# I've been at Lucas' / to Lucas's



## Aylee

I've been doing an English test and one of the questions is the following:

¿Where have you been? I've been _________.
a) At Lucas's.
b) To Lucas'.


I have a doubt with At/To. You normally use "at" when you're at someone's house, but i don't know if Lucas has to have the aditional "s" after the apostrophe, so i don't know the right answer.

Can you help me? Thank you very much.


----------



## FromPA

I think you could use either "at" or "to",  but the possessive should be Lucas', so I would say the answer should be b.


----------



## Katuka

When I did an English course (communicational - Pimsleur) I learned "to":
I've never been to Boston.
Can I use both?
Thanks,

Katty


----------



## FromPA

Katuka said:


> When I did an English course (communicational - Pimsleur) I learned "to":
> I've never been to Boston.
> Can I use both?
> Thanks,
> 
> Katty


 
What a can of worms!  In your example, "at" would definitely be wrong, but I'm having trouble defining the distinction.  In the initial question, Where have you been?, the question being asked is "where were you just prior to our meeting?", or "what was your location just prior to our meeting?".  "I was at Lucas' house" is a possible answer, meaning "I was located at Lucas' house."  You could also say, "I went to Lucas' house," which seems to place more emphasis on the process of going to Lucas' house than on actually being at Lucas' house.  When you turn it around and say "I've been to/at Lucas' house",  I think "to" sounds better, but I still think that both are OK.

When you say "I've never been to Boston" (in some regions you might hear "I've never been in Boston),  it means "I have never spent time in Boston."  The emphasis is on the experience of being in Boston and not on pinpointing your physical location, so "at" doesn't apply.

I hope this makes some sense to you.


----------



## Aylee

Alright then, i'll take the second option then. 

Thank you all!


----------



## Tazzler

I would say both are correct. 

"Hey, Mark! Where have you been? I've been looking for you all day!" 
"Oh, hey. I've been at Lucas's/I've been at home/I've been at the store/I've been at the school." 

"Have you been to your friends' houses? 
"Oh, yes, many times."
"Where have you been?"
"Well, I've been to Lucas's , as well as John's and Zach's."


----------



## sound shift

If I had been at Lucas's and someone asked me "Where have you been?", I think I would reply "I've been at Lucas's".


----------



## Aylee

Then Lucas's is alright? I've read that when it comes to English names (ending with an "s"), such as James, the genitive is James's, however, if the name isn't English, there's no aditional "s" (Demetrius -> Demetrius' house).

Is that true?


----------



## jackaustralia

Aylee said:


> Then Lucas's is alright? I've read that when it comes to English names (ending with an "s"), such as James, the genitive is James's, however, if the name isn't English, there's no aditional "s" (Demetrius -> Demetrius' house).
> 
> Is that true?


 
You are completely correct. Lucas's is not grammatically correct. As has already been discussed they both can be used in different contexts.


----------



## Aylee

That's what made me doubt, thank you =)


----------



## sound shift

jackaustralia said:


> You are completely correct. Lucas's is not grammatically correct.



According to which/whose grammar? If I can say "I've been at John's" I don't see why I can't say "I've been at Lucas's", especially since "I've been at Lucas'" sounds the same as "I've been at Lucas".


----------



## hellofolks

Hello, folks,

One tricky thing about grammar is that it's full of exceptions. For example, grammar says that prepositions "in", "on", "at", among others, must be used for locating things while "to", "from", etc. are to be used to indicate movement or motion. So you CANNOT say, for example, "I'm to London" because you're giving a location, and not the destination or origin of a movement. What you have to say is "I'm in London".

The rule to distinguish between "in", "on", "at" is the following:

in--->name of a city, state, province, region, country, etc.; inside buildings, places in general.

on--->name of a street, avenue, boulevard, square, etc.

at--->full adress or specific places.

Examples:

I prefer to live in New York.

I've got a house on Main Street.

You can find me at 45, Fifth Avenue.

There are cases, however, in which more than of these is correct. For instance,

Sarah's at/in the theater.

This is because "the theater" may be regarded both as a specific place or a building inside which Sarah is.

Don't replace these prepositions by "to", for they show location, not destination.

Anyway, as I said before, there's an exception to this rule. When you use verb "to be" in present or past perfect tenses, you must always use "to", even if normally you'd have "in", "on" or "at". Examples:

I've already been to New York.

I've never been to Main Street.

I wish I had ever been to 45, Fifth Avenue.

Now, coming back to your question, the right alternative is (b) because of what I've just mentioned above. And don't worry about Lucas's or Lucas'. Both forms are standard. The only recommendation here is that if you pronounce "Lucases", you should write "Lucas's" and if you pronounce "Lucas" you'd better choose "Lucas'"

I hope I've been helpful.
See you!


