I've a doubt for using adjectives in front of nouns in regards dropping the "s"  I'm a translator (PT>EN) and sometimes the following examples pop out:  (single) Patient Chart / Patient's chart  (plural) Program Characteristics / Program's characteristics  I always see some of these without the "s" and my doubt is the correct usage of the "s"/possessive/etc.  Thank you very much.
121547
During my final year at university, I wrote what I thought was a "bachelor thesis". Right before printing it I stumbled upon several documents stating the name "bachelor's thesis".  (Here we do not call it a dissertation just yet, so this question is only about the possessive bachelor's vs. bachelor.) A couple of Google search queries later, I had not found out which of these terms is correct.  Which should I use?
6039
One of the things that makes him great is he brings it every night.   I'm pretty sure it should be that make him in the plural, because one of the things is referring to a lot of things and a lot of things should take a plural verb. But I always hear native speakers in America say it in the singular, so with an s.  Another example:     This is one of the responsibilities that comes with greatness and he understands that.   Native speakers always use the verb in the singular (here, comes) even though [I believe] it is grammatically incorrect to use the singular form of the verb there.
58704
I'd always thought that words like "physics" and "mathematics" were singular: after all, we say "physics is the study of…" etc. But apparently, according to the the comments , each of these words is actually a "plural noun [usually treated as singular]":   (highlighting/ellipsis added by me) (NOAD = New Oxford American Dictionary)  One, Is this categorization valid? That is, is it correct to say, as the NOAD does, that these words are indeed plural (but treated as singular), rather than to say that they are singular? The accepted answer on that question, by user RegDwigнt, has a different analysis that speaks in terms of “news” being "uncountable", "used with singular verbs", and "etymologically, it used to be a plural form", and thereby carefully avoids addressing this issue, of whether these nouns are indeed plural-treated-as-singular. So my question remains.  Two, If so, what makes these words plural? Is it the fact that they end in s? (Surely "bus" is not plural?) Is it history? (Were they used as plural at some time? How far back in history does one go to decide whether a noun is singular or plural?) Is it the fact that they don't have any distinct forms treated as plural?  Most importantly, why do we even have a grammatical category of "plural nouns treated as singular"? What purpose does it serve, and how are such nouns functionally distinguishable from nouns that are actually singular? When/if the reason is history, is there a rationale for saying "plural nouns treated as singular" rather than "singular nouns that were formerly plural"?  Edit: My question isn't just about "-ics" words, but all words in the category "plural nouns treated as singular" (assuming that the category isn't just -ics words).  Edit 2: The image and part "One" of the question were added later; previously I took for granted that the categorization was valid.
83775
In conversation sometimes I’ll say something like this:     What’s that do?   which uses “s” as a contraction for “does”.  Is this a “real” contraction, or is it incorrect usage of a contraction?
7939
I have a question about the following construction and which instance is correct.        Selecting an appropriate study topic(s).   Selecting appropriate study topic(s).      When it is both singular and plural due to the parenthesized optional part, should I use the an because of thinking of what follows as being the singular (that is, study topic)?  Or should I omit the an because of thinking of what of what follows as being in the plural (that is, study topics)?
115249
Can a possessive S be attached to nouns that are not human beings (or animals)?  For example, instead of saying "the back of the chair", can I say "the chair's back"?   I remember learning that not everything can get a possessive s, but this issue is not clear to me.
7612
Possible Duplicate:          Frequently when reading tech articles, I see sentences like "Microsoft have released ..." or "Apple have announced ...". This seems wrong to me because the nouns are singular; Microsoft and Apple are individual companies, even though they refer to groups of people. I have not seen this usage outside of tech journalism, but it's pervasive enough that it makes me wonder: is this actually the correct usage?  As a follow-up question, is it correct to use a plural pronoun for a singular antecedent like this? For example, "Apple has announced they are changing their name to Orange" or "Apple has announced it is changing its name to Orange". The second form seems technically correct but sounds awkward.
28027
Why do British speakers omit the article in constructions like "go to hospital" or "go on holiday"? Pretty much all American speakers would rephrase those as "go to the hospital" and "go on a holiday", I think. Is there any good reason, or forgotten sense behind those words that might explain why the articles are ommitted?  Are there other common constructions other than those two that the British use that drop the article?  EDIT: I just realized per Kosmonaut's comment that Americans do much the same thing with a few nouns, so this isn't all that special.   Do grammaticists designate nouns that can have their article dropped with anything, i.e. do they have anything in common?
