# One Brit, two Brits, or two Brit's?



## Full Tilt Boogie

<< This thread began as an off-topic discussion in British (people) >>



novice_81 said:


> Hi
> 
> _It was a typical conversation between two British (people)._
> 
> Do I need to add "people" at the end?
> 
> Thanks



Three options:

1. '...between two British people' - correct.

2. '...between two Brit's' - informal/slang.

3. '...between two Britons' - correct.



Illuminatus said:


> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/britisher



Like I said, "Other than in certain countries' colloquial slang, or vernacular, there is no term 'Britishers'."

Your source is Webster's, the US dictionary; and having worked and lived there, I've never heard the term used outside Hollywood's 're-enactments' and portrayals of their War of Independence and naval parlance. Webster's has first-use source as 1829. Now it may have been in reasonable usage around that time (after all the war of 1812 was still fresh in their mind), but I would not recommend it for anything like modern-day use.


----------



## Cenama

hello Full Tilt Boogie,

Just one question, why the apostrophe in 2. '...between two Brit's'. As far as I can see it´s not a possesive just a plural, right?

1 brit
2 brits


----------



## Nunty

Cenama said:


> hello Full Tilt Boogie,
> 
> Just one question, why the apostrophe in 2. '...between two Brit's'. As far as I can see it´s not a possesive just a plural, right?
> 
> 1 brit
> 2 brits



I am sure it is a typo. Plurals are not formed with an apostrophe.


----------



## Full Tilt Boogie

Cenama said:


> hello Full Tilt Boogie,
> 
> Just one question, why the apostrophe in 2. '...between two Brit's'. As far as I can see it´s not a possesive just a plural, right?
> 
> 1 brit
> 2 brits



The apostrophe is used in this sense as we've removed letters from the complete word (British) and contracted it to Brit's.

Technically, were we to use the rules governing an apostrophe's use, and somewhere where the _über_-pedants have a field day, you could (although it would jar to read) write Brit's' - but that is completely unnecessary.



Nun-Translator said:


> I am sure it is a typo. Plurals are not formed with an apostrophe.



See the above


----------



## panjandrum

Full Tilt Boogie said:


> The apostrophe is used in this sense as we've removed letters from the complete word (British) and contracted it to Brit's.
> 
> Technically, were we to use the rules governing an apostrophe's use, and somewhere where the _über_-pedants have a field day, you could (although it would jar to read) write Brit's' - but that is completely unnecessary.
> 
> 
> 
> See the above


Sorry, but that is not correct.
If you are working in a context where it is OK to describe someone as a Brit, then the plural is Brits, not Brit's.


----------



## Benedicentis

Just because you shorten something does not mean you need an apostrophe. "Brits" is the proper plural, as it is the plural of "Brit", which does not inherently have an apostrophe. But we're off subject. 
The answer to the original question is that you cannot say "It was a conversation between two British", as "British" is an adjective and not a noun.


----------



## Full Tilt Boogie

Or simplify the entire thing and use _Britons_, where you don't want to use the informal.

Guys, 'Brits' (as you would have it, sans apostrophe), in this context, is a contraction of either 'British People/Persons' or 'Britons' - therefore there is a whole raft of letters being removed; hence the use of the apostrophe.

Whilst I understand that the modern vogue might be to remove, as being "unnecessary" or troublesome, the apostrophe from all use, it's a vital wee tool


----------



## Benedicentis

It's not a contraction; it's an abbreviation. If you would have "Brit" as an abbreviation of anything, there is still no need to add an apostrophe to make it plural. I encourage you to find examples of grammatically reliable sources referring to multiple British people as "Brit's".


----------



## Full Tilt Boogie

Benedicentis said:


> It's not a contraction; it's an abbreviation. If you would have "Brit" as an abbreviation of anything, there is still no need to add an apostrophe to make it plural. I encourage you to find examples of grammatically reliable sources referring to multiple British people as "Brit's".




From the OED:

*contraction*


  • *noun* *1* the process of contracting. *2* a shortening of the muscles of the womb occurring at intervals during childbirth. *3* *a word or group of words resulting from contracting an original form.*

No one is suggesting the use of an apostrophe, in this context, for pluralising anything else. Where that came from, I don't know.

