John writes…
Can it get worse? Not only did they replace the plural/possessive S with a Z, but they put the apostrophe in the wrong place. Would “kidz’ meal” have been better? No, I don’t think so. I think this might be one situation where you’re better off just leaving the apostrophe off, if you insist on replacing an S with a Z.
#1 by C. on April 16, 2007 - 6:41 am
It seems to me that it would be something of a gray area, as one would, presuambly, be purchasing one meal per kid.
That aside, the ‘z’ thing is just annoyingly twee.
#2 by john on April 17, 2007 - 1:10 pm
Hmmm… I suppose that’s true, it could be a singular kid. But my impression of meals of this sort is that they’re identified as meals to be enjoyed by kids, or meals intended for the youthful populace. It’s a kids’ meal. “A kid’s meal” harkens images of a brown bag lunch. Ah well, it’s open for debate. At least they tried.
#3 by Maurik on May 22, 2007 - 1:12 am
The meal beloning to the child.
Except a Z I don’t see much problem, debatable really.
#4 by Butchieboy on June 15, 2007 - 5:55 pm
Since one child eats one meal, kid is singular. The apostrophe goes before the s. If it were plural, after. Using a z instead of an s is just fucking retardrd.
#5 by Dan P. on June 23, 2007 - 9:49 pm
In this case, with the exception of that pathetic ‘yo, I is down with the kidz, innit?’ z, I’m afraid the sign is correct. It is referring to purchases of A kid’s meal rather than kids’ meals, therefore it is in the singular and should have the apostrophe between the d and s (or z!).
#6 by Roger on March 28, 2011 - 5:55 pm
If you’re going to be pedantic enough to correct someone you should at least make sure that you’re correct.