Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2016 July 25

Language desk
< July 24	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 26 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 25

Sand Fire

We have an article called Sand Fire. That is the name of the fire according to reliable sources. Isn't one of the understandings of that word combination that sand is burning? Shouldn't we correct that misunderstanding, in the article? At this source I find "Fighting the fire -- named for the area's Sand Canyon -- is a challenge, said Nathan Judy, fire information officer..." I am arguing that that language should be included. I think this is a question involving language. Bus stop (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

"Sand Fire" means "Sand Canyon Fire" in about the same way that "pommes frites" means "pommes de terre frites".

—Wavelength (talk) 04:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC) and 04:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC) and 05:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Duckduckgo has search results for "sand canyon fire".

—Wavelength (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:MOSNAME says that the name of the article should be the name used in the majority of reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 09:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The name of the article can be addressed but that isn't what my question is about. My question concerns advising the reader that sand is not on fire in this event. Bus stop (talk) 10:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't the lead paragraph make this perfectly clear? If not, then how would you suggest that we improve it? Dbfirs 14:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is fine, now. Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad the article was improved, but I think we can assume that our readers will know a few non-culturally-specific facts about the world, such as the fact that sand does not burn. I don't think the article was ever "misleading" about that. --Trovatore (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I thought that sand burned. Or at least I considered that possibility. I first saw news stories about it on Google News a couple of days ago. I wondered if Wikipedia had an article on the topic. I began looking at news stories to clear up what I found to be a slight question in my mind. It crossed my mind that perhaps these were Oil sands. I may not be typical of all readers. But, on the assumption that I am typical of all readers, I wished the article to speak to those with a similar question in their minds. Bus stop (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I just "researched" it: oil sands can't burn.[1] Bus stop (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

How to Layout

Someone advised me to give a bit of other characters information (in the book that I'm writing) so that an idea is gained of individuals, e.g., who and how they are, and what they are about… I've done it the following way:

Name of the person:

• Date of Birth:

• Birthplace:

• Citizen of:

• _________ (Single/Married)

• Mother/Father of ___ children: ___ Male and ___ Female

I can't put more than this at the moment, I won't see them in the near future either so, what do you guys say? Is it satisfying/sufficient? Shall I put it in a sentence or do it like the way I stated...?

Apostle (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You mean, instead of sentences, you'll just fill in a form? The idea of giving information I think is to personalize characters. I think the reader tends to develop feelings for the characters when their date of birth, birthplace, citizenship, marital status, and the children they may have, are written about in a way that draws the reader into the story. Bus stop (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question. The information you listed is rather superficial; unless the information is in some way important to the story, what you have so far is rather uninteresting. I'd be more interested in knowing the relationships among the characters, their personalities, their moralities and worldviews, what they want, what drives them to do what they do, their flaws, their secrets, etc. If you want to give the characters some concreteness, maybe you can describe their physiques, appearance, ethnic backgrounds, cultural identities, family backgrounds, occupations, interests, and things like that. --72.78.149.18 (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thank you both. -- Apostle (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You might conceivably find this helpful: [2] —Tamfang (talk) 05:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

"It hasn't almost changed", or "it almost hasn't changed": Are both correct?

185.3.144.4 (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Neither sounds right. Can we have the preceding sentences for context? 86.136.177.130 (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Both are grammatical. Both are meaningful. Neither sounds like something that would often be said. What is your intended meaning? --ColinFine (talk) 09:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I might use "it almost hasn't changed", say in the sentence, "Seeing how unarmed blacks are shot by police officers, I am reminded of the days of lynching, it almost hasn't changed at all since then."

But "it hasn't almost changed" could mean it changed a lot or not at all, so isn't very useful. However, I am reminded of the BR English "I don't half fancy her", which has the same problem, potentially meaning he fancies her in any amount other than "half", but was used anyway. StuRat (talk) 14:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• "It hasn't almost changed; it has changed completely."

"It almost hasn't changed, except for the new paint job."

Perfectly grammatical phrases in different contexts with different meanings. μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Can the expression "surrender you" mean: "give you up", and not only "extradite you"?

