<p>^ I feel like I said that.</p>
<p>“People” is plural, so to make it possessive all you do is add the 's to it.</p>
<p>^ Like I said before, it can’t be people’s because there was another choice that said “persons’”, and people’s and persons’ are essentially the same answers. The ACT wouldn’t put 2 right answers.</p>
<p>“Persons’” is definitely not correct. And if it’s possessive, “peoples” would not work.</p>
<p>thats true but the word after peoples mattered too. for example, it was something like people’s perceptions (this isnt the exact word used) and persons’ perceptings. the word after persons’ was wrong</p>
<p>^ Exactly. The ACT also tests your general handle on using language, and clearly the former sounds better than the latter.</p>
<p>Persons IS grammatically correct in this case, so is peoples. I’m now contemplating whether the answer was peoples’</p>
<p>It says California’s _________ something something</p>
<p>^ DEFINITELY not “peoples.'” in fact, that’s NEVER grammatically correct because “people” is already plural. “Peoples’” would be like saying “the farmers’s crops” instead of “the farmers’ crops.”</p>
<p>^ no, peoples, as stated in previous posts, can grammatically be defined as a group belonging to some origin. Like, for example, “indigenous peoples”</p>
<p>EDIT, I’m quoting benjamin franklin (not the historical figure, the CC user lol)</p>
<p>“Peoples” can refer to a group or groups of culturally defined groups, as in the "peoples of eastern Europe</p>
<p>yes but peoples is not possessive and people is already plural, so it would be people’s. just like how it would be men’s and women’s… not mens’ and womens’</p>
<p>^ not to be rude lol, but I just said peoples is not necessarily the plural of people (or else it would always be grammatically wrong). Again, BF said:</p>
<p>“Peoples” can refer to a group or groups of culturally defined groups, as in the "peoples of eastern Europe </p>
<p>Also, as I said, persons’ was also a choice, which is essentially the same as people’s. The ACT wouldn’t put 2 right answers.</p>
<p>Persons’ was NOT correct, and neither was peoples’</p>
<p>^ What is your reasoning behind persons’ not being correct? And peoples’ not being correct?</p>
<p>Because both would fit, unless the possessive wasn’t needed (it did say “California’s” so I was a little skeptical, but idk)</p>
<p>BTW (if anyone cares lol) I put peoples. And I’m pretty sure that it’s the answer. Either that or peoples’</p>
<p>here is how i think of it. persons’ couldn’t be right because the word that came after persons’ was def wrong. also, peoples refers go a group of people, such as the peoples of the soviet union. but, people refers to a singular collective group of people, like the people of ukraine or in this case california. peoples has to refers to more than one group of people</p>
<p>sorry… correction: not a group of people but groups of people for the definition of peoples</p>
<p>^ what word that came after persons’ ? As I remember it, the choice was just persons</p>
<p>And as for peoples, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen it used in that context</p>
<p>im not sure what word came after but it was definitely wrong. it was something like perceptings (instead of perceptions). it wasnt these words but it was a similar concept and at first i didnt even notice it. and for peoples vs people it depends on if the writer intended to define the people of california is a single entity (people) or multiple cultures ( peoples) and im pretty sure it was the former.</p>
<p>Jallidalli I’m pretty sure that’s not the answer.</p>
<p>It’s people’s.</p>
<p>people v. peoples article:</p>
<p>I did a little research and discovered that the dictionary allows for an “s” on the end of the word if it refers to an entire community of people, like “the Aboriginal peoples.” </p>
<p>I’m having a hard time copying and pasting the link to the article (I know…lol) but I put it on my favorites so if you would like to see it I can copy/paste the whole article in a PM</p>
<p>EDIT:
I’m really sure it is not people’s. I’m surprised because this was discussed early on in this thread and everyone seemed to agree that it was peoples.</p>
<p>like in the example above, peoples of eastern europe is referring to multiple groups of people of different countries</p>
<p>a single state is a single people</p>