# Possessive - s' or s's with proper nouns - Chris' or Chris's dog?



## semiller

I have a grammar question.  Consider the following sentence.  "The dog of Chris ate the food."  Alright, because this sentence sounds awkard (and it's a way of avoiding the grammatical problem I have) would it be, "Chri*s'* dog ate the food," or "Chri*s's* ate the food."  As a young child in grade schools in the 1980's I was taught that if there was already an s, you simply inserted an apostrophe.  I have seen it written with an extra s lately.  Which is way the correct way now?  Is there a difference between U. S. and British English here?  Thanks!


----------



## garryknight

It's normal to say (and write) "Chris's dog" in British English.


----------



## semiller

Thanks for the response.  Are there any replies from fellow Americans and/or Canadians?  Thanks again!


----------



## EricB

I too was taught in grade school that "Chris' dog" was correct, but style manuals have changed since then, and while there may still be some holdouts in favor of "Chris' dog," I believe most sources would now say "Chris's dog."

The rule, as I've heard it, is that the possessive of proper nouns is formed in the same way as common nouns, except for certain names where that would be awkward -- e.g., Moses, Jesus, and Xerxes.


----------



## semiller

Thanks Eric!  Although the style may have changed, I'm guess I'm old fashioned as I will continue to write "Chris' dog" rather than "Chris's dog."  This has too much of a p c look to me.


----------



## daviesri

I'm old school and would have to go with "Chris' dog".


----------



## VenusEnvy

Semillar: I concur with you. (With all, in fact)

Although I was told that both forms are gramatically correct, I was taught to write it as follows: Chris'   It feels more comfortable for me. And, I will continue to do so.


----------



## te gato

Both are accepted..
the only rule..If you are writing a paper..and choose to use Chris' dog..then continue using that one through the entire paper..

I personally use 'Chris' dog'...take him out for walks every now and then...

tg


----------



## languageGuy

I was taught something in between.  Proper names ending with s that have two or less sylables, add  's for the possessive.   Proper names ending with s that have 3 or more sylables, add only the '.


----------



## jacinta

It is odd that we were taught to *write* Chris' dog but we *say * Chris's dog.  A definite mix-up there somewhere!  Who are the mucky-mucks that wrote this rule?? (don't answer that!  It's a rhetorical question) I was also taught to write Chris' and I still do, probably always will.


----------



## Wordsmyth

For "Chris's", I absolutely go along with garry's 


			
				garryknight said:
			
		

> It's normal to say (and write) "Chris's dog" in British English.


But instinctively I'd write (and say) Moses', Xerxes'. Not sure if that's because of EricB's "awkwardness" factor, or languageGuy's "number of syllables" -- probably both, though I'd generally tend to do it as soon as there's more than one syllable. 

W


----------



## timpeac

Well it looks like another BE-AE classic difference doesn't it? I think that language guy was the only person who fell the other side of the respecitve Chris's Chris' (Wordsmyth I can't count you as you don't say where you're from. World is not quite specific enough). I add myself to my compatriotes with "Chris's".

I remember when I was little asking why we had to sing that stupid song "Jesus' hands are kind hands" where you don't even pronounce it as "jesus's" and the teacher saying yes I know it's stupid but it's just the song.


----------



## la grive solitaire

I favor 's after words ending in "s", but as quoted from the Chicago Manual of Style in the link below: "How to form the possessive of polysyllabic personal names ending with the sound of "s" or "z" probably occasions more dissension among writers and editors than any other orthographic matter open to disagreement."  (6.30)

"Different style manuals handle this in different ways. The Chicago Manual of Style, which is the manual for book editing, recommends that most possessives of proper names include an extra "s." It makes exceptions for Jesus, Moses, and names of more than one syllable with an unaccented ending pronouned "eez." Thus, Euripides', not Euripides's.How to form the possessive of polysllabic personal names ending with the sound of 's' or 'z'..." 
http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/grammar/Apostro3.html


----------



## Wordsmyth

timpeac said:
			
		

> Well it looks like another BE-AE classic difference doesn't it? I think that language guy was the only person who fell the other side of the respecitve Chris's Chris' (Wordsmyth I can't count you as you don't say where you're from. World is not quite specific enough). I add myself to my compatriotes with "Chris's". [...]