185.3.144.4 (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. See "Surrender Dorothy". Tevildo (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I think extradition is a form of giving you up. Bus stop (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Extradition has a specific meaning; essentially the transfer (of a person) from one legal authority to another (usually foreign) one. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:58E2:3708:C2A3:B874 (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

They'll knock me for six

In Crime and Punishment, part 2 chapter 1, Raskolnikov says "they'll knock me for six." This is the Penguin Classics translation by David McDuff. Can anyone with access to and understanding of the original Russian give me a literal translation of what Raskolnikov actually says there? This is an idiom from cricket, and I'd be surprised if Dostoevsky was familiar with the game, so it seems more likely that it's an idiomatic translation by McDuff. Thanks, --Viennese Waltz 14:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you point out where exactly in s:Crime and Punishment/Part II/Chapter I? Then it will be easy to find it in s:ru:Преступление и наказание (Достоевский)/Часть II/Глава I. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikisource has that paragraph as "No, it's too much for me . . ." he thought. His legs shook. "From fear," he muttered. His head swam and ached with fever. "It's a trick! They want to decoy me there and confound me over everything," he mused, as he went out on to the stairs—"the worst of it is I'm almost light-headed . . . I may blurt out something stupid . . ."

The Penguin text is at https://books.google.com/books?id=ROi0n7azQwUC&pg=PT147&dq=%22crime+and+punishment%22+%22they%27ll+knock+me+for+six.%22 Naraht (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. This begs the question of why a respected translator like David McDuff would use a clearly anachronistic phrase like "they'll knock me for six", which Raskolnikov would never have uttered, in preference to something more straightforward and believable like "they'll confound me over everything." --Viennese Waltz 06:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

No straight answer, and that particular idiom isn't mentioned, but you might enjoy a discussion of McDuff's boldness, fidelity and transparency in comparison with that by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky as well as Constance Garnett in this article: "Raskolnikov Says the Darndest Things" by Richard Lourie (a translator as well). From the misleading use of "glasnost" (misleading since the 1980s) to "drinking up her stockings" ... ---Sluzzelin talk 07:36, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that interesting link. I like the fact that I've identified another Britishism that, as Lourie notes, would inevitably baffle the Americans. --Viennese Waltz 08:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

