In article <pbadnWZcb->, Frank ess
says...
> Rob Morley wrote:
> > In article <dXmei.4551$tB5.4269@edtnps90>, m II
> > says...
> >> Bill Funk wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:43:50 +0100, Rob Morley
> >>> <>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <>, John
> >>>> McWilliams
> >>>> says...
> >>>>> Rob Morley wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <46772db9$0$22425$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> >>>>>> 01.iinet.net.au>, dj_nme
> >>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, it makes me really wonder where that weird spelling
> >>>>>>> variation came from.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nouns that ends in 's' are plural, but the plural of 'lens' is
> >>>>>> 'lenses', so the singular of 'lenses' must be 'lense'. Obvious
> >>>>>> really. 
> >>>>>
> >>>>> BBBB But you forgot the apostrophe! It's one "lens'e", several
> >>>>> "lens'es'".
> >>>>>
> >>>> Don't be silly - apostrophe's are only needed for some plurals.
> >>>
> >>> Like "it's", for example.
> >>
> >> It is NOT used on plurals.
> >>
> > I think maybe you need to recalibrate your irony meter.
>
> http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/
>
As I said ...