Both British and Britons [and even British people/persons] are already plural nouns, so no one's suggesting pluralising an already plural noun.


----------



## panjandrum

This discussion is irrelevant and off topic.
Brit, where it is used, is not written Brit'.
It is totally misleading to suggest that anyone who would refer to Britons as Brits should write Brit's.
That would be equivalent to suggesting that the plural of taxi is taxi's ... or the plural of pram is pram's.


----------



## ewie

Or that I take a _'bus_ to work, or that I was set upon by a _mob'_.


----------



## Arrius

In the film "Lawrence of Arabia" Anthony Quinn as a wild tribal chieftain addresses Peter O'Toole/Lawrence as "British!", the intention of the scriptwriter being to use an incorrect form to stress how uncouth the Arab is.
PS 'bus, though rare, is perfectly alright (all right) as you must know,* Ewie*, as a short form for omnibus, as are both 'plane and 'phone. Mob comes from mobile, but I've never seen it with an apostrophe.


----------



## Full Tilt Boogie

panjandrum said:


> This discussion is irrelevant and off topic.
> Brit, where it is used, is not written Brit'.
> It is totally misleading to suggest that anyone who would refer to Britons as Brits should write Brit's.
> That would be equivalent to suggesting that the plural of taxi is taxi's ... or the plural of pram is pram's.



Please read what was/is written above.

I never alluded, suggested or hinted that Brit (singular) carried an apostrophe.

The original question involved a 'typical' conversation between _two_ Brit's (plural).

Brit's is an abbreviation of Britons: ergo Brit's.

And your examples of 'Taxi' and 'Pram' are incorrect; as they are both complete words (albeit, etymologically, latter day contractions of originally longer words) _and_ stand-alone nouns: 'Brit' is neither.


----------



## panjandrum

Full Tilt Boogie said:


> Please read what was/is written above.
> 
> I never alluded, suggested or hinted that Brit (singular) carried an apostrophe.
> 
> The original question involved a 'typical' conversation between _two_ Brit's (plural).
> 
> Brit's is an abbreviation of Britons: ergo Brit's.
> 
> And your examples of 'Taxi' and 'Pram' are incorrect; as they are both complete words (albeit, etymologically, latter day contractions of originally longer words) _and_ stand-alone nouns: 'Brit' is neither.


Brit, taxi and pram are of approximately the same age.

None of these should have an apostrophe in the plural form.


----------



## Nunty

One Briton. Two Britons.
One Brit. Two Brits.

Seems pretty straightforward.


----------



## xqby

Arrius said:


> Mob comes from mobile, but I've never seen it with an apostrophe.


 
I think it's because we imported the word from Latin by contracting it, as opposed to importing it and then contracting it. Sequences!

Probably even worse in terms of being off topic, but what would be the plural possessive of "Brit's," Brit's'?


----------



## Full Tilt Boogie

panjandrum said:


> Brit, taxi and pram are of approximately the same age.
> 
> None of these should have an apostrophe in the plural form.



No they are not 'approximately the same age' - nothing like it.

Taxi is an abbreviation of the French _taximètre -_ itself a conjunction of_taxe_ ‘tariff’ + _mètre _‘meter’_. _Now when this word came into being no one referred to Britons as 'Brits'.

Likewise, perambulator, from which we get 'pram' has its origins in Latin, via old formal French - and is not a contemporary of 'Brits'. It is a latter day construction; and by latter day, I mean post-1820.

The current rules of apostrophe usage militate that where you remove letters, an apostrophe is inserted: Britons therefore becomes 'Brit's'.

The above said, I have no doubt that, at some stage in the future, the apostrophe will disappear as the word 'Brits' passes into the vernacular - as it already appears to have done with some of you.


----------



## panjandrum

Full Tilt Boogie said:


> No they are not 'approximately the same age' - nothing like it.
> [...]


The Oxford English Dictionary lists the first occurrences of these three as:
Brit - 1901
taxi - 1907
pram - 1884

I think within twenty years of each other counts as "approximately the same age".