It works both ways though; I once bought an American translation of the Iliad which had one of the characters trying to end a dispute between the Greek commanders by shouting "Enough already!". I have never heard anybody use the phrase ""they'll confound me over everything" and I expect I never will. It might be a literal translation but it's not credible that anybody would say it, in the UK at any rate. BTW, the cricket analogy can't be an anachronism, since the sport of cricket has barely changed since the 19th century, although I agree that it would have been unknown in Russia. Alansplodge (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The original passage is «Нет, не по силам…» подумалось ему. Ноги его дрожали. «От страху», — пробормотал он про себя. Голова кружилась и болела от жару. «Это хитрость! Это они хотят заманить меня хитростью и вдруг сбить на всем, — продолжал он про себя, выходя на лестницу. — Скверно то, что я почти в бреду… я могу соврать какую-нибудь глупость…» -- no idiom there, either cricket or non-cricket, so they'll confound me over everything is a fairly accurate translation. --217.140.96.140 (talk) 10:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It may be accurate, but a bad translation, as it's not a phrase used in English in any country that I'm aware of. Translators, unless providing some kind of linear service for academics, need to make their texts accurate but also read well. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Modern Russians don't speak the same language as Dostoevsky characters, same as modern Englishmen don't speak the same language as Dickens characters. It's only fair to translate dated language into dated language. --217.140.96.140 (talk) 13:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm still confused. As an American, I'd've guessed "knocked me for six" had to do with craps. Is this a real term in cricket? μηδείς (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are you confused? I said it was a term in cricket in my original post. Why do you have to question that, thereby implying that I don't know what I'm talking about? --Viennese Waltz 12:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a home run. A ground-rule double is worth 4, I think. --Trovatore (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think they call it a "home run" in cricket, although it's conceptually similar. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not a home run; there's no such thing in cricket. If a batsman hits the ball and it travels over the outer perimeter boundary line of the ground without touching the ground, he scores six runs for his team and six runs attributed to his personal tally. If he and his partner batsman have started to run between wickets (to score runs), they usually stop because there is no point running any more. [They may continue running if there's any doubt about whether the umpire will rule 'Six' - example, where the ball falls very close to the boundary line]. Such a ball is said to have been hit or 'knocked' for six. This is the maximum score that a batsman can achieve from any one ball bowled to him. 'Knocked me for a six' is derived from this cricket expression, and means that the speaker is astonished, taken aback, dumbfounded, speechless. The 'me' here derives from the bowler's perspective - he is taken aback that six runs have been scored from a ball that he hoped would get the batsman out. The expression can also be used where the speaker is laid low by an abrupt medical condition - 'Side effects of that medicine knocked me for a six'. It's infrequently heard these days, and mostly used by the gray haired and older set. Akld guy (talk) 03:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I was imprecise. It's the direct analogue of an (outside-the-park) home run, just as four is the direct analogue of a ground-rule double. I thought my audience would figure it out. --Trovatore (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Not really. A home run results in the batter rejoining the bench, no? Whereas in cricket the two batsmen continue batting after a six. Cricket is a game of wearing down the batsmen. They can be out there batting for hours, and even days. It's tough on them. Akld guy (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a general difference between cricket and baseball, so it doesn't refute the analogy. If you know both games, I really don't think I have to spell the analogy out; it should be clear. --Trovatore (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a general point about an assertion made above, in that This is the maximum score that a batsman can achieve from any one ball bowled to him. is completely incorrect. Batsmen can theoretically score as many runs as they like from any one ball, if they keep running from crease to crease and the fielding side fail to run them out. Overthrows may also contribute to this, and that very article states that There have been at least four instances in Test cricket of eight runs being scored off a single ball. It is not analagous to a home run at all, the differences are stark, so please be careful when attempting to describe subtle aspects of intricate sports that are unfamiliar – we are not here to mislead our readers, neither deliberately nor through ignorance. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You are correct. I meant that, having hit a six, the batsmen can score no more runs from that ball. Akld guy (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It absolutely is analogous to a home run. Just as in baseball, you gain an advantage by batting the ball outside the field of play on the fly — six runs in cricket, one plus however many are on base in baseball. Just as in baseball, you gain an advantage by batting the ball outside the field of play on a hop — four runs in cricket, second base in baseball, plus two bases for anyone on base (so a runner on second or third will score). That is all it takes to be "analogous". Not everything else has to match up; of course there are just inherent differences between the games. --Trovatore (talk) 11:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No, it's completely tenuous and unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The similarity is that the ball gets knocked out of the playing field and runs are scored. How tenuous or unhelpful that commonality is, is a matter of opinion. But in any case, it's not called a "home run" in cricket. Right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's not. I was speaking elliptically and imprecisely, taking for granted that people would understand anyway. A metaphor is like a simile. --Trovatore (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

And cricket is often played on an ellipse-shaped field. But maybe you knew that. :) I would have said a six is "analogous to" a home run in baseball, just as a four is "analogous to" a ground rule double, thus hopefully avoiding the wrath of the cricket nitpickers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

It maybe useful to take a look here [3]. Edmund Patrick – confer 10:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

You can see quite a few sixes in this video of Ben Stokes playing a quite stunningly violent innings a few months back. Amongst the sixes, there's a crowd-pleaser at about 3m 50s --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually this video (30 years old, but I remember it like it was yesterday) is even better, given you can see a reference on-screen to the term we're discussing and see a mightily arrogant example of six-hitting. And that was in the days when sixes in Test cricket were very rare. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

In American English, I think the closest phrase that we would use is "knock someone for a loop": "They knocked me for a loop." —Stephen (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• " "Anecdote alert" alert" alert. When I was a young actor destined to be a star of stage and screen, I played Treplyov in a production of The Seagull. We used what I now guess was a British English translation. The actress who played Zarechnaya bought a translation into American English, and took it to one of the production meetings; whatever the Russian for "it doesn't matter" was given as "no matter". All of us completely naked, as was the custom then, we sat around reading our parts from that translation in American accents, just for the fun of it. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Bedspreads, quilts, duvets, duvet covers, comforters, comforter covers, coverlets, etc.