OK Tim, I'll come clean, you can add my "Chris's" to the BE side.

For the AE/BE thing, count me as Brit. I'm UK-born, BE mother-tongue, but moved around the world a lot. The 'World' tag is partly to do with my feelings about nationalism (not to be confused with culture  ), and partly to avoid the 'judge a bottle by its label' syndrome. OK, so now I've blown it , so maybe I'll change my header some day. _{Edit: I just did - a bit!} _ 

W


----------



## te gato

First..(_Mods..If you are so inclined..you may delete this post_)

Next...
AE..BE..CE..DE..aggggggg

Both are accepted...that has been stated..you can say Chris' or Chris's...and it does *not* matter *where* you come from..
Why does this always have to turn into a AE vs BE..?????????
If both are accepted..and understood..then what is the problem...

tg


----------



## timpeac

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> OK Tim, I'll come clean, you can add my "Chris's" to the BE side.
> 
> For the AE/BE thing, count me as Brit. I'm UK-born, BE mother-tongue, but moved around the world a lot. The 'World' tag is partly to do with my feelings about nationalism (not to be confused with culture  ), and partly to avoid the 'judge a bottle by its label' syndrome. OK, so now I've blown it , so maybe I'll change my header some day. _{Edit: I just did - a bit!} _
> 
> W



Hehe I always knew you must be one of us....

Joking apart, I fully understand your reasons for going "world" but in language terms it makes such a difference (I would never have guessed how much before coming to this forum) whether you're a Brit or a Yank (sorry other nationalities) that it is definitely relevant. I thought you must be a Brit from linguistic opinions you've given in the past, which is interesting in itself given how close BE and AE are at the end of the day.


----------



## timpeac

te gato said:
			
		

> First..(_Mods..If you are so inclined..you may delete this post_)
> 
> Next...
> AE..BE..CE..DE..aggggggg
> 
> Both are accepted...that has been stated..you can say Chris' or Chris's...and it does *not* matter *where* you come from..
> Why does this always have to turn into a AE vs BE..?????????
> If both are accepted..and understood..then what is the problem...
> 
> tg



Erm te gato I don't understand your problem. It's not BE versus AE in the sense of a competition (at least not to my mind) but what's the point in pretending that there is no difference? At the end of the day, the evidence in this thread would lead us to believe that Yanks would write Chris' and Brits would write Chris's. I think that's an important point to make, if nothing else for the foreigners who might want to know the usage in the country they are in.


----------



## te gato

timpeac said:
			
		

> Erm te gato I don't understand your problem. It's not BE versus AE in the sense of a competition (at least not to my mind) but what's the point in pretending that there is no difference? At the end of the day, the evidence in this thread would lead us to believe that Yanks would write Chris' and Brits would write Chris's. I think that's an important point to make, if nothing else for the foreigners who might want to know the usage in the country they are in.


I do apologize/apologise if it has come out sounding like I have a problem..with the different utilisation/utilization..of the Brits..Yanks usage...for I do not..
I was just stressing a point that both ways are listed in English Grammar..be it BE or AE...and I also was taught to use both ways..for the comprehension is equil...
Therefore it would come down to personal preference...whether you are from here..there..or everywhere..

tg


----------



## timpeac

te gato said:
			
		

> I do apologize/apologise if it has come out sounding like I have a problem..with the different utilisation/utilization..of the Brits..Yanks usage...for I do not..
> I was just stressing a point that both ways are listed in English Grammar..be it BE or AE...and I also was taught to use both ways..for the comprehension is equil...
> Therefore it would come down to personal preference...whether you are from here..there..or everywhere..
> 
> tg



OK, both might be acceptable in each country, but thanks to the wonders of WR we all know even more than this standard information, don't we, we know which form is preferred where!! 

