1: Using an apostrophe before an “s” to pluralise a noun which ends in a vowel is a perfectly acceptable usage.
2: OK, I’ll give you that one. It was a typo.
3: No, I don’t: I think you’re confusing defining and non-defining relative clauses. A defining relative clause, which makes it clear exactly who or what the subject is, does NOT use comma’s: “The dog that/which ate the cat has been shot”.
A non-defining relative clause, which gives extra but inessential information about the subject, requires TWO {count 'em} comma’s: “The dog, that/which ate the cat, has been shot”.
As my sentence was clearly using a defining relative clause {“an {sic} thread which is littered with…errors…isn’t exactly calculated to excite sympathy…”}, no comma was needed.
If you’re still unsure about the difference between defining and non-defining relative clauses, let’s try the sentence your way {read it aloud if it helps}: “A thread, which is littered with major spelling and construction errors {from the title onwards}, isn’t exactly calculated to excite sympathy…” See the difference?
OK, you’ve got one {weak one} from three. The plural of “harpy”, since we’re here, is “harpies”, while “Why don’t cha” {sic} is a question, and needs a question mark. Don’t be afraid to ask if you need help.
No, I was honestly asking those who said something was wrong with the title - I don’t particularly see anything wrong with it. Unconventional maybe, but fine IMHO.
Ya know, I don’t often do this kind of this thing, because I do not possess an overweening desire to be right, but you’re so full of shit it’s coming out your ears, pal.
Which planet do you come from, where one uses an 's with nouns that end in vowels? A search of The Chicago Style Manual, The Element of Style, The Random House Handbook, and the Web reveals nothing of the sort.
And the rules are reasonably clear on that/which. Luminaries such as Frederick Crews and E.B. White remind us that “careful writers go on ‘which’ hunts to remove uncertainties.” So while it may be somewhat accepted usage, it is not the hallmark of a careful writer.
And I shall not deign to refute your grasping and pathetic references to my post. I only brought up yours because when you returned to defend your begonia pissing, you did so with a sentence rife with error.
I can see why you don’t often do this sort of thing: which part of my explanation of the difference between defining and non-defining relative clauses did you not understand?
Still, since you insist:
'Defining Relative Clauses About Things
A/ “which” or “that” as subject of the clause
This is the programme which/that won the prize
We’ll plant new trees to replace the ones which/that fell
“which” is more formal than “that” and less common.’
Oxford Pocket English Grammar, ed. A. J Thompson and A. V. Martinet {1991}
More formal it may be, incorrect it is not. If you are still incapable of grasping this, I am unable to help you further. However, please by all means “deign to refute {my} pathetic and grasping {?} references to {your} post”; I need the entertainment.
As to the sir or madam, I’ll leave you to decide: earlier you complained about the “vultures” and “harpys” {sic} of the Pit. You are of course aware that while vultures can be either male or female, harpies, sui generis, cannot be male. Aren’t you?
Case, you’re right on the pronoun thing, but the apostrophe plural is wrong, wrong, hideously wrong. You may pluralize single letters when they are acting as nouns with an apostrophe (I earned all F’s in grammar back in school), but that’s it.
I just have to hijack my way in here and say to Lefty I am shocked, shocked I tell you to find you referring to someone’s use of language as being in error. I thought there were no rights and wrongs, only inefficiencies.