----------



## Full Tilt Boogie

panjandrum said:


> The Oxford English Dictionary lists the first occurrences of these three as:
> Brit - 1901
> taxi - 1907
> pram - 1884
> 
> I think within twenty years of each other counts as "approximately the same age".



Then someone needs to inform Charles Dickens as to the latter two


----------



## xqby

Oh dear, we may need a third thread if you two keep this up.

Apostrophes are needed for _combining _words by contraction, not for just contracting words. There are some contractions where it just wouldn't be plausible anyways, like "Aussie." Where would your mark go?

Same thing with contractions by acronym: a DVD, a pair of DVDs. Doing it your way just looks silly; you seriously insist on "the Brit's's trousers"?

I keep looking at the thread title and thinking "One Brit two Brit red Brit blue Brit."


----------



## Full Tilt Boogie

xqby said:


> Oh dear, we may need a third thread if you two keep this up.
> 
> Apostrophes are needed for _combining _words by contraction, not for just contracting words. There are some contractions where it just wouldn't be plausible anyways, like "Aussie." Where would your mark go?
> 
> Same thing with contractions by acronym: a DVD, a pair of DVDs. Doing it your way just looks silly; you seriously insist on "the Brit's's trousers"?
> 
> I keep looking at the thread title and thinking "One Brit two Brit red Brit blue Brit."



That's because 'Aussie' is not, primarily, a contraction, just as 'Yank' is not a contraction of American:



			
				OED said:
			
		

> *Aussie*
> 
> (also *Ozzie*)
> • *noun* (pl. *Aussies*) & adjective informal Australia or Australian.



Edit: And as for DVD (as with DNA), these abbreviations have passed into the vernacular as time-saving devices - ask anyone outside the 'business' what DVD actually stands for and I think you'll be amazed at how many don't have a clue. They know it's got something to do with 'disc'. 

And as for the example you offer above, I doubt there would a massive number of opportunities where nationality might be required to denote ownership of a pair of trousers where "that guy's pants" might not suffice. And if it were required, then, to obviate any confusion, I'd simply write "the Briton's trousers".

Job done.


----------



## Nunty

Full Tilt Boogie said:


> That's because 'Aussie' is not, primarily, a contraction, just as 'Yank' is not a contraction of American:



Right.

Aussie is to Australian as Brit is to Briton.

Q.E.D.


----------



## Full Tilt Boogie

Nun-Translator said:


> Right.
> 
> Aussie is to Australian as Brit is to Briton.
> 
> Q.E.D.



No it's not: Aust is to Australian as Brit is Briton.

I'd be careful doling out quod erat demonstrandum


----------



## xqby

Full Tilt Boogie said:


> And as for DVD (as with DNA), these abbreviations have passed into the vernacular as time-saving devices


 
How is this any different from Briton becoming Brit? If this is you conceding that we use "two DVDs," how is that different from "two Brits"?



Full Tilt Boogie said:


> I'd simply write "the Briton's trousers".


 
But they'd also be the Brit's trousers because the singular possessive still works?

And yeah Australian : Aussie :: Yank : American is a pretty silly straw man, Australian : Aussie :: Yank : Yankee.
We're clearly Yanks, not Yank's.



Full Tilt Boogie said:


> No it's not: Aust is to Australian as Brit is Briton.


 
Huh? Contractions aren't _always _formed by omitting the last syllable(s).


----------



## gasman

> just as 'Yank' is not a contraction of American:



Well actually, it is a contraction of Yankee, and the Yankees were, and are, most certainly Americans, just as Aussie is a contraction of Australian, and they are most certainly Australians! The odd thing about this discussion is that very few times do discussions arise about Britons-who more usually refer to themselves as English, Scottish, Irish, or Welsh individually. In fact some are more likely to be even more specific, and call themselves by the name of the region, within the country, where they were born, such as Cockney, Cornish, Highland etc..


----------



## Full Tilt Boogie

xqby said:


> How is this any different from Briton becoming Brit? If this is you conceding that we use "two DVDs," how is that different from "two Brits"?



Because DVD is not only an abbreviation, it's a wholesale acronym. And again, I never posited that Briton [singular] cannot become 'Brit'.





			
				xqby said:
			
		

> But they'd also be the Brit's trousers because the singular possessive still works?