Actually, joking apart, this is an important point. To my Brit eyes the zeds in your words (zees to the Yanks) look horrid. I would not go as far as to say they are wrong, for they are not, but if I was a foreigner in the UK I would wish to know which form would pass without comment and which would class me as an "outsider". That was all I meant. It _is_ personal preference, but it is important to highlight the _average_ preference, which is usually quite definite in these cases. There are a few instances of either/or but generally language has one form or the other.

Edit - you wrote

"Both are accepted...that has been stated..you can say Chris' or Chris's...and it does *not* matter *where* you come from.."

It _does_ matter where you come from. It does not matter to us because we are all accepting language freaks, most people are not. If you use the wrong form in a certain country the natives are not going to think, oh well that's fine, they do that in New York/New zealand/the highlands etc they will just think it is wrong.

Edit - I should point out that "freak" in my last post is in the sense of "aficionado" not in the sense of weirdo.


----------



## te gato

timpeac said:
			
		

> OK, both might be acceptable in each country, but thanks to the wonders of WR we all know even more than this standard information, don't we, we know which form is preferred where!!
> 
> Actually, joking apart, this is an important point. To my Brit eyes the zeds in your words (zees to the Yanks) look horrid. I would not go as far as to say they are wrong, for they are not, but if I was a foreigner in the UK I would wish to know which form would pass without comment and which would class me as an "outsider". That was all I meant. It _is_ personal preference, but it is important to highlight the _average_ preference, which is usually quite definite in these cases. There are a few instances of either/or but generally language has one form or the other.


Funny thing..I do not use the zees..so I guess that your BE is a lot closer to my TGE... 
I am also not disputing what you have said..I was stating rules  
and I plead ignorance..I have never been where BE is strictly used..so therefore I bow to your knowledge...and wisdom...
tg


----------



## Edwin

timpeac said:
			
		

> At the end of the day, the evidence in this thread would lead us to believe that Yanks would write Chris' and Brits would write Chris's. I think that's an important point to make, if nothing else for the foreigners who might want to know the usage in the country they are in.



If you look at message number 13 (from the hermit thrush) in this thread and realize that Chicago is located in the US of A, you will see that it is not correct that *Chris'* is universally accepted usage in the US.


----------



## gaer

I'm going to share what I've found. Please, all of you, remember that *I'm* a liberal and vote at all times for choices. The reason that the advice to add "s" on singular nouns stuck in my mind is because of my lousy spelling, not because of any knowledge.

My personal vote: Use Chris' dog or Chris's dog. Now, only one source. Let me see if I can find another to contradict it!

This is from American Heritage Dictionary:

Note that although some people use just the apostrophe after singular nouns ending in _s (the witness’ testimony, Burns’ poetry_), the _-’s_ is generally preferred because it more accurately reflects the modern pronunciation of these forms. However, in a few cases where the _-’s_ is not pronounced, it is usual to add just the apostrophe: _for righteousness’ (appearance’) sake._

I'll be back if I can find more…

Gaer


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Tim,

In the interest of Globish, or something...





			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> To my Brit eyes the zeds in your words (zees to the Yanks) look horrid. And if I ever find one of those hairy purple ZEDS in my text, I'll swat it with a Louisville Slugger!  I would not go as far as to say they are wrong, for they are not, but if I[s] was[s] *were* a foreigner in the UK I would wish to know which form would pass without comment and which would class me as an "outsider".
> 
> 
> 
> It _does_ matter where you come from. It does not matter to us because we are all accepting language freaks, most people are not. If you use the wrong form in a certain country the natives are not going to think, oh well that's fine, they do that in New York/New zealand/the highlands etc they will just think it is wrong.
> 
> Edit - I should point out that "freak" in my last post is in the sense of "aficionado" not in the sense of weirdo.



Regards from a language freak,
Cuchu


----------



## gaer

To all, more that I found…

The following is from my own book, "English Usage" (MW).

There is mixed usage with regard to indicating the genitive case of a singular noun ending in an \s\ or \z\ sound with an apostrophe plus _s_ or an apostrophe alone. Our evidence shows that for common nouns more writers use _'s_ than the apostrophe alone: _the boss's desk, the princess's wedding_ are more common than the _boss' desk, the princess'_ wedding. But when a polysyllabic _s_ or _z_ noun is followed by a word beginning with an _s_ or _z_ sound, the apostrophe alone is more frequent: _for convenience' sake_.

This same basic observation can be made of proper nouns: _Jones's house, Dicken's novels_ are more common than _Jones' house, Dickens' novels_. There are more exceptions with proper names, however: _Jesus' time, Moses' law_. Multisyllabic names and particularly those of biblical and classical origin usually take only the apostrophe: _Odysseus' journey, Aristophanes' plays_. Single-syllable names, however, even the classical ones, more often have _'s_: _Zeus's anger_.

Gaer


----------



## lainyn

I ALWAYS write Chris's, because I say Chris's. I never write something I don't say. I only use the apostrophe ending if it "sounds right". I say ZED or ZEE, and never have discovered which I prefer. I also use S's or Z's in words like realis(z)e, without realising that I'm switching back and forth. I make an unconscious effort to cater to either the American or Briton I'm speaking with. (Z for Americans, S for British). Ah yes, the story of being Canadian.


----------



## gaer

lainyn said:
			
		

> I ALWAYS write Chris's, because I say Chris's. I never write something I don't say. I only use the apostrophe ending if it "sounds right". I say ZED or ZEE, and never have discovered which I prefer. I also use S's or Z's in words like realis(z)e, without realising that I'm switching back and forth. I make an unconscious effort to cater to either the American or Briton I'm speaking with. (Z for Americans, S for British). Ah yes, the story of being Canadian.


I also get mixed up. As I've repeated stated, I'm not a good speller, but my problem is weird. There are fairly hard words that I never miss. And both realize and realise seem fully logical too me.

I do want to be fair and mention that this was never about what we write but rather about what is correct. And the only solid evidence I have so far is that a name like "Chris" appears more often with the "s" after the apostrophe than without it. But I don't think any of us would misread "Chris' family", and considering how often English spelling has nothing to do with pronunciation, I'm keeping an open mind. 

But I have an additional question: How do other PRONOUNCE: "Jesus' "?

Jesusis? In other words, if you say "Jesus' mother", is there an additional syllable? Is this another "AY men/Ah men" thing? 

Gaer


----------



## mjscott

Way back when Jesus was a boy and I was his friend, Jesus's backpack would knock against my lunchpail on the way to school. I was taught at that time that a singular noun that ended with an _s_ was given an apostrophe _s_ after it to make it posessive. If there had happened to be more than two Jesuses in history and both had sat on either side of me at our slate table waiting for McGuffy to invent the reader and Noah Webster to publish his blue-backed speller, the I would have sat between Jesuses' backpacks as I pulled out my pita, feta and olive sandwich. It was ok to pluralize the unusual name that ended in _s_, but once you did, you only put an apostrophe behind it to show posession.
Examp:
Way back when I was a kid, Jesus's backpack hit against my lunch pail as we traveled to school.
The two Jesuses' grades were higher than mine in history.
The Jones's have a new puppy.
There are three Joneses' cabins in a row next to the beach.


----------



## lotsalag

In Australia, it's pretty common to write "Chris' dog". You rarely would see "Chris's dog". Any Australian feel free to disagree with me!


----------



## gaer

mjscott said:
			
		

> Way back when Jesus was a boy and I was his friend, Jesus's backpack would knock against my lunchpail on the way to school. I was taught at that time that a singular noun that ended with an _s_ was given an apostrophe _s_ after it to make it posessive. If there had happened to be more than two Jesuses in history and both had sat on either side of me at our slate table waiting for McGuffy to invent the reader and Noah Webster to publish his blue-backed speller, the I would have sat between Jesuses' backpacks as I pulled out my pita, feta and olive sandwich. It was ok to pluralize the unusual name that ended in _s_, but once you did, you only put an apostrophe behind it to show posession.
> Examp:
> Way back when I was a kid, Jesus's backpack hit against my lunch pail as we traveled to school.
> The two Jesuses' grades were higher than mine in history.
> The Jones's have a new puppy.
> There are three Joneses' cabins in a row next to the beach.


