DeMotivators

[RealMcCoy]

[RealMcCoy]

[IPD]

*peoples'

[HilbillyHomeboy]

*peoples'

Concerning the typical plural possessor, yes. However, people is a plural noun not ending in s, and is therefore one of the exceptions to the rule. The apostrophe comes before the s to show possession (people's, children's, men's).

Jeremy

[Echo419]

F*ck English

[Vantage]

Concerning the typical plural possessor, yes. However, people is a plural noun not ending in s, and is therefore one of the exceptions to the rule. The apostrophe comes before the s to show possession (people's, children's, men's).

Jeremy

[DrGonzo]

F*ck English

I have to agree here. The english language is way over complicated. I could care less where the apostrophe is at or if I use the right version of a word. If you don't understand what I mean, then stay the fuck out of my conversation. I have much more important things to worry about....

[HilbillyHomeboy]

[Echo419]

[IPD]

So that's where they left HER.

Concerning the typical plural possessor, yes. However, people is a plural noun not ending in s, and is therefore one of the exceptions to the rule. The apostrophe comes before the s to show possession (people's, children's, men's).

Jeremy

Except that in this case, the intent was referring to peoples in GENERAL, not people--as a subset of a larger group. So I stand by my assertion that it should be peoples'.

I have to agree here. The english language is way over complicated. I could care less where the apostrophe is at or if I use the right version of a word. If you don't understand what I mean, then stay the fuck out of my conversation. I have much more important things to worry about....

Rightly, I don't normally care...but if someone is going to bring up the topic of grammar nazi's...I'm going to nit pick about every minutia of their rant. Because trolololollol. And since you violated yet another one, here for your edification: