Women's, Men's... What's wrong with these words?

[dr_mabeuse]

Does anyone now what's wrong with these words? Whenever I type them into any web site that uses what seems to be the standard built-in spell checker, women's and men's are marked as misspelled.

Is there some obscure rule of grammar or orthography that invalidates these words? Some sort of plural possessive thing I'm not aware of? Is it just some kind of system-wide glitch? It happens here on Lit, on Yahoo Mail, on every other site I've tried that has a spell-checker. It doesn't happen in MSWord.

I'd just like to know.

 

[Xelebes]

Just add it to the dictionary.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

My guess is that the spellcheckers are just incomplete, and so I do as the man above me does and add them (if I feel less lazy than normal).

 

[oggbashan]

My guess is that the spellcheckers are just incomplete, and so I do as the man above me does and add them (if I feel less lazy than normal).

By the time I had finished with my original word processing program (run on a 360k floppy on an IBM XT), my additions were twice the number of the entries on the starting dictionary, although many of the additions were place and people names.

Og

 

[Carnevil9]

Possessive pronouns do not normally get an apostrophe (as in "his" or "hers" or "its"). I suppose that rule could be applied to women and men possessives, too, if one were to use them as pronouns.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Possessive pronouns do not normally get an apostrophe (as in "his" or "hers" or "its"). I suppose that rule could be applied to women and men possessives, too, if one were to use them as pronouns.

Womens clothing. Doesn't make any sense.

Women's clothing. We can tell that it's a possessive applying to a general class of people?


Hmmm... Both versions are giving spellcheck the fits.

Hmmm... the word "spellcheck" is giving spellcheck the fits.

 

[TxRad]

It could be a glitch in FireFox's dictionary.

Women's

Men's

Yea to both plus FireFox screws with the spellchecker. Spellchecker isn't a problem once i did an update on the dictionary.

 

[myass_yourhand]

The rule for plural possessive that I learned is:

When the plural does not end in s, the apostrophe and the s is added.

 

[Stella_Omega]

The rule for plural possessive that I learned is:

When the plural does not end in s, the apostrophe and the s is added.

Tah-dah!

 

[myass_yourhand]

Tah-dah!

It's amazing how much you retain when your 6th grade teacher is armed with a ruler.

 

[Guest]

. . . .

 

[myass_yourhand]

Marvelous incentive to learn, yes? Or perhaps not.

(Love your name, by the way.)

It definitely kept my attention.

(Thanks ya!)

 

[3113]

Does anyone now what's wrong with these words? Whenever I type them into any web site that uses what seems to be the standard built-in spell checker, women's and men's are marked as misspelled.

Is there some obscure rule of grammar or orthography that invalidates these words? Some sort of plural possessive thing I'm not aware of? Is it just some kind of system-wide glitch? It happens here on Lit, on Yahoo Mail, on every other site I've tried that has a spell-checker. It doesn't happen in MSWord.

I'd just like to know.

Women is spelled Wimmen
Men is spelled Menn

 

[Stella_Omega]

Women is spelled Wimmen
Men is spelled Menn

Oh there you go, parading your superior intellect in front of the rest of us-- again.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Women is spelled Wimmen
Men is spelled Menn

Only for civilians. In military parlance the male version is 'youse mens' and the female term is "guys". The later is also unisex in more literate units.

At the intellectual peak (psychological operations) the respective terms are 'young studs' and 'our studettes'.

 

[3113]

Oh there you go, parading your superior intellect in front of the rest of us-- again.

And wit. Let's not forget my superior wit

 

[Boxlicker101]

I use both words and never get an objection from Spellcheck. It used to sometimes object to stuff, but I have now cowed it into submission. My Grammarcheck still makes a lot of dumb mistakes though.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Sometimes I will use an unusual word and my Spellcheck will pan it. When that happens, I check with the Online Dictionary and, if it is listed and I'm using it correctly, I keep it in place and add it to the Spellcheck dictionary. If it's not listed by my spelling or another, I keep it in place and add it th the Spellcheck dictionary, figuring I have coined a new word.

One favorite word I coined is "pussiest" meaning having the qualities of an outstanding pussy, such as aroma and beauty and texture, as "Mellissa has the pussiest pussy I know of."

I was writing today and I used the word "lingually" and Spellcheck complained. I looked it up, and it is an adverb meaing with the tongue or tongues. "The lovers greeted each other lingually." I added it to the dictionary.

 

[Handley_Page]

I thought the apostrophe followed the s: Womens'

 

[Stella_Omega]

I thought the apostrophe followed the s: Womens'

no, because "women" is the plural, not "womens"

 

[Selena_Kitt]

no, because "women" is the plural, not "womens"

That one always messes me up for some weird reason. That one and "effect" and "affect." Oh and lie and lay. For an erotic writer, I avoid "lay" like the plague!

 

[myass_yourhand]

That one always messes me up for some weird reason. That one and "effect" and "affect." Oh and lie and lay. For an erotic writer, I avoid "lay" like the plague!

Just remember that Dylan was wrong. It should have been:

"Lie lady lie, lie across my big brass bed."

If he decided to write a (similarly) creepy ballad about a chicken and its egg, it would be:

Lay chickie lay, lay me a big cracked egg.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I really hate sank and sunk. One is active the other passive-- but neither of them sound right to me, ever.

"She sank slowly down over me until my silicone monster had sunk balls-deep in her glistening pussy."

Should it be "had" or "was?"

Or maybe "sopping" instead of "glistening?"

Should I just go on to the next sentence and stop obsessing?

 

[Tio_Narratore]

I really hate sank and sunk. One is active the other passive-- but neither of them sound right to me, ever.

"She sank slowly down over me until my silicone monster had sunk balls-deep in her glistening pussy."

Should it be "had" or "was?"

Or maybe "sopping" instead of "glistening?"

Should I just go on to the next sentence and stop obsessing?

Now you've got me obsessing. If she sank down on your silicone monster, shouldn't your monster have risen balls-high in her glistening pussy? If both sank, were you enjoying yourselves in some sort of space-time comprised of more than the usual four dimensions?

Help me out here, Stella; I'm either confused about, intrigued by, or completely unfamiliar with the nature of spatio-temporal motion in the meta-domain of Lesbos.

 

[sr71plt]

Most spellchecking programs don't account for appostrophes.