# Possessive - 's with names or plurals ending in s.



## Maricles

Hi!

You know, I just got a little mixed up about possessive forms.

If you want to say "the friend of Chris", do you say Chris' friend or Chris's friend?

or, when the noun is in plural form: the dogs' toys or the dogs's toys?

Thanks a lot


----------



## nycphotography

Even though I write:  Chris' friend and the dogs' toys (meaning more than one dog)...


I SAY /Chrises/ friend and the /Joneses/ kids... but I never say the /dogses/ toys.


----------



## Sabelotodo

Hello,

The answer to the second question is simpler:
The dog's toy = the toy belonging to one dog.
The dogs' toy = the toy belonging to more than one dog.

The grammar book currently being used in the high school where I work says that you may add an apostrophe only, or an apostrophe and another "s" to names ending in "s" to make them possessive.  So either Chris's friend or Chris' friend would be correct.

However, grammar textbooks and English speakers disagree on the issue of possessives with proper names ending in the letter "s."  This is the way I was taught when I was in junior high school (about 30 years ago.)  If a name ends in "s" you only add an apostrophe and another "s."  (e.g. Chris's friend)  The only exception is for certain historical or otherwise important persons such as Jesus, Moses, Ulysses, Odysseus.  (e.g. Jesus' disciples, Odysseus' journey)

I still use the rule I was taught in school.  I'm a definitely traditionalist.  If you are writing for a teacher or an editor, ask which heh or she prefers before you turn in your work.  He or she may believe that only one way is correct.

"Chrises" and "Joneses" are plural, not posessive.  If you are visiting the Jones family (more than one person whose last name is Jones) you could say, "I am visiting the Joneses."  

If you are talking about something that belongs to two or more people named Jones you could use Joneses' as in "The Joneses' house is on Main Street."  But that looks and sounds a little weird.  I would find another way to phrase it such as, "Tom and Marion Jones' house is on Main Street."


----------



## Sabelotodo

Sabelotodo said:
			
		

> If a name ends in "s" you only add an apostrophe and another "s." (e.g. Chris's friend) The only exception is ...


 
Please ignore the extraneos word "only" in that sentence. My brain and my typing fingers got out of synch.


----------



## mghante

Continuing the thread - someone pointed out to me that a plural does not need an apostrophe where I thought it did. An example - for a list of days of the week, she said, it should be "days list". I believe it should be "days' list". Please let me know the correct form.

Thank you,
Manju


----------



## panjandrum

Welcome to WR, Manju.

I don't know the answer to your question, because I can't imagine wanting to say "days list" or "days' list" or "day's list" in relation to a list of days of the week. Could you give a sentence as an example?


----------



## judkinsc

I believe it is a matter of singular vs. multiple syllables in the root word for when to add an extra " 's ".

This refers only to words that already end in "s".

These are, anyway, the rules people use for speaking.

Ex:

Chris becomes Chris's, since there is a singular syllable in the root word.

" Dogs' " stays as " dogs' " due to the "s" already added.


----------



## mghante

Hmm, OK, my mistake in using a list of days for an example-how about "She is drawing a singers' list for the concert". Should it be a "singers' list" or "singers list" where it means a "list of singers"?

-Manju


----------



## panjandrum

There have been many previous threads on this topic.  I wouldn't want to suggest that the question has a definitive answer of course - although most of the time there is agreement.

Here are two sites that give guidance in relation to BE:

The Economist Style Guide.

The University of Sussex

If they don't agree in some points of detail, you may care to let them know


----------



## judkinsc

" singers' " list.

Although, the usage sounds somewhat unclear as such.

"She is drawing up a list of singers for the concert."  is how it would usually be said.


----------



## panjandrum

I don't think I would ever want to say "... a singers list ..." meaning "... a list of singers ..."?  But I suppose that if I really, really wanted to use those words, then it would have to be without the apostrophe.  The list does not belong to the singers - it is rather like a shopping list, or a theatre list.


----------



## Skribe1

"The ships of Columbus are the Nina,Pinta, and Santa Maria."

I am changing the sentence to have a possesive pronoun so which of the following two are correct?

"*Columbus's ships are the Nina,Pinta, and Santa Maria."*

*or*

*"Columbus' ships are the Nina,Pinta, and Santa Maria."*

The apostrophe needs to be on the end with no "S" added right?

*"Kris' house is blue." *

*or *

*"Kris's house is blue."????*


----------



## ewie

There are literally tens of previous threads asking this question, Skribe.  (I've just attached your question to one of them).
The short answer is: There's no definitive right or wrong way.