If singular, yes.

I think the very fact that we're having this discussion might suggest that, to avoid any confusion, especially to the non-native English speaker, you avoid using abbreviations and slang in the possessive. Yank is [albeit slang] a stand-lone singular noun which allows itself to be drawn in the possessive, e.g. the Yank's pants; the Yanks' (or Yank's', depending on your style _alma mater_) pants.



			
				xqby said:
			
		

> And yeah Australian : Aussie :: Yank : American is a pretty silly straw man, Australian : Aussie :: Yank : Yankee.
> We're clearly Yanks, not Yank's.



See above.



			
				xqby said:
			
		

> Huh? Contractions aren't _always _formed by omitting the last syllable(s).



I know.


----------



## Benedicentis

When you simply "contract" a word, it's an abbreviation. Thus my differentiation between contraction and abbreviation. "Don't", "I'm" "you're", "I'd": these are contractions - two words combined into one with an apostrophe.

Shortening one word - or abbreviating it - does not require an apostrophe, however - lest we come across words like xqby's suggested "Aussie" written as "Aus'sie." It's not two words put together; merely, it's an abbreviation of Australian.

It is for this reason that shortening - or abbreviating - Britons requires no apostrophe, as it is not a contraction, but an abbreviation.


----------



## JulianStuart

Full Tilt Boogie said:


> No it's not: Aust is to Australian as Brit is Briton.
> 
> I'd be careful doling out quod erat demonstrandum



Don't mess with a militant "apostophophile"!

Actually, Australi is to Australian as Brit is to Briton (lop off last two letters, or syllable) but Australi is too much of a mouthful, so it's shortened to Aussie, both for euphony and affection.

Seriously, I think a lot of us feel Brit is now a word in its own right and it would be, at the very least, old-fashioned to write Brit'  .  And remember, when enough of us are wrong, we're right!


----------



## Full Tilt Boogie

Benedicentis said:


> When you simply "contract" a word, it's an abbreviation. Thus my differentiation between contraction and abbreviation. "Don't", "I'm" "you're", "I'd": these are contractions - two words combined into one with an apostrophe.
> 
> Shortening one word - or abbreviating it - does not require an apostrophe, however - lest we come across words like xqby's suggested "Aussie" written as "Aus'sie." It's not two words put together; merely, it's an abbreviation of Australian.
> 
> It is for this reason that shortening - or abbreviating - Britons requires no apostrophe, as it is not a contraction, but an abbreviation.



A Brit singular - yes

In the plural - no.


----------



## xqby

JulianStuart said:


> Actually, Australi is to Australian as Brit is to Briton (lop off last two letters, or syllable) but Australi is too much of a mouthful, so it's shortened to Aussie


 
No...
Australian becoming Aussie loses one syllable.
Briton becoming Brit loses one syllable.
The analogy stands, and I can't say I understand where you fellows are getting this baffling idea that you can only contract names by removing the last bit.


----------



## Full Tilt Boogie

JulianStuart said:


> Don't mess with a militant "apostophophile"!
> 
> Actually, Australi is to Australian as Brit is to Briton (lop off last two letters, or syllable) but Australi is too much of a mouthful, so it's shortened to Aussie, both for euphony and affection.



That's assuming you read it as lopping off the last letters, or using the same number of letters beginning at the noun's capital letter, as I did. Not that I'm in the habit, nor do I know anyone who is, of referring to our Aussie brethren as 'Austs'  



			
				Julian said:
			
		

> Seriously, I think a lot of us feel Brit is now a word in its own right and it would be, at the very least, old-fashioned to write Brit'  .  And remember, when enough of us are wrong, we're right!



And again, I've never suggested that Brit is not considered or used as a word in its own right. I've said that when abbreviating Britons (plural), then an apostrophe is required, rendering Brit's.


----------



## panjandrum

Yank is a colloquial abbreviation of Yankee.
Reb is a colloquial abbreviation of Rebel.
Neither would form a plural with an apostrophe.

Neither should Brit.