Well, supposedly "Jesus' " is more common, and although you made me laugh, I still don't know about the prunication of his name when used in the possessive form!!! 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

lotsalag said:
			
		

> In Australia, it's pretty common to write "Chris' dog". You rarely would see "Chris's dog". Any Australian feel free to disagree with me!


Unfortunately you can only Google by language, not by country. 

So the mystery goes on. 

Gaer


----------



## Edwin

gaer said:
			
		

> Unfortunately you can only Google by language, not by country.
> 
> So the mystery goes on.
> 
> Gaer



Actually to some extent you can Google on a country. For example if you Google on 


> .au jesus's


you will get websites ending in .au which I believe stands for Australia. Other ending are .jp for Japan, .uk for United Kingdom.  I'm not sure how well this type of search works.

I also note that apparently  searching on jesus'   gives the same results as searching on jesus.  I cannot find a way to get Google to distinguish the two. Maybe someone knows how to do it.


----------



## Edwin

lotsalag said:
			
		

> In Australia, it's pretty common to write "Chris' dog". You rarely would see "Chris's dog". Any Australian feel free to disagree with me!



Instances of the use of Chris's in Australia

Chris's Citroën Pages. Gidday from Perth, Western Australia you are the...

Chris's Commonwealth Railways Pages. This site is where you will find various
bits of information about the Commonwealth Railways, Australian National ...


melbourne.citysearch.com.au > Food & Wine
whitepages.com.au | yellowpages.com.au | whereis.com | tradingpost.com.au ...
With Chris's restaurant rebuilt, the villas complement his little piece of ...

and 30, 200 more examples may be found HERE


----------



## timpeac

Edwin said:
			
		

> If you look at message number 13 (from the hermit thrush) in this thread and realize that Chicago is located in the US of A, you will see that it is not correct that *Chris'* is universally accepted usage in the US.


 
Aparently my phrase "the evidence in this thread would lead us to believe that Yanks would write Chris' and Brits would write Chris's" has led some to believe that I was stating that every single American would prefer "Chris'" and every single Brit would prefer "Chris's".

I apologise for the confusion. Let me set the record straight - the evidence in this thread would lead us to believe that most Yanks would write Chris' and most Brits would write Chris's. This may or may not be true in Chicago. Which is in the USA, apparently .


----------



## Little One

semiller said:
			
		

> As a young child in grade schools in the 1980's I was taught that if there was already an s, you simply inserted an apostrophe. I have seen it written with an extra s lately. Which is way the correct way now?


 
While everyone else here has argued about the Chris' and Chris's, nobody has noticed the misuse of the apostrophe in the above quote.
The 1980s, never the 1980's. Remember it is a plural, not a possessive and there is no missing letter.


----------



## garryknight

Little One said:
			
		

> The 1980s, never the 1980's. Remember it is a plural, not a processive and there is no missing letter.


I take it you mean a "possessive"? 

Here's what _Fowler's Modern English Usage_ (3rd ed., 1997) has to say on this subject:

Though once commonly used in the plural of abbreviations and numerals (_QC's, the 1960's_), the apostrophe is now best omitted in such circumstances: _MAs, MPs, the 1980s, the three Rs, in twos and threes_. Except that it is normally used in contexts where its omission might possibly lead to confusion, e.g. _dot your i's and cross your t's_; _there are three i's in inimical; the class of '61_(= 1961).

I bet you all wanted to know that.


----------



## gaer

Edwin said:
			
		

> Actually to some extent you can Google on a country. For example if you Google on
> 
> you will get websites ending in .au which I believe stands for Australia. Other ending are .jp for Japan, .uk for United Kingdom. I'm not sure how well this type of search works.
> 
> I also note that apparently searching on jesus' gives the same results as searching on jesus. I cannot find a way to get Google to distinguish the two. Maybe someone knows how to do it.


Edwin, I'm having the same problems. Also, I don't know any way to make searches case sensitive.