----------



## Skribe1

ewie said:


> There are literally tens of previous threads asking this question, Skribe. (I've just attached your question to one of them).
> The short answer is: There's no definitive right or wrong way.


 
Sorry for posting in the wrong spot.


----------



## JulianStuart

ewie said:


> There are literally tens of previous threads asking this question, Skribe.  (I've just attached your question to one of them).
> The short answer is: There's no definitive right or wrong way.



But *I* do it *my* way 

My real life* name ends in s but it is not plural*.  It p*sses me off when people treat it as a plural.  To pluralize the *name*, one adds -es to it. That's why I care and have a "right " system for me.  

If the s denotes plural, then one adds the simple apostrophe.  If the s is the last letter of a word that is not a plural, I add 's to make a possessive.
Simple.


----------



## Le Penseur

Yes - you can pick either dogs' or dogs's, Chris' or Chris's, leaves' or leaves's, but when it comes to singular possession, an 's' is necessary at all times.

Eg, 





> dog's


 is correct, but 





> dog'


 is not.


----------



## Parla

panjandrum said:


> I don't think I would ever want to say "... a singers list ..." meaning "... a list of singers ..."?  But I suppose that if I really, really wanted to use those words, then it would have to be without the apostrophe.  The list does not belong to the singers - it is rather like a shopping list, or a theatre list.



I completely agree with both points.


----------



## Bob8964

Hi,

For "Keats' poems", one of my grammars says *keats'* should be read as /'ki:ts/, and another says /'ki:tsiz/.

Please kindly tell me which one is correct.


----------



## Andygc

It depends on whether you write *Keats'* (/'ki:ts/) or *Keats's* (/'ki:tsiz/). I write Keats's. But we don't want to start a debate on the use of *apostrophe s* after a name ending in "s" as there is already at least one thread on that subject.


----------



## suzi br

You might hear either of these, but my preference is for the first one.


----------



## Hermione Golightly

My preference is most definitely for the first, *Keats'*  and *Keats'*s, pronounced /'ki:ts/. I would pronounce  Keats's  as  Keats' and I never write Keats's or whatever unless it is the name of a place officially written "-s's". I can't see the point of it, except to cause endless trouble.

Hermione


----------



## Egmont

I would always say it as two syllables. How else can a listener possibly tell them apart? Why force listeners to do extra work to decipher what is meant, even if he or she will ultimately figure it out, when the speaker can make it crystal-clear so easily? Any effort a speaker forces on listeners to figure out what words are being said is effort that is no longer available to understand the message.

This problem does not arise in writing, where we have the apostrophe to tell us that a possessive is being used. Whichever side one falls on in the written Keats'-or-Keats's debate, at least some sort of signal is always there.


----------



## suzi br

Really, Egmont?  I can see your point with other pairs of nouns, but I don't know what Keats' poems can be taken to mean apart from the poems of the named poet, however you pronounce it!


----------



## natkretep

<Mod note: I have merged Bob's thread with an earlier one.>

I will say I tend to write _Keats's_ and pronounce it as two syllables. If you wrote _Keats'_ I would expect one syllable. You pays your money and you takes your choice, says I.


----------



## Egmont

suzi br said:


> Really, Egmont?  I can see your point with other pairs of nouns, but I don't know what Keats' poems can be taken to mean apart from the poems of the named poet, however you pronounce it!


Because I find this a simple rule for the pronunciation of possessives  when the name of the possessor ends in "s." You and I may not know of  anything else that Keats' (or Keats's) can mean, but I have often found  that things I consider equally obvious are not at all obvious to a  listener. I'm a lousy mind reader. I can't figure out what a listener, or everyone in  an audience, considers obvious. Even if I could, it would be a wasted  effort. Why not simply make the meaning clear, while recognizing that  some of the time extra clarification is not necessary? If I know what I mean - which I hope I do - why not say it in a way that ensures everyone else will too? It's easy to do,  takes essentially no time, and has no disadvantages I can  think of.


----------



## Andygc

I'm with Egmont on this. Furthermore, the Jones family lived next to us when I was a lad. We referred to them collectively as the Joneses. The possessive for the whole family was Joneses's - with all three "s"s pronounced.


----------



## suzi br

It would simply never enter my head to add extra sounds into something where there is no need. In all my years as an English Literature teacher I have no awareness of hearing this (Keats' poems) said any other than with one syllable and it simply doesn't strike me as a case where there could be any ambiguity. You have re-iterated your point about your general "rule" but cannot answer my question about what else it could possibly mean. 