There is no justification or evidence that any of these forms require an apostrophe in forming the plural.  
The British National Corpus lists no instances of Brit's, plural.
Pram's - one instance.
_Tell you what women with *pram**'s *and stuff, there  fucking tread on the babies head or something._
Taxi - 
_Oh, how does she get up there, Train, train and *taxi**'s  *.
Cardiff put it on the jig and he erm he er does all the *taxi**'**s *you know Mhm._

All three are recorded conversations, and from their appearance, not the kind of references I would wish to commend to anyone.

Any further posts supporting or proposing this idea should be accompanied by reputable references.


----------



## JulianStuart

I was only showing that analogies don't really help here (not suggesting a specific way or rule of contraction).

Full tilt:  I see Brits simply as the plural of Brit - this is *not* the same as thinking of the word Britons and then contracting it; nor am I feeling obliged by any rules or usage to think of it that way, because Brit is already a word.

I'm fine with apostrophes where needed - such as in " fo'c's'les " as the plural of " fo'c's'le "


----------



## gasman

> then an apostrophe is required, rendering Brit's.



Why? It is not a possessive form of the word, but just a simple plural. If I write "the goats eat anything", do I need an apostrophe s? The troops advanced, doesn't need an apostrophe, why on earth do Brits, the plural form of Brit, require an apostrophe?


----------



## Arrius

_Apostrophosis_, to coin a word, is a virulent verbal disease that has reached epidemic proportions in England, where in any market you can buy not only pot's, tom's, straw's, and glad's which are contracted but also video's and cassette's which are not,though possibly daffs (for daffodils) escapes this scourge being a very longstanding and respectable abbreviation.  
Strangely enough,at the same time, more and more people are omitting the apostrophe from where it should legitimately be.
Let us be more careful about this cute little black tadpole (Amer. pollywog, I think) which is being abused at one end and on the verge of extinction at the other.


----------



## mancunienne girl

I am going to have my ha'penny's worth here (love the use of apostrophe here). For contractions an apostrophe is necessary, as in M'cr from Manchester, often seen on road signs. 
However, for abbreviations, as in 'Cathy' instead of 'Catherine' or 'wellies' instead of 'wellington boots', no apostrophe is required..............
which leads me to agree with all those who go with 'Brits', although I can why others wouldn't.

whoops, I mean I can see why others wouldn't..... I contracted my sentence by mis'ke.


----------



## cuchuflete

Having read "See above" many times, as if this were really the key to wisdom,  I remain perplexed that a truncated form of a word, and one that has long since acquired status as a word in its own right, should be weighted down by a needless apostrophe.  Having seen above many times, I conclude that numerous BE and AE speakers find the notion of shoving a misguided apostrophe into Brit s wrong, if not just plain silly.  One person staunchly defends it. And defends it.  And defends it. And quotes his or her own words, as apparently other substantiating sources are scarce as hens' teeth.

And see above.

I have little to add to the debate, apart from a bit of AE vernacular.  To the propositions that (1) Brit remains a contraction or abbreviation of Briton at this late date, and (2) that the plural of Brit is Brit*'*s, I say Horsefeathers!


----------



## johndot

I’ve been following this thread with interest, and the same question has come to mind several times: it’s time that I asked it.
 
You have asserted, Full Tilt Boogie, that the apostrophe you insert in _Brit’s_ represents the two missing letters _o _and _n_. However, when you write _Brit_ you don’t put a representative apostrophe in place of the two missing letters _o_ and _n_. Why is this?


----------



## cuchuflete

Full Tilt Boogie said:


> I guess it's all down the fact that after you've written the same thing a few times and other either don't read it, or can't be bothered, you get bored of reiterating the same thing.


  Might it be that other*s* have read it, over and over, and found it unpersuasive?  When one fails to enlist agreement after so many repetitions, that raises the possibilities that (1) the arguments in favor of a proposition are deficient in one or more ways, or (2) the readers are all numbskulls.
I reject the second possibility, as I have seen many wise and useful statements from those who haven't climbed on board the HMS Repeat.  





> See my first paragraph as to my point on repetition.


 What a long-winded version of "See above".  I prefer the truncated form, unapostrophized. 

Y'r ob'd'n't s'rv'nt,
Unpersuaded Yank


----------



## xqby

So after three pages of argument the conclusion is that Brits, Brit's, and Bgdjhfgjh are all acceptable pluralizations 
of the word "Brit" assuming one is an adult. 