46485
If the cricket ground Lord's is a possessive, what if you want to describe something belonging to Lord's? Would you say:     I was very impressed by Lord's's customer services.   It doesn't look right, so what is the correct way of writing it?
80025
Is there a definite rule about the use of articles with the possessive nouns in the plural? One rule says that the article in such a phrase modifies the possessive noun. So, it is correct to say "Peter's book' (not 'the Peter's book") because we do not say 'the Peter'. According to the same rule it's possible to say 'a cat's whiskers' because the article belongs to the word 'cat', not 'whiskers'.   But I've come across the following examples: 'a women's magazine'; 'a wolves' den'; 'a girls' school' and I realize that the article does not belong to the possessive noun any more.  It modifies the 'head'-word like in all ordinary noun phrases as 'an interesting magazine' or 'a prestigious school'. My head is broken, please, help!
36063
The following words and their plurals seem to be somewhat inconsistent:   combo / combos concerto / concertos grotto / grottos / grottoes (?) hero / heros (?) / heroes potato / potatos (?) / potatoes tornado / tornados / tornadoes tomato / tomatos / tomatoes volcano / volcanos / volcanoes   Is there a common source for -s versus -es? With regards to words such as "heros", is it likely to see more words start dropping -es in favor of -s?  (If you have any other good examples of strange plurals from words ending in "o" feel free to edit them into the question.)
49210
I don't think this has yet been covered in .  There was , however, it was not specifically talking about the case where the proper noun ends in a plural noun.  Feel free to vote to close if I am wrong.  What is the correct way to make a proper noun ending in a plural noun ending in an "s" possessive?  This frequently happens with corporations, e.g., "Dunkin' Donuts."  Should one work off of the fact that the entity is singular—suggesting Dunkin' Donuts's—or should one work off of the fact that "Donuts" is plural and ending in an "s"—suggesting Dunkin' Donuts'?  I expect that the answer might depend on dialect because some regions refer to corporations in the singular form ("Dunkin' Donuts is a company") while other regions refer to corporations in the plural form ("Dunkin' Donuts are a company").  I am specifically interested in American English, but would be interested in hearing answers for other dialects too.
115685
How do we pronounce "s" at the end of the word when the next word also starts with "s"? For example,     She has some apples: Do we need to add "s" after has and before   some like "she has s some apples"?      He is single: Do we need to add "s" after is and before single   like "he is s single"?
57199
Where did the practice of using apostrophes for possessive nouns but not pronouns originate?  For example, possessive nouns (both proper and common) are written with a apostrophe before the final s:        Bill’s, not Bills   Sarah’s, not Sarahs   the bear’s, not the bears   the lizard’s, not the lizards      On the other hand, several possessive pronouns do not have apostrophes before the s:        his, not hi’s   hers, not her’s   its, not it’s   theirs, not their’s   ours, not our’s   yours, not your’s      When and where did this usage originate? Was there any technical advantage of this usage?
26401
What is the rule for omitting/including the definite article in the following sentences:     I used to play piano.   I used to play the piano.   I would pick the first sentence, but I've heard people say the second sentence even when they are not referring to a specific piano. Which one is correct?
52580
While I know technically the English language has a distinction because when there's a conflict between the possessive form and a contraction, the contraction wins. That is:   Its is the possessive form of it—and this will presumably be followed by some form of noun spec or something. It's is short for "it is" or "it has" (as in "it's been years since...").   The rule of thumb I use to remember this is that it follows the same pattern as whose and who's, for which the correct use is much more obvious.  While technically I see why there's (ha ha) a distinction, I can't think of any case why it really needs to be there, because for every use of either construct, the meaning intended is usually (if not always) obvious from context. Case in point: many questions and answers written on the Stack Exchange network are written incorrectly, yet nobody notices or cares. (Usually in my case, I default to "it's" then realize I screwed up)  As a single word, I could see why it'd be ambiguous, but I don't see why in typical prose it would matter.  Is there a specific reason for this in earlier dialects of English, or specific cases where choosing the incorrect form leads to lack of understanding of a particular sentence?
66659
Adjectives are placed before nouns. But sometimes I've seen (though I'm not sure if they are correct), things like:     The item placed there   I know that it may be a short way of saying "The item which is placed there".    Is the past participle "placed" considered as an adjective in that sentence? Can any past participle used in this way by ommiting the relative pronoun+subject of the relative clause? Is there any exception for the rule that adjectives must be placed before noun?