Context, ie, a url, is particularly important for determining what the standard equivalent definition is.
I'd also like to ask that you consider ing me out of courtesy, as I check Wiktionary well less than once a week. We consider all terms individually on their merits.
How many more references you want, by the way? I dispute that the vote on possessives is relevant, because this isn't just the addition of an apostrophe, s or combination thereof, it's also the change of "you" into "your".
The quote didn't show up for the cite and I couldn't refind it by searching for the passage. I agree.
On the firstthree of these are prescriptivist grammarians complaining about the usage, one is an Urban Dictionary entryand the remainder are genuine uses of these. Its being a non-standard form of colloquial Glory hole place remains to be shown. If your English is that great then why do you keep asking "what does DOG mean in this sentence?
Specifically unto this case: yes, we should include this entry, as any dictionary ought to contain the entirety of a language, erroneous elements and all; however, a dictionary ought also to tag such entries as incorrect, and your guys thoughts a usage note explaining why. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel thiughts to discuss its conclusions. We do not, as far as I can see, have entries for the possessive forms of any other words, under the assumption, I assume, that people know how to form possessives be it by using the correct rules or not.
I can't imagine how one could justify deletion, other than a strong dislike of the term; but since it's happened before, I'm making myself very clear. I think Thoughtw demonstrated below that " your guys's " horny tall ladies a possessive of " you guys ", and we currently don't have an entry yet demonstrating that " your guys " exists as a subject or object pronoun at all although it may well exist: all the literal uses make searching difficult.
One can watch this in action today, as "their" becomes increasingly acceptable as a third-person singular possessive. Me, I disagree with several of its prescriptions: they don't match what I was taught, I don't use them, and I'm not going to switch to them just 'cause it says so. Actually some of the points on Talk:alot that haven't been brought up here are valid in this instance too. Now, ESL learners might get some colloquial English instruction, like how to understand the deviations from the literary standard that everyday speakers prefer, but a kid in elementary school learns that by himself; school is where people are drilled with all sorts of silly rules from what is seen to be the literary standard, like not ending sentences with prepositions, avoiding "hopefully", and writing just an apostrophe even when swinging couples in theater say "'s".
DA Muro. We don't even have the proper possessive form of you guys why do we have the improper one?
And I hope that doesn't sound like a hair-splittingly quibbling difference. Whatever the outcome thereof, your guys's should not be in Wiktionary.
Several of these note that "you guys's" is another form, though it's far less alexandria black with 47 k. Share your thoughts, experiences and the tales behind the art. The term is non-standard. What I am not getting? You only?
I look for sexual encounters
I am actually offended that the "non-standard" tag was removed, which ultimately is what brought this to an RFV and continues to evoke my suggestion that it should be deleted. The inclusion rules are for what people use, and there are enough cites to meet RFV already on the.
It's easy to remember that "my parents' house" is correct, because that's the way I pronounce it. That means that one authority may say that "Charles's tonsils" is correct, and another may say that "Charles' tonsils" is correct.
Calling something "non-standard" in this context is inaccurate anyhow. If we are to have an entry there, it must be painfully clear that it cannot be spelled that way. Re-reading all that is there, it is clear that the only supportive arguments put forth for retaining the entry were based on bad comparisons e. The fact that we are having this discussion proves that Wiktionary has lots of ridiculous entries.
And I don't understand what's so unusual about asserting the existence of words, language, etc. Seuss'" as an example of african masseuse word ending in -s that doesn't add an s, yet Seuss's gets 1, Thougths Books hits. I'll be embarrassed to call myself a wiktionarian with this hideous word lurking around.
I did not assert that English has no rules -- I said that a strict descriptivist would, and even that statement was qualified. This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. What is IIRC? I thought words weren't to be deleted for prescriptivist reasons.