I'm with Pajandrum on this one: cite me some relevant resources. After trawling through Google for a while I've found enough "Brits" for July 4th all over again, and no reliable examples of "Brit's" being used as anything other than the possessive.


----------



## Full Tilt Boogie

xqby said:


> So after three pages of argument the conclusion is that Brits, Brit's, and Bgdjhfgjh are all acceptable pluralizations
> of the word "Brit" assuming one is an adult.
> 
> I'm with Pajandrum on this one: cite me some relevant resources. After trawling through Google for a while I've found enough "Brits" for July 4th all over again, and no reliable examples of "Brit's" being used as anything other than the possessive.



If you're shortening Britons, then Brit's would apply.


----------



## cuchuflete

If one considers OUP a reliable source, as I'm sure most of us do, then it may be instructive to consider what that publisher says in its dictionary aimed at non-native learners of English:



> Brit /br{I}t/ noun (informal) a person from Britain


  Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary.   Note the absence of references to Briton.  In the view of OUP's lexicographers, Brit is a word in its own right, albeit "informal".

More from the Compact Oxford English Dictionary:



> Brit
> 
> • noun informal a British person.


My 1933 Shorter OED defines as a Briton, from OE Bret, and notes that the plural of the latter was Brettas.  Interestingly, the Shorter OED omits the informal label.

None of the three reference works makes any mention of 'contracted form'; nor do they call it an abbreviated form. They even have the audacity not to call it a truncation!


----------



## Nunty

Full Tilt Boogie said:


> If you're shortening Britons, then Brit's would apply.



We have been asking - to no avail - for a corrobative source other than your own good self. You have not provided one. People who have made goodwill searches in reliable sources have not found one.

Come on, man. You made a mistake. 'Fess up and feel better. Happens to all of us.


----------



## cuchuflete

Full Tilt Boogie said:


> Like I said, "Other than in certain countries' colloquial slang, or vernacular, there is no term 'Britishers'."
> 
> Your source is Webster's, the US dictionary; and having worked and lived there, I've never heard the term used outside Hollywood's 're-enactments' and portrayals of their War of Independence and naval parlance. Webster's has first-use source as 1829. Now it may have been in reasonable usage around that time (after all the war of 1812 was still fresh in their mind), but I would not recommend it for anything like modern-day use.



Have a look here, for some interesting contrary viewpoints, together with quite a few recent examples of Britisher used in print by Brits, Britons, and Britishers.
http://books.google.com/books?id=2y...k_jNBA&sig=ACfU3U1WCIF7ZY3Bnaf9b8lN-BLgg3k6TA


----------



## panjandrum

Weighing in to support Britishers 
The OED includes examples of this term from 1828 onwards.
There is a suggestion that it may have been of AE origin, but only a suggestion.


----------



## cuchuflete

This search string in Google Books shows lots of recent uses of Britisher:
Britisher date:1930-2008

For example:



> *Medic!: how I fought World War II with morphine, sulfa, and iodine swabs - Page 41*
> 
> by Robert Joseph Franklin, Flint Whitlock - Biography & Autobiography - 2006 - 151 pages
> "Been 'ere two days," the *Britisher* said. "'ave some Bren guns set up across the
> field back there and got *...* "You can do it easy," the *Britisher* prompted. *...*


That's a Yank's account.

Here's one by a Brit:



> *Racism, the City and the State - Page 181*
> 
> by Malcolm Cross, Michael Keith - Social Science - 1993 - 234 pages
> Even Enoch Powell, the most notorious individual, native *Britisher* to express
> publicly his gloom about many of the changes necessitated by the end of empire *...*


----------



## sound shift

We British never refer to ourselves as "Britishers". When we classify ourselves by nationality by selecting among multiple choices on an official form, "Britisher" is not among the options. I have never heard the term "Britisher" used by a UK citizen.


----------



## ewie

I don't know how I didn't think of this before.  The organizers of the famous _Brit Awards_ (which are commonly known as _The Brits_) in their more abbreviated moments refer to said awards as _The BRITs_
http://www.brits.co.uk/


----------