----------



## duncandhu

jackaustralia said:


> You are completely correct. Lucas's is not grammatically correct. As has already been discussed they both can be used in different contexts.


 
I have to say that I'm pretty sure that it doesn't matter if the name is English or Foreign. If the name ends in "s" then you shouldn't put the "s" after the apostrophe.

e.g.

James' house --> Correct
James's house --> "Incorrect" (although still widely used)

NB Both of these are still pronounced "Jameses" (otherwise there would be no way of telling that it is the genitive when hearing it)

Saludos
Duncan


----------



## lasraschen

Aylee said:


> I've been doing an English test and one of the questions is the following:
> 
> ¿Where have you been? I've been _________.
> a) At Lucas's.
> b) To Lucas'.
> 
> 
> I have a doubt with At/To. You normally use "at" when you're at someone's house, but i don't know if Lucas has to have the aditional "s" after the apostrophe, so i don't know the right answer.
> 
> Can you help me? Thank you very much.



About the additional "s," you don't need it and to use it would be incorrect.  Any time a word ends in "s" and you need to use the 's to mark possession, you just simply add an apostrophe to the end.

e.g.  The girl's puppy (girl= singular)
       The girls' puppy (girls= plural)

e.g.   Jonas' puppy  (Jonas is the name of the boy)
        Jonah's puppy (Jonah is the name of the boy)

Hope this helps!


----------



## jo269

lasraschen said:


> About the additional "s," you don't need it and to use it would be incorrect.



I agree that you don't *need *the extra s - it is redundant. However, it is not incorrect to use it.

I was always taught that either of the following is a correct way to use a plural:

Jonas' cat
Jonas's cat.


----------



## lasraschen

*Wow*!  I had no idea it was "correct" to use the extra s.  I just googled and here's what I found:
*
Hits for girls's:  238,000
Hits for girls':  **688,000,000*

Apparently, it is much less common to use the extra s.  Thanks for sharing!


----------



## jo269

Well, frequency does not equate to correctness.

The extra "s" is redundant, hence why it is infrequently used. However, that does not mean it is incorrect to use it.

Even if 238,000 hits is significantly less than 688,000,000, it's still a lot of hits!


----------



## Katuka

FromPA said:


> What a can of worms! In your example, "at" would definitely be wrong, but I'm having trouble defining the distinction. In the initial question, Where have you been?, the question being asked is "where were you just prior to our meeting?", or "what was your location just prior to our meeting?". "I was at Lucas' house" is a possible answer, meaning "I was located at Lucas' house." You could also say, "I went to Lucas' house," which seems to place more emphasis on the process of going to Lucas' house than on actually being at Lucas' house. When you turn it around and say "I've been to/at Lucas' house", I think "to" sounds better, but I still think that both are OK.
> 
> When you say "I've never been to Boston" (in some regions you might hear "I've never been in Boston), it means "I have never spent time in Boston." The emphasis is on the experience of being in Boston and not on pinpointing your physical location, so "at" doesn't apply.
> 
> I hope this makes some sense to you.


 
You're lucky by not have seen my face when reading your post.
Do you know when it seems that we are in front of hieroglyphics? That's what I felt, but finally I understood (I guess..) 

I appreciate if you correct my  mistakes.

Thank you!
Katty


----------



## lasraschen

duncandhu said:


> I have to say that I'm pretty sure that it doesn't matter if the name is English or Foreign. If the name ends in "s" then you shouldn't put the "s" after the apostrophe.
> 
> e.g.
> 
> James' house --> Correct
> James's house --> "Incorrect" (although still widely used)
> 
> NB Both of these are still pronounced "Jameses" (otherwise there would be no way of telling that it is the genitive when hearing it)
> 
> Saludos
> Duncan



I'd have to agree with Duncan here.  Just because people use it, doesn't mean it's "correct."  But then again, just because it's not used as frequently doesn't mean it's "incorrect."  Does anyone have any references to cite on this issue?


----------



## sound shift

lasraschen said:


> *Wow*!  I had no idea it was "correct" to use the extra s.  I just googled and here's what I found:
> *
> Hits for girls's:  238,000
> Hits for girls':  **688,000,000*
> 
> Apparently, it is much less common to use the extra s.  Thanks for sharing!



That's a different matter, because girl is not a proper noun, whereas Lucas is.

I would never say "girls's", only "girls'", but I see nothing wrong with "Lucas's".


