
Ben@Forest
Posts: 2811
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Inappropriate womens'

Postby Ben@Forest » 30 May 2014, 8:44am

Just to to add to the various sexual (or gender?) politics around women, girls and ladies shouldn't this sub-forum be called 'Women's cycling interests'? The interests being of women rather than womens.

User avatar
BeeKeeper
Posts: 1265
Joined: 29 Apr 2011, 6:45am
Location: South Devon

Re: Inappropriate womens'

Postby BeeKeeper » 30 May 2014, 8:48am

Oops, well spotted. " Women" is plural so the apostrophe should come before the "s".

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14160
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: Inappropriate womens'

Postby gaz » 30 May 2014, 7:45pm

Surely the matter being discussed is not an inappropriate ' but a misplaced ' :wink: .
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 9937
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: Inappropriate womens'

Postby 661-Pete » 12 Jun 2014, 1:41pm

I sincerely trust that none of the 'womens' that post on here are 'inappropriate'... :lol:
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1261
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:27pm
Location: Lancing, West Sussex
Contact:

Re: Inappropriate womens'

Postby admin » 13 Jun 2014, 4:39pm

Fixed to have apostrophe in the correct place.

User avatar
Graham
Moderator
Posts: 6489
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:48pm

Re: Inappropriate womens'

Postby Graham » 16 Jun 2014, 5:20pm

My mistake !
Yet more evidence that my brainpower is diminishing. . . . despite all the oily fish ( mmmm !! )
Not only did I get it wrong at the time, but I cannot even see why it was wrong prior to correction. :oops:

Edwards
Posts: 5981
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Inappropriate womens'

Postby Edwards » 17 Jun 2014, 1:16pm

661-Pete wrote:I sincerely trust that none of the 'womens' that post on here are 'inappropriate'... :lol:


661-Pete wrote:I sincerely trust that none of the 'womens' that post on here are 'inappropriate'... :lol:


The new bit is doing a good job if it can misplace inappropriate people. :)

I could volunteer one inappropriate one with a Hobby Horse. :wink: :roll:
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1261
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:27pm
Location: Lancing, West Sussex
Contact:

Re: Inappropriate womens'

Postby admin » 30 Jun 2014, 12:51pm

Graham wrote:Not only did I get it wrong at the time, but I cannot even see why it was wrong prior to correction. :oops:


"Women" is already plural, so the "s" is not there to make the noun plural, it's there to show possession. So the apostrophe comes before the "s".

The plurals of these words are formed by changing the word, so the possessive adds apostrophe-s:

Woman, woman's; women, women's
Man, man's; men, men's

These words' plurals are formed by adding "s", so the possessive form adds a following apostrophe only:

Cyclist, cyclist's; cyclists, cyclists'
Dog, dog's; dogs, dogs'

User avatar
Graham
Moderator
Posts: 6489
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:48pm

Re: Inappropriate womens'

Postby Graham » 30 Jun 2014, 9:23pm

Wow, thanks. I don't think I ever knew that.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10798
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Inappropriate womens'

Postby Cunobelin » 30 Jun 2014, 9:45pm

I am so disappointed...

I was wondering just how inappropriate these women were!

Edwards
Posts: 5981
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Inappropriate womens'

Postby Edwards » 1 Jul 2014, 10:31pm

Cunobelin wrote:I am so disappointed...

I was wondering just how inappropriate these women were!


If only we knew. :wink:
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar