Hoarding is not collection development
Follow us on:
Categories
Making a Collection Count

So Many Me’s

So Many Me’s
Neasi
2003

Submitter: Apostrophes don’t make plurals. (Apostrophe’s don’t make plural’s?) Perhaps the scariest part is that not only did this get published, we’ve had
2 copies in our Early Reader collection for 12 years! Yikes.

Holly: One of my pet peeves is definitely the apostrophe/plural thing! I guess “So Many Mes” would look weird, though. Not sure how to fix this one!

More For the Kids:

Serial Killer Training Manual

Chew On This!

Crazy Alphabet

When Teddy is a Drunk

Cinderella Has Gone to the Dogs

22 Responses to So Many Me’s

  • I think we can agree that Mes is short of a mess….

  • Well, it’s even in the word list, even though me’s is not a word. Even spell check agrees with us on that.

  • So Many of Me” ? maybe? Then they could’ve just named the kid in the book and done it that way? I don’t know. I just tried to look up a rule for this and gave myself a headache. It’s old enough. Weed it and be done. 🙂

  • I think it has been customary to use an apostrophe for the plural of a letter (Z’s) or number (3’s). We speak of the 1920’s. Library catalogs drop the a’s, and’s and the’s. So it’s not incorrect. Spellchecking, texting and keypadding has led to plenty of grammar morphs, most of them crap. But Zs, 3s, and 1920s are improvements. “Me’s” will still need punctuated to be understood.

  • I think I would fix it as “So Many of Me.”

  • The apostrophe misuse is out of control. In business and advertising, it’s so abused that people now seem to disregard the rule. When it comes out in an educational book, it is time to pull out hair. Also I was taught and taught kiddos that the comma not needed before the word: and. Correct is: …the dog, the cat and the rat. NOT: the dog, the cat, and the rat. This is also a really irritating situation. Seems the train has left the station for the comma and apostrophe. I agree. How does one undo all the mistakes being made today? It’s embarrassing.

    • Actually the comma before “and” is not incorrect. It is known as the Oxford comma, which is a comma placed immediately before the coordinating conjunction (usually and, or, or nor) in a series of three or more terms.

    • I always use the Oxford comma. Here is a clear example of why it is necessary:

      “I love my parents, Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty.
      Without the Oxford comma, the sentence above could be interpreted as stating that you love your parents, and your parents are Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty. Here’s the same sentence with the Oxford comma:
      I love my parents, Lady Gaga, and Humpty Dumpty.”

      http://www.grammarly.com/blog/2015/what-is-the-oxford-comma-and-why-do-people-care-so-much-about-it/

    • The Oxford Comma is awesome and totally necessary! *Hugs her poor little Oxford Comma* There, there, there, my sweet baby.

  • Actually, there are a few exceptions to that apostrophe rule, and this one is acceptable for clarity. (However, it’s still not right to say “We’re going to visit the Smith’s.” Ugh. Of course, most certainly, we should never use the apostrophe when “its” is possessive.)

    • I always thought that “We are going to the Smith’s” is correct because the actual meaning is that we are going to the Smith’s house or home. You are not going to the people you are going to their house so it is possessive.

      • The possessive is correct–what’s wrong there is the singular. It’s “We’re going to the Smiths’.”

      • But that would be “we are going to the Smiths’.” Unless there’s only one Smith, and you call him “the Smith.”

      • I believe that if you were going to the home belonging to the Smith family you would write “We are going to the Smiths’.” The house belongs to more than one person with the surname Smith. This is a pet peeve of mine. (I am also a fan of the Oxford comma.

        • Yes, going to the Smiths’ house or I am going to see all the Smiths at their house.

      • Note that you have changed the sentence. Of course, you are right. If you say, “We are going to the Smiths’,” the apostrophe (AFTER the “s”) is correct because, as you said, the word “house” is implied. However, read my sample sentence again. One would not say, “We are going to visit the Smith’s house.” At least, I should hope not.

  • Ew. Even Ewwww. Surely there was a way to write around this error.

  • This needs a little Weird Al –

    https://youtu.be/8Gv0H-vPoDc

  • I hate instructional books like this–no story line, a real stretch to match the illustrations with the title, no charm…but oh, yes!–ALL the vocabulary words!

  • Yes, they are justified in using an ungrammatical apostrophe to make less of a mess of the plural of ‘Me’. You can also legally
    drop it from proper names, especially when they occur in an address, e.g. ‘St Johns Street’. There has been some justified fuss, however, when it’s been dropped from roadsigns here in England.

    (Incidentally Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty ARE my parents and I’m an obese, scantily-clad Peer of the Realm who sings unmemorable songs and keeps falling off walls. It’s a great combination.)

  • I know you’re supposed be consistent with grammar. However, I use the Oxford comma when I think it will make the meaning more clear, such as the Humpty Dumpty example above.

  • My youngest brother had to take this book home and do a report on it in elementary school. Even in first grade, he was annoyed at having to spend all that time with someone with a massive smile talking about “Me! Me! Me!” for a whole book plus the time it took to write out the report.