“aircrafts” is not a word
Chris
Pardon my digression from the stated purpose of this site, but I have encountered the (non-)word "aircrafts" so frequently, both spoken and written, over the past several weeks that I can no longer remain silent on the issue.
For the record: The plural of aircraft IS aircraft!
Technically speaking, “aircrafts” isn’t even a word. So, for the love of Bernoulli and Newton, please stop using it!
I know. It is such a trivial thing that it really shouldn’t bother me, but this foible should never have surfaced to begin with. What I mean by that is that there is no excuse for the places “aircrafts” has been raising its ugly head. I was at a presentation recently were the speaker kept saying “aircrafts”, and I felt like Indigo Montoya. But the person was covering a line of business outside of her own, so I didn’t make much of it. However, a week later, I read some material originating from someone who is no stranger to the industry and there it was again. Repeatedly. Agghhh!! Remember, just because Microsoft Office doesn’t put a red squiggly underneath it, doesn’t make it right. There were actually a few other incidents, too, if you can believe it. I admit it. It was just too much for me to handle.
It is my hope that this post will provide a public service, and my readers will never be tempted to duplicitously pluralize aircraft by conjoining that insidious extraneous letter S.
Chris KernsPosted in General, humor | Share This
|
November 9th, 2007 at 4:33 am
I understand! There are no “Canadian” geese, either! Whether one or a hundred, they are Canada geese!
December 26th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
nor Democratic Party…