I'm aware that you can use different endings for Google (.au, etc.), but I'm not sure how accurate this is for English. Have you tried it?

Gaer


----------



## gaer

timpeac said:
			
		

> Aparently my phrase "the evidence in this thread would lead us to believe that Yanks would write Chris' and Brits would write Chris's" has led some to believe that I was stating that every single American would prefer "Chris'" and every single Brit would prefer "Chris's".
> 
> I apologise for the confusion. Let me set the record straight - the evidence in this thread would lead us to believe that most Yanks would write Chris' and most Brits would write Chris's. This may or may not be true in Chicago. Which is in the USA, apparently .


Tim, in this case I think you're wrong. If you read through the whole thread, I believe you'll find out that most of us in the US also write "Chris's".

I don't think this is BE-AE matter at all!

Gaer


----------



## gaer

garryknight said:
			
		

> I take it you mean a "possessive"?
> 
> Here's what _Fowler's Modern English Usage_ (3rd ed., 1997) has to say on this subject:
> 
> Though once commonly used in the plural of abbreviations and numerals (_QC's, the 1960's_), the apostrophe is now best omitted in such circumstances: _MAs, MPs, the 1980s, the three Rs, in twos and threes_. Except that it is normally used in contexts where its omission might possibly lead to confusion, e.g. _dot your i's and cross your t's_; _there are three i's in inimical; the class of '61_(= 1961).
> 
> I bet you all wanted to know that.


Actually, Garry, I did want to know that because it makes it clear that there has been a shift. I'm aware that the apostrophe is now normally omitted, but I did not know when it happened. 

G


----------



## semiller

Some people have stated that they prefer "Chris's" in comparison to "Chris'" because we pronounce the extra s in speech.  My challenge to this would be that we could imagine the ' as having the s sound in "Chris' ."  I know that this might sound far fetched, but it does support the argument of those in favor of the traditional "Chris'" rather than "Chris's."  Thanks!


----------



## semiller

garryknight said:
			
		

> I take it you mean a "possessive"?
> 
> Here's what _Fowler's Modern English Usage_ (3rd ed., 1997) has to say on this subject:
> 
> Though once commonly used in the plural of abbreviations and numerals (_QC's, the 1960's_), the apostrophe is now best omitted in such circumstances: _MAs, MPs, the 1980s, the three Rs, in twos and threes_. Except that it is normally used in contexts where its omission might possibly lead to confusion, e.g. _dot your i's and cross your t's_; _there are three i's in inimical; the class of '61_(= 1961).
> 
> I bet you all wanted to know that.



Very interesting!  You mentioned that the apostrophe is "now" omitted. 
For about how long has this rule been commonly used?  Nothing against our British brothers, but is this equally true for written U. S. English?  This is the first time I have ever heard of this rule.  Thanks!


----------



## Little One

garryknight said:
			
		

> I take it you mean a "possessive"?



So that is how it is spelt? I spend ages working it out, and I knew it was not right. I should have used my dictionary; it is an arm's length away!
Garry, I will go and correct my post, so your reply look stupid. 

I needed to edit this post as well, as you have quoted my spelling mistake. There is no getting away from it. It will haunt me for life.


Edited to correct quotation formatting. Cagey, moderator.


----------



## Edwin

gaer said:
			
		

> I'm aware that you can use different endings for Google (.au, etc.), but I'm not sure how accurate this is for English. Have you tried it?



If by ''English'' you means UK, it apparently does work--in the sense that the sites pulled up under a search for, say, .uk Chris's seem to be from the UK.


----------



## garryknight

gaer said:
			
		

> I'm aware that the apostrophe is now normally omitted, but I did not know when it happened.


In reality, it hasn't. People still put the apostrophe in. It's more ubiquitous than the so-called grocer's apostrophe (carrot's, potato's, also video's, sofa's).


----------



## garryknight

Little One said:
			
		

> Garry, I will go and correct my post, so your reply look stupid.


Thanks.  It's one of the hazards of taking part in the forums.



