Talk:they's

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

they's

Another entry with the apostrophe s - 's. --Jackofclubs 16:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But we have they're, we're, one's, she's, and all the apostrophe forms you'd expect for common pronouns. Why pick on this one? Equinox ◑ 19:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Imagine a student of English encountering any of these (say, in a novel with dialogue) the first time, especially the nonstandard ones. He enters the term. What should the student find? That we don't have anything? DCDuring TALK 19:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep, AFAICT the exclusion for 's is Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2007-07/exclusion of possessive case, but this obviously does not apply. Same for we's below. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 00:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep, as per DCD and Bequw. I see no reason at all to forego this entry. Same goes for "we's" below. -- ALGRIF talk 16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep, nonstandard? Yes, but everyday English nonetheless. Mglovesfun 20:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep for many reasons. (1) It is nonstandard, so we need to say such somewhere in the dictionary. At an entry of the same name is most sensible. In this respect it could be considered idiomatic. (2) Many of us consider pronouns to be an exclusion of the possessive case restriction as mentioned by Bequw, and that by course all concatenations of pronouns should be listed. DAVilla 12:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Kept. —Ruakh_TALK 17:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)