pizzas or pizza's

[Slasher]

When referring to an item when would you need an apostrophe s?

Ie  pizzas and pizza's

eg: I have to give pizza(')s to the King..     The King needs his pizza(')s....

cheers

[mkennedy]

If something belongs to the pizza or you are abbreviating "pizza is" or "pizza has" then the apostrophe should be used. IE "Somebody ate all this pizza's anchovies" or "This  pizza's quite spicy" or "This  pizza's got anchovies", But otherwise I don't think it would be needed.

[heltenjon]

You don't need an apostrophe for marking plural. "The king wants two pizzas". You use it to mark property: "The pizza's taste was to the king's liking." Or you use it to mark where something is cut when pronounced: "I'm fond of pizza." You also use it when talking about someone's house or shop: "Another king cameover to the king's". And you use it to mark property when the nomen ends with an s (or a similar sound): "Both kings' pizza were delicious."

[Stupot]

Yeah as the others have said, you do not need an apostrophe in your given sentence. An apostrophe is only used with an ‘s’ when something is missing Due to two words being combined, or to mark possession.
The pizza is cold. > The pizza’s cold. (Contraction)
The pizza has been eaten. -> The pizza’s been eaten.(Contraction)
The base of the pizza is burnt. -> The pizza’s base is burnt.(Possessive)

In your sentence, the -s simply means ‘more than one’ and does not need an apostrophe.

[Slasher]

Thanks guys,

I think I understand the ' more..

cheers

[KyriakosCH]

(King) Pizza takes what is Pizza's.
Pizzas flocked to their king's (Pizza's) aid.

Basically apostrophe isn't used for normies 

[milkanannan]

While we're on the subject of apostrophes, I hate how references to decades requires them. For example: I love the 90's.

It just feels wrong to me

[KyriakosCH]

While we're on the subject of apostrophes, I hate how references to decades requires them. For example: I love the 90's.

It just feels wrong to me

I think it should be without apostrophe: "The 90s were a cool decade".

[Laura Hunt]

While we're on the subject of apostrophes, I hate how references to decades requires them. For example: I love the 90's.

It just feels wrong to me

I think it should be without apostrophe: "The 90s were a cool decade".

I always write it without the apostrophe, but apparently there's no consensus and it depends on the style manual you use. Seems like one thing they all agree on is that "the '90s" is always correct, because you're removing part of the date and thus the apostrophe is a valid indicator of that: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/13631/is-an-apostrophe-with-a-decade-e-g-1920-s-generally-considered-incorrect

[heltenjon]

The argument for the apostrophe in that case must be that one should not write numbers and letters in the same word, like "3 thousand" or "4yearold". Norwegian requires a hyphen. We write literally the 90-years.

[Creamy]

Could the '20s be refering to the 2020s or is it only the 1920s?

[Mandle]

Could the '20s be refering to the 2020s or is it only the 1920s?

That's where things are gonna change and/or get confusing.

I'd assume that after the 2020s are finished that '20s will refer to them instead of the 1920s.

[Snarky]

Since the distinction does not appear be to clear to everybody: if a thread is an invitation to a discussion or conversation on some general topic, it belongs in General Discussion. An example of this would be asking people to explain something to you, such as this post. (In many cases these are well suited for the Ask something - We can help thread.)

If it's not intended as a conversation, but more "something to do," like sharing stuff you like, jokes, or forum games, then it goes in the Rumpus Room.

The argument for the apostrophe in that case must be that one should not write numbers and letters in the same word, like "3 thousand" or "4yearold". Norwegian requires a hyphen. We write literally the 90-years.

I don't think such a rule exists in English, as demonstrated by "1st," "3rd," etc. (I'm firmly on the apostrophe-less "90s" side of this style debate, though I don't mind the initial apostrophe.)

[heltenjon]

Since the distinction does not appear be to clear to everybody: if a thread is an invitation to a discussion or conversation on some general topic, it belongs in General Discussion. An example of this would be asking people to explain something to you, such as this post. (In many cases these are well suited for the Ask something - We can help thread.)

If it's not intended as a conversation, but more "something to do," like sharing stuff you like, jokes, or forum games, then it goes in the Rumpus Room.

We're terribly sorry that we were too objective for the rumpus room. 

The argument for the apostrophe in that case must be that one should not write numbers and letters in the same word, like "3 thousand" or "4yearold". Norwegian requires a hyphen. We write literally the 90-years.

I don't think such a rule exists in English, as demonstrated by "1st," "3rd," etc. (I'm firmly on the apostrophe-less "90s" side of this style debate, though I don't mind the initial apostrophe.)

You are correct. The stuff about Norwegian was an attempt to make a fun fact. Different languages, different rules.

[Ali]

I used to be a huge apostrophe pedant, until I found out the rules were inconsistent, made up fairly recently, and just an excuse to look down on people for not knowing something. But, side note, if something belongs to more than one pizza, the apostrophe goes at the end. E.g. I saw the pizzas' many toppings.

[Mandle]

E.g. I saw the pizzas' many toppings.

Which confuses a lot of people and they end up writing "I saw the pizzas' had many toppings.", which doesn't need the apostrophe as the word "had" does the possessive indication in this case.