----------



## Vikingo

Though "Lucas'" would probably just get you a friendly warning from the grammar police, and not a prison sentence, "Lucas's" is by most standards the more correct option. See "apostrophe" in English Wikipedia for a discussion. I'd post the link, but the problem is that I've been AT the beach the whole day, and I'm posting from my cell phone. Saludos


----------



## laluka)

I have always been taught that if the name or word had an -s at the end you had to write the apostrophe only...and the question of the prepositions "to"/"at" depends on the size of the place and if it is a stative verb or a verb indicating movement...but language and grammars change...


----------



## hellofolks

Hello, folks,

As Vikingo has said, an excellent discussion on the subject can be seen in Wikipedia's article entitled "Apostrophe". 

Have a look at English language usage --> Singular nouns ending with an "s" or "z" sound.

There you can check that, as I've said, you can write both Lucas's and Lucas'. Indeed, as it is pointed out there, traditional institutions such as Modern Language Association, Elements of Style and The Economist prefer constructions like "Lucas's" or "the boss's". So please don't say "Lucas's" is incorrect warning. Besides, if you read Harry Potter, you're going to see that Rowling always writes "Sirius's".

On the other hand, organizations like The Guardian, Emory University and The American Heritage do allow using only an apostrophe after such names. In the words of Wikipedia: "James's house, or James' house, depending on which pronunciation is intended". As you all can see, unlike duncandhu has said, you may pronounce as "James" or "Jameses". I believe this choice rather depends on the region.

Personally, my choice is "James' house", but I'd NEVER say "James's house" is incorrect.

Just a small correction: People spend their days ON the beach, NOT AT the beach, at least according to grammar. Anyway, still according to grammar, people have been TO the beach, NOT ON or AT the beach.

I hope I've been helpful,
Goodbye!


----------



## Vikingo

1) I've been ON the beach: I've been physically located on top of the sand. 2) I've been TO the beach: I've travelled to the beach. 3) I've been AT the beach: I've spent time at the beach. All three are fine, but have different shades of meaning. Regarding the original question, option a) is the best one, if anyone is still confused. Hellofolks: I appreciate your correction, but I'm pretty confident that it's not right. Could you cite a specific source? And I'm sorry about not using line feeds, the ones from my cellphone aren't interpreted correctly by the browser. (Yes, I've just been at the beach again.) Saludos


----------



## hellofolks

Hi, Vikingo,

Sorry for taking so long to reply, but, even though I haven't been TO the beach, I've had a rather busy time around here.

I regret to say I have no reliable sorce to refer to right now, except to remember what I was taught while studying English. Preposition "on" is found frequently to give locations of places you can walk or drive along. 

Examples:

on the beach
on the street
on the shore
on the path/way
on Main St.

Sure enough, there can be exceptions to this rule, some of which I will cite now:

--informal English: "on/at/in the beach/shore" may be used interchangeably in colloquial language;

--"in the way": somewhere in the middle of the way;

--"my words get in the way": I can't say what I want to, I'm having trouble expressing myself with words;

--after "have/has/had been": these require preposition "to" in all cases, no matter if we'd normally have "in", "on" or "at". Examples: 

Today I've been to the beach.
Yesterday I was on the beach.

Even though I can't give you references of what I've mentioned, I'd like you to see what Google has to say:

"was on the beach": 1,240,000
"was at the beach": 423,000
"was to the beach": 18,000

"been on the beach": 195,000
"been at the beach: 61,900
"been to the beach": 458,000

"on the shore": 9,400,000
"at the shore": 5,400,000
"in the shore": 1,200,000

"been to the shore": 26,500
"been at the shore": 5,740
"been in the shore": 9
"been on the shore": 4,260

While I'm not entirely sure of my facts  , which are based on things I learned some ten years ago, I at least feel happy I seem to be with the majority.

Goodbye and thank you for the opportunity for this discussion!


----------



## tmscruggs

Here's my little contribution to something old:

The correct answer is the first on.
The respondent has been there for a period of time, so "at is better.
Also, the possessive apostrophe only ends a plural noun, like The Lucases' house.  But here Lucas appears to be a single person, so the correct spelling is Lucas's [house/place/apartment, whatever].


----------



## inib

Oh, if only we had a RAE in English! The times I have read different opinions on WR and in grammar books about Thomas' vs Thomas's without reaching a definite conclusion are nobody's business!
I'd say the question is definitely in the genitive, because without more context, both *at* and* to* make sense here.


----------



## horsewishr

Ooops!  Deleted.  I should have read the second page before responding to the first one!!!


----------



## tmscruggs

inib:  you're correct, there's plenty of confusion.  I prefer to rely as a definitive source on the little bestseller "Shoots, Eats and Leaves." (which, as someone involved with language, I thoroughly enjoyed!)


----------