			
				Little One said:
			
		

> I needed to edit this post as well, as you have quoted my spelling mistake.


Ah, but your spelling mistake will _still_ appear in my post as I'm the only one who can edit that.  (unless some nefarious mod sneaks in) So there!


----------



## gaer

garryknight said:
			
		

> In reality, it hasn't. People still put the apostrophe in. It's more ubiquitous than the so-called grocer's apostrophe (carrot's, potato's, also video's, sofa's).


Garry,

I'm a bit confused. I was only talking about a tendency for something like "1900s" replacing "1900's". But just a tendency.

As for thinking that one is superior to the other, you should know by now that I'm always on the side of choices. The advantage I see to getting rid of the apostrophe, when the meaning is clear without it, is that it is one less key stroke when I am typing. But other than that, for me it's like "favorite/favourite", just two different ways to say the same thing.  

Gaer


----------



## gaer

Edwin said:
			
		

> If by ''English'' you means UK, it apparently does work--in the sense that the sites pulled up under a search for, say, .uk Chris's seem to be from the UK.


Edwin,

You can also used advanced settings and search by country AND this allows you to search phrases:

Results 1 - 10 of about 51 for "Chris's brother". Australia (108)
Results 1 - 10 of about 72 for "Chris's brother". Canada (329)
Results 1 - 10 of about 204 for "Chris's brother". UK (282 possible)
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,820 for "Chris's brother". US (998)

The problem here is that when you use "Chris' brother", as you've already found out, you get Chris' and Chris's and even Chris. 

But if you look at the numbers in parentheses, that is the number of hits from "Chris' brother". Not that the hits are LOWER for the second term in the US, which logically MUST be bigger, since it includes "Chris's brother" too.

To me this suggests that a search for a word ending only with an apostrophe is giving very false results. In addition, as we've all found out, when doing a quick "usage check", the examples we get are not filtered for illiteracy.

Very strange results, at any rate…

Gaer


----------



## Wordsmyth

gaer said:
			
		

> Edwin,
> 
> You can also used advanced settings and search by country AND this allows you to search phrases:
> 
> Results 1 - 10 of about 51 for "Chris's brother". Australia (108)
> Results 1 - 10 of about 72 for "Chris's brother". Canada (329)
> Results 1 - 10 of about 204 for "Chris's brother". UK (282 possible)
> Results 1 - 10 of about 1,820 for "Chris's brother". US (998)
> 
> The problem here is that when you use "Chris' brother", as you've already found out, you get Chris' and Chris's and even Chris.
> 
> But if you look at the numbers in parentheses, that is the number of hits from "Chris' brother". Not that the hits are LOWER for the second term in the US, which logically MUST be bigger, since it includes "Chris's brother" too.
> 
> To me this suggests that a search for a word ending only with an apostrophe is giving very false results. In addition, as we've all found out, when doing a quick "usage check", the examples we get are not filtered for illiteracy.
> 
> Very strange results, at any rate…
> 
> Gaer



Hi Gaer,

To google by country, I either use 'Language Tools' > 'Search pages located in ' (I guess this is what you meant by 'advanced settings'?), or open the google site for the country (from the flag icons in Language Tools).

If you're making several searches, the latter avoids having to go via 'Language Tools' each time.

Either method is better than typing .au or .uk in the search field, as that excludes many sites in those countries that are just .com, .org, .net, etc (without the country extension).

For phrase searches you can also do that from the main search page, by putting the phrase in quotes.

Maybe you knew all that already, but it might help some less advanced googlers out there.

But now I have a question: Where did you find those hit-counts in Google? I can't see them anywhere?

W


----------



## garryknight

gaer said:
			
		

> I'm a bit confused. I was only talking about a tendency for something like "1900s" replacing "1900's". But just a tendency.


Oh, ok. When I said "In reality, it hasn't. People still put the apostrophe in", what I meant was that, in spite of style recommendations having changed so that the apostrophe is now not required, most people don't know that, so they still put it in. Very few people rush out to buy the latest edition of their favourite grammar book when it comes out, do they?


----------



## elroy

I realize that this topic has been positively exhausted, but I still want to share my two cents.

