Is there any way to get people to reply to theology posts, except by including incorrect plurals? :)

[jack]

Is there any way to get people to reply to posts about theology, except by including incorrect plurals in them? :)

Comments

[pseudomonas]

People are far too sensible to argue theology. It's all about how many seraphims can dance on the head of a pin, right?

[jack]

Hold on, something about that's not quite right... I actually had to look twice to notice what was wrong :)

[pseudomonas]

;)

[ptc24]

It's interesting to see how wikipedia treats the issue.

[ghoti.livejournal.com]

:)

[andrewducker]

Seraphen, surely?

[gerald_duck]

None, if the pin is sans seraph.

Yes, I gritted my teeth at the bogus pluralisation. Just as I did when I heard " childs' " on Radio 4 the other day.

[jack]

when I heard " childs' " on Radio 4 the other day.

Stupid question, how could you tell if it was "child's" or "childs'"?

[gerald_duck]

OK. Strictly speaking, they were talking about things of-more-than-one-child and said something which sounded like "childs". I took it as an error of pluralisation, but I guess it could alternatively have been an error of number. It certainly wasn't correct!

[jack]

Oh, sorry, got you, I assumed "child's" might be grammatical but of course it isn't. I go sort of plural-blind looking at "children" it has nearly three plural suffices already and I forgot they weren't all already there in this case :)