I am confused by all these terms. Some are presumably synonyms and others are not. I am guessing they vary by if they hang down the side of the bed, if they go all the way to the top of the bed, if they are machine washable, and whether you sleep with them over you or they are purely decorative, but I don't know all the details. If the meaning varies, I would like the US English meanings.

I found this article [4] that describes the difference between a comforter and a duvet/duvet cover. Apparently the comforter is one machine-washable piece while the duvet and cover is like a pillow and pillowcase, where you only wash the cover. I'm not sure if either is supposed to hang down the sides of the bed. But Sears sells "comforter covers", which seems at odds with that definition: [5]. StuRat (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This may be helpful. As may This. As may This (with pictures!). I found these and many more using Google and typing the phrase "bedding glossary" into it. It's also important to remember that language is not always universal and precise; what something is called in one dialect may be slightly different in others, so you may not always get the same exact definition from every source. --Jayron32 16:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

What confuses me is the word "counterpane", as far as I can tell it just means "a kind of quilt/duvet with old fashioned decorations", and yet much seems to be made in some quarters in the UK about the progress from counterpanes to duvets. What, really, is so different about counterpanes to modern quilts apart from having a name that sounds like it should be part of a window? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

To add to the confusion: WP's Counterpane (bedding) is a redirect to quilt -- but dictionaries define it as a bedspread which WP redirects to Bedding. See also Wiktionary: counterpane. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:58E2:3708:C2A3:B874 (talk) 18:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

And then there is the eiderdown. I grew up (in a house with no central heating) sleeping under a sheet, a blanket, an eiderdown and a bedspread. Some people I knew might have called the eiderdown a quilt, and the bedspread a counterpane. There were no duvets in the UK then (when they first appeared they were called continental quilts) - and a comforter was a warm scarf. Wymspen (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with that. An eiderdown is a quilt (the same as those you see in American films) and a bedspread or counterpane is a sort of cover for all the underlying layers, generally made from a soft but heavy cotton fabric called candlewick which you can still buy. Confusingly, I believe some people also called a very thin type of quilt "a counterpane". I first saw a "continental quilt" (duvet) in the 1980s. Alansplodge (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The name "eiderdown" implies it's full of duck feathers. The words "pane" and "spread" imply no filling at all. 86.176.81.152 (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

They were originally filled with the down feathers of the common eider duck (harvested from the nests after the ducklings hatched}. That is now a very expensive luxury item - but the name became generic regardless of the actual filling. Wymspen (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

So what's the difference between an eiderdown and a modern duvet then? They both seem to be bags of feathers (or synthetic equivalent)? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You might find this article enlightening. In the photo, at the foot of the bed is a traditional eiderdown, which has small pockets of down and which doesn't overhang the sides of the bed. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The picture is helpful, thanks. So is the eiderdown always half-length (as in it only covers the bottom half of the bed)? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

That picture is misleading - the eiderdown was for warmth, and was full length. The main difference is that an eiderdown was placed on top of other bedding - a sheet and usually a blanket or two as well. A duvet is meant to go next to the sleeper's body, with no other bedding. Wymspen (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Answering the question from a reasonably experienced personal English English perspective:

• bedspread — a (thin) cover placed over the rest of whatever's on top of a bed; usually decorative and folded down when the bed is in use; [6]
• quilt — a quilted covering, placed over other bedding to keep the bed's occupant warm (duvets were called continental quilts when they first appeared in the UK); [7]
• duvet — a stuffed non-quilted bed covering, usually sewn closed, nearly always the only bed covering used; [8]
• duvet cover — a casing in which to insert a duvet, similar to pillowcases for pillows but with fasteners or buttons to keep the duvet inside;
• comforter — unrecognised bedding term; [9]
• comforter cover — unrecognised bedding term;
• coverlet — another word for bedspread; [[10]
• counterpane — another word for bedspread; [[11]

Bazza (talk) 11:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

From a US English perspective, "duvet" is a highfalutin word for "comforter". Neverthless, here is a useful source:

• "What's the difference between a duvet vs comforter?". Crane & Canopy.

