A faction name? Like, the arrows belong to the Soliter faction? So it could still be Soliter's, or it might be Soliter. Like:"The Americans' bullets did no damage" shows that the bullets belong to the Americans. Or you could try "The American bullets did no damage" to treat American as a adjective. ETA: Subtle difference in meaning - is it important that the bullets are owned by the Americans (like, all Americans have been cursed to have useless bullets) or is it important that the type of bullets don't cause damage (like, Canadian bullets, regardless of who fires them, are designed differently and would be effective). ETA2: So what's special about the arrows in your story? Are they regular arrows being fired by the Soliter faction? Then I'd say they're "Soliter's arrows". If they're a unique style of arrows developed by the Soliters? Then I'd agree with Wreybies and say "Soliter arrows". Unless the arrows own something, they don't get an apostrophe. If you wanted to talk about "the arrows' tips had been dipped in poison" you'd add the apostrophe b/c the tips belong to the arrows. Otherwise - no apostrophe.
The Soliters were off to one side and, with the Vril, were at the extent of the attack’s powerful reach.
I think I'm getting the hand of this! Keen Soliter eyes’ discerned a flutter of movement behind the figure. Both Soliter archers had weapons nocked and ready.
If you look at your sentence, what object is mentioned as belonging to the eyes? None, right? So no possessive, therefore no apostrophe. "Keen Soliter eyes discerned..."
This is a bit out of my rubicon but: For context: The lizard-beast halted to toss the bundle of humanity to the jeering beings before it too moved forward again and the Saken army moved with them. The Kaslar was swallowed up by the numbers. “The’re too many to fight.” Ennias said backing up. OR “There's too many to fight.” Ennias said backing up. OR Even? “They're too many to fight.” Ennias said backing up.
Holy smokes, Tyler, you need to get a basic grammar workbook and do the exercises. In your most recent post, you're using an apostrophe to indicate a contraction, and you're actually using it correctly, according to the general theory. (You're taking out some letters and replacing them with an apostrophe). But you can't just remove random letters, you have to remove the ones custom demands! Are you writing on a word processor? If spell check is turned on, it should tell you that "The're" is not a word. So it's out. "There's" is a contraction of "There is". It wouldn't be grammatically correct to say "There is too many," so the contraction is also not grammatically correct. That said, you may want to use incorrect grammar in speech - it's up to you. "They're too many to fight" might work as a fantasy-based colloquialism... Modern English wouldn't say "They are too many to fight," but maybe people in your world speak that way. Of course, if they do, you have to make them speak that way always, not just in this one line. The clearest, simplest way to write this would be "There are too many." I think simple is probably best, here. (Also, add a comma between "said" and "backing".)
I always thought you could bend the rules at bit when it came to characters talking. Heck just look at the Irving Walsh books where the whole thing is in colloqual Scottish!
Yeah, that's what I said - it's up to you if you want to have the character use incorrect grammar in speech. But again, it should be consistent. If Irving Walsh just had one line of colloquial Scottish, it wouldn't work. If you're going to break the rules, you set up a whole NEW set of rules that you need to follow in order to be consistent.
Yes. This. Overly complex sentences are not inherently better, and if the very writer finds herself/himself stumbling over the construction, even when it's valid and correct, perhaps there's another construction that might be considered in order to offer the reader fewer hurtles and let them enjoy the story. Like here: This sentence is far too nested and complex and there are syntactic structures that can go one of two ways and the reader stumbles when the next bit doesn't fit the natural way in which the preceding syntax was read. Before it can mean in front of it (position) or prior to (timeline), and either would make sense in this sentence up to that point and you have to read the sentence at least twice to get the proper meaning to come out once the rest is given... You can. Of course. All languages have their "common use" versions that are riddled with errors and imperfections that are understood and known by the people making use of that language, even when the individual person might be pedantic and never make personal use of such errors. I deplore the degradation of complex verb tenses one can hear in the south east of the U.S., but much as I cringe upon hearing it, and would never myself make use of such syntax, I know what is meant by the speaker. Dialogue can always contain these factors, as a common trait of all the speakers to indicate a group's regional use, or by just an individual to indicate an unusual idiolect in that person. But, as @BayView points out, there must be some sense that is determinable by the reader. “The’re too many to fight.” Ennias said backing up. The're is simply not a word or a contraction that makes any sense or that even implies a manner of pronunciation. I see that and I want to say something that sounds like the ray, and that's just nonsense. “There's too many to fight.” Ennias said backing up. This is technically an error because there is a verb agreement issue, but one does hear this. Some people do speak this way as a natural part of either their region or as an indicator of limited exposure to (or concern for) educational resources. “They're too many to fight.” Ennias said backing up. This one is neither incorrect nor even regional, but I agree with @BayView that a simpler syntax would serve better in this case, not just for the ease of the reader's eye, but because of the situation about which they are speaking and in which they find themselves. This would be a tense moment. Sphincter factor at maximum. Words would terse and short. You don't need to tell me the to fight part. Of course that's what's meant, and in the conversation between the two players, it would be the obvious topic at hand, the only thing to be spoken of. ETA: Also, in all three of those examples, you've got a full stop at the end of the dialogue that should be a comma because the attribution is a dialogue tag, a dependent clause.
The lizard-beast halted. With a jerk of its head it tossed the bundle of humanity to the jeering beings behind it. Then it moved forward again and the Saken army followed.
Indeed, 'Endurance' is possessed of 'limits' = 'limits' (plural) are possessed by 'Endurance'; "The limits of endurance" = "The endurance's limits"
“There’re too many to fight.” Ennias said backing up. This one gets the verb agreement (there are) right, and (I think) makes more sense than the "the're" option, but...ugh. Perhaps forget colloquial? “There are too many to fight.” Ennias said backing up.
Tyler's back! Oakley was not intimidated but knew he needed to answer the Navigator’s cryptic words well. I'm getting in the groove of this now I think.