<aside> I used to live in The Countess's Croft which I alwasy pronouced es IZ at the end.


----------



## PaulQ

Egmont said:


> You and I may not know of  anything else that Keats' (or Keats's) can mean, but I have often found  that things I consider equally obvious are not at all obvious to a  listener.


I am reminded of

Sgt. Maj.:"Tonight there will be a professor coming to talk to you lot about Keats, and I bet half of you don't know what a Keat is!"

(Carry on...)


----------



## suzi br

PaulQ said:


> I am reminded of
> 
> Sgt. Maj.:"Tonight there will be a professor coming to talk to you lot about Keats, and I bet half of you don't know what a Keat is!"
> 
> (Carry on...)



There we go, Egmont is right!


----------



## JulianStuart

suzi br said:


> It would simply never enter my head to add extra sounds into something where there is no need. In all my years as an English Literature teacher I have no awareness of hearing this (Keats' poems) said any other than with one syllable and it simply doesn't strike me as a case where there could be any ambiguity. You have re-iterated your point about your general "rule" but cannot answer my question about what else it could possibly mean.
> 
> <aside> I used to live in The Countess's Croft which I alwasy pronouced es IZ at the end.


Whether there is a need is the issue here! As I wrote on page one of this thread, I feel the need if the name ends in s, but is clearly not a plural, it should be accorded the same _respect_ as names ending in other letters   Evans and Evan, William and Williams, Jones, Keat and Keats etc.  It is not only respectful but also eliminates possible ambiguities.  The limit is exceeded when we see things like Jone's and Keat's   However, it does seem to be personal choice which "guide" to follow.


----------



## panjandrum

In many of the many threads on this topic I have declared a two simple principles for dealing with possessive form of names ending in s sounds.
First, write it the way you pronounce it.
Second, if the name ends with a single sibilant, add another (add 's) - so the book owned by James is James's book;
If the name ends with a double sibilant, don't add another (just add ') - so the book owned by Moses is Moses' book.

From thinking about today's question, though, I have to say that I can't ever imagine talking about Keatses poems, or Yeatses, Cummingses or Hugheses.
Perhaps for such people, in these contexts, I think of the name as an attribute of the poem rather than the owner of the poem.


----------



## lobelia.ophrys

Hello everybody,

I'm wondering when do I have to use the "s's" for a name (I know that for for things, it will never happen to see s's)?

Exemple: Chris' neck OR Chris's neck or both are correct? 

Thank you very much!


----------



## natkretep

Mod note: I have merged the thread started by acid...burn with an earlier thread on the same question. Acid..burn, please read the discussion above. If your question isn't answered please add to this thread.

Nat


----------



## sb70012

<<Moderator note.  sb70012, I have merged your question with a previous discussion so you should read this thread from the beginning.  It applies to words ending in -z as well as -s>>

Hi,

Would you please tell me which one is correct?

I love Jennifer Lopez's song
I love Jennifer Lopez song



Many thanks in advance.


----------



## heypresto

It depends on the context - as always.

Jennifer Lopez's song went down well at the concert. 

Lady Gaga sang a Jennifer Lopez song. 


This may no longer be relevant.


----------



## heypresto

I love Jennifer Lopez song. 

I love Jennifer Lopez's song. 

I love *the* Jennifer Lopez song.


----------



## sb70012

Thanks so much dear *Heypresto*.


----------



## JulianStuart

If you read the rest of the thread you will see that some people think:

I love Jennifer Lopez' song

Here is another 6 page discussion on this topic (Chris' or Chris's dog)


----------



## JustKate

There might be a few people who pluralize names that end in "z" like this: _Lopez'_. But not very many. _Lopez's_ is far more common, and it has the added advantage of not setting my teeth on edge.


----------



## JulianStuart

That's why I posted that link - some of the '  folks posted a while ago and style guides change!  I also always add 's no matter what if it's singular


----------



## sdgraham

The style guide used by nearly all U.S. newspapers says "Lopez's" .... whether this has to do with fact that gringo pronunciation of a 'z' is ehz rather than the Spanish ess, I cannot say.


----------



## Kotuku33

After Googling this quite a lot I settled on the following for the Chris example.

If when you SPEAK the word, you hear two distinct s or z sounds, then you add 's. If you only hear one, you only add the apostrophe. So:
Chris's (because it's pronounced "Chrises")
Achilles' (because it's pronounced "Achilles")


----------



## edugarcar

Hi!Quite an interesting matter.I was exactly looking for this.Thanks


----------