--2606:A000:4C0C:E200:FDA1:29DB:947:2B62 (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Boys' Basketball

Hi again, I've got another possessive question! Normally, I believe if you're talking about a basketball tournament for boys, it'd be "the boys' basketball tournament". (Similarly it'd be "the men's tournament" not "the men tournament".) But I'm frequently seeing it without the possessive on article titles and "official websites".

With Indiana High School Boys Basketball Tournament and New York State Public High School Athletic Association Boys Basketball Championships is the use of Boys correct or should it be Boys' ? Should the official name be preserved as a proper name? - Reidgreg (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This is one of my peeves. I think it's mostly laziness. People can't remember where to put the apostrophe (before or after the s), so they just leave it out. It's sort of the flip side of the greengrocers' apostrophe.

This may be on the way to becoming standard. I think we should try to stop that from happening. --Trovatore (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

How can we stop it? -Can't find article for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Apostrophy's. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1060:FB70:9FFD:8F0F (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:WHAAOE. See Apostrophe Protection Society. Tevildo (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

“ We cannot stem linguistic change, but we can drag our feet. If each of us were to defy Alexander Pope and be the last to lay the old aside, it might not be a better world, but it would be a lovelier language. ” — Willard van Orman Quine

--Trovatore (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's just evolution of usage. Check out the history of Boys Town, Nebraska. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that this one is thanks to a venerable, but truly idiotic, policy of the United States Board on Geographic Names. They incredibly moronically decided quite some time ago, indeed in the 19th century if I'm not mistaken, that possessive apostrophes would be left off of geographic names in general, on the grounds that natural features should not be taken as "belonging" to an individual.

There is nothing whatsoever to be said in favor of this, of course; it has led to such abominations as "Pikes Peak", and in any case it reflects a total misunderstanding of the English possessive, which sometimes refers to a property relationship, but often does not (and in the cases in question usually does not). --Trovatore (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Or Popeyes Chicken. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Or Boys & Girls Clubs of America. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, neither of those is the (direct, anyway) result of the malign dominion of the USBGN. But Boys Town probably is. --Trovatore (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

In "Boys Basketball Tournament", 'boys' is not a plural, but a possessive. If it were a men's league, it would read "Mens Basketball Tournament". They have simply left the apostrophe off, for esthetic reasons. It happens frequently in official names, as well as in headlines and signage: LADIES ROOM, MENS ROOM. In standard text, the apostrophe would probably be added back in. This is not a written rule, just a styles policy that some companies would choose to follow. —Stephen (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's plural, and also possessive. If it were single and possessive, with the apostrophe left off, it'd be "Mans Room" or "Ladys Room". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It can be plural or singular as the context requires. Plurality is not affected by the loss of the apostrophe. When the apostrophe is dropped, the affected word remains a possessive. —Stephen (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I've already agreed that it's a possessive (albeit an apostrophe-free one). A possessive word is either possessive singular or possessive plural. In the particular examples we're talking about, they're all possessive plural. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The apostrophe-less "possessives" in expressions like "Boys Basketball Tournament" are usually construed as attributive usages of (plural) nouns rather than as possessives per se. See Noun adjunct#English, particularly: "Noun adjuncts were traditionally mostly singular (e.g. 'trouser press') except when there were lexical restrictions (e.g. 'arms race'), but there is a recent trend towards more use of plural ones. Many of these can also be and/or were originally interpreted and spelled as plural possessives (e.g. 'chemicals' agency', 'writers' conference', 'Rangers' hockey game'), but they are now often written without the apostrophe, although decisions on when to do so require editorial judgment." Deor (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Darn, so there is some validity to it. I wouldn't mind this so much except that it's influencing high-school students to use that spelling in less-appropriate contexts.
Thanks for the always great and insightful help, and a couple much-needed laughs as well! - Reidgreg (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Deor's explanation is the one I would have given, had not dinner intervened. I'll just point out that the use of an apostrophe to mark an ess as possessive is a modern typesetter's convention that wasn't used in Old English or Chaucer, where, for example, we see "shires" instead of "shire's" on line 15 of the prologue of the Canterbury Tales. English is unique among the PIE languages with this convention. μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)