Just a note of caution.

God, English is overly complicated. Japanese just has "の", placed between the "owner" and the "possession" and that's it. So clean and clear.

[Crimson Wizard]

I got used to write "90-ies".

[LimpingFish]

I got used to write "90-ies".

Strangely, I rarely use numbers at all:

Eighties, Nineties, Twenty years of age, Nineteen Eighty Four.

On those occasions that I may actually have used numbers, it's a conscious decision rather than a reflex.

[milkanannan]

Could the '20s be refering to the 2020s or is it only the 1920s?

That's where things are gonna change and/or get confusing.

I'd assume that after the 2020s are finished that '20s will refer to them instead of the 1920s.

You might be right, but I’d actually assume the opposite, at least in the western world. Decades in the 20th Century were quite iconic due to rapid social progress, tech and lifestyle/culture changes, major changes in warfare, etc. I think this became the basis for labels like ‘the 20s’ becoming a reference to a specific period of change. I don’t think these labels will suddenly shift to decades this century.

[Stupot]

I think it’s possible that both meanings will exist and we will just have to do a bit of work based on context. Like if I started talking about “20’s gangsters”, you’ll probably know that I was referring to a prohibition-era, Irish- and Italian-American criminal gangs. The things we’ll be referencing after the 2020’s will be very different (global nuclear warfare, the Great Population Decimation, The Trump Empire, you know, the nostalgic stuff).

[milkanannan]

I think it’s possible that both meanings will exist and we will just have to do a bit of work based on context. Like if I started talking about “20’s gangsters”, you’ll probably know that I was referring to a prohibition-era, Irish- and Italian-American criminal gangs. The things we’ll be referencing after the 2020’s will be very different (global nuclear warfare, the Great Population Decimation, The Trump Empire, you know, the nostalgic stuff).

You guys could be right, but no doubt lots of clarification and confusion. I mean, even '20s gangsters' - could totally refer to the Trump admin's second term. (Let's hope not.)

[Mandle]

You might be right, but I’d actually assume the opposite, at least in the western world. Decades in the 20th Century were quite iconic due to rapid social progress, tech and lifestyle/culture changes, major changes in warfare, etc. I think this became the basis for labels like ‘the 20s’ becoming a reference to a specific period of change. I don’t think these labels will suddenly shift to decades this century.

I think the first time was the term "The Roaring '20s" people used to refer to the "good old days" of the 1920s before the Stock Market Crash and the Great Dustbowl.

[heltenjon]

Halfway on topic, as it concerns s's: Isn't there a rule that "eyes" should be pronounced "eyez"? Perhaps I'm just confusing it with the price-prize distinction, but when the hit song "I can see the fire in your eyes" is on, I hear "the fire in your ice", which is somewhat unfortunate.

[Ali]

I think that's just a matter of accent. Brits tend to make esses into zeds. I notice that some British Muslims pronounce esses as esses - especially in 'Islam' and 'Muslim', but it's not against any rule.

[heltenjon]

So for most non-brits, "eyes" and "ice" sounds the same?

[Snarky]

Ali is no doubt correct that this may vary with accent, but some googling indicates that the general rule (which most native speakers will probably not be consciously aware of) is that the pluralizing -s is pronounced voiced, /z/, if the word ends with a vowel or glide, a voiced consonant, or a sibilant (in which case you have to insert a vowel so that you get -es, pronounced /ɪz/ or /əz/).

So you have (in half-assed notation):
tree-z (vowel)
eye-z (glide)
bed-z (voiced consonant)
wish-ez (sibilant)

However, when you have a word ending in an unvoiced consonant, the -s is unvoiced, /s/:
pin-s
cop-s

I'd also think, though, that the actual realization of these sounds will depend on the surrounding speech segments: for example, it's fairly common for sentence-final sounds to become spontaneously devoiced (because it's harder to articulate the voicing when there's no vowel following it).

[Mandle]

Snarky, I was literally just teaching that exact lesson to kids yesterday. You covered a few more cases than I thought of, but I will introduce them later on. YOINK!

[Babar]

So you have (in half-assed notation):
tree-z (vowel)
eye-z (glide)
bed-z (voiced consonant)
wish-ez (sibilant)

However, when you have a word ending in an unvoiced consonant, the -s is unvoiced, /s/:
pin-s
cop-s

I'm more of just a speaker than someone who knows all the intricate rules, so to be totally honest, I don't get the differences between the classifications you listed, but I've always pronounced it 'pinz' (the link shows a word with a different meaning, but I can't find audio of 'pins' on the internet anywhere).

[Snarky]

You're right, Babar, and that's because /n/ is of course a voiced consonant (in English; Welsh apparently has a voiceless N). I stupidly mixed it up with the Nâ€"M distinction (alveolar vs. bilabial), thinking it fit the Tâ€"D, Kâ€"G, Pâ€"B pattern.

I should say that voiced and voiceless S is one of the things I'm pretty sure I regularly screw up in my own speech, along with the NEAR/SQUARE vowel types (my vowels are a very strange mix of English and American).