I was taught at my American school that the 's was required after names ending with s, except for "ancient" or "Biblical" names like Jesus, Moses, Xerxes.  Now, I realize that this is obviously a debatable issue (otherwise we wouldn't be on post #52 now) but I like that rule and therefore stick to it.  It makes sense; just because the name ends with an s doesn't mean it has to be shafted and robbed the s it rightfully deserves in the possessive.  Perhaps I'm particularly adamant about this issue because my own name is Elias, and I can't stand it when people write _Elias'_.  It looks as though I'm being treated like an ancient historical figure or something.  (Incidentally, I wonder what other people whose names actually end in s think.  Should I start a poll?  Hmmm...how far do we want to take this?!)

As for the apostrophe-with-years bit, I was also taught that the plurals of numbers and letters required an apostrophe.  (For example, mind your p's and q's.). While these are of course not possessives, that is not the only case that governs apostrophe usage.  Apostrophes serve many other functions, the most significant of which is that of our trademark contactions (which I don't  know what I'd  do if we didn't  have!).  Furthermore, I really don't think numbers and letters should be jumbled up together; after all, there's probably a reason that "tendency" (if we choose to settle for that term) has persisted until recently, when grammarians and linguists couldn't leave good enough alone and began to question the validity of a most conventional apostrophe usage.

In closing, I support rules over feeling - but that's just me.  There are many times I find myself writing something correctly even if it doesn't "look" right.  Usually I settle for rewording.

That's all from *Elias's * camp.

PS - The grocer's apostrophe is simply inexcusable!


----------



## gaer

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> Hi Gaer,
> 
> To google by country, I either use 'Language Tools' > 'Search pages located in ' (I guess this is what you meant by 'advanced settings'?), or open the google site for the country (from the flag icons in Language Tools).
> 
> If you're making several searches, the latter avoids having to go via 'Language Tools' each time.
> 
> Either method is better than typing .au or .uk in the search field, as that excludes many sites in those countries that are just .com, .org, .net, etc (without the country extension).
> 
> For phrase searches you can also do that from the main search page, by putting the phrase in quotes.
> 
> Maybe you knew all that already, but it might help some less advanced googlers out there.
> 
> But now I have a question: Where did you find those hit-counts in Google? I can't see them anywhere?
> 
> W


If you search by using the flags, actually going to a different version of Google, the results are different than if you simply choose a country in advanced tools. Why the results are different I don't know!

Gaer

PS: Results *1* - *10* of about *5,850* for *"Chris' brother" (UK)*

So it totally different results. But regardless, the same problem exists. This brings up "Chris's" as well as "Chris'" and who knows what else. So the searches simply aren't valid in any way when using the apostrophe…


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> I realize that this topic has been positively exhausted, but I still want to share my two cents.
> 
> I was taught at my American school that the 's was required after names ending with s, except for "ancient" or "Biblical" names like Jesus, Moses, Xerxes.


According to what I read and the rules I posted, even from a very open-minded source, these rules still seem to dominate in offical publications.


> Perhaps I'm particularly adamant about this issue because my own name is Elias, and I can't stand it when people write _Elias'_.


So without the extra "s", you feel as though people would think that "Elias' dog" would be pronounced "Elias dog"? Hmm…

Well, obviously some people have really strong feelings about:

Elias's, Chris's, 1900s/1900's, etc. 

I have no strong feelings at all, but I do wonder why exceptions were made in the first place for biblical names. And if "Elias's" is pronounced "Eliasez", I still wonder how the possessive form of Jesus and Moses is pronounced, regardless of punctuation! 

Jesusez, Mosesez? I truly don't know!

Gaer

Gaer


----------



## Bancrows

lotsalag said:
			
		

> In Australia, it's pretty common to write "Chris' dog". You rarely would see "Chris's dog". Any Australian feel free to disagree with me!



No disagreement from this one. "Chris' dog" is the way I was taught, and "Chris's" looks terribly clumsy to me. I remember reading several strongly-worded letters to various editors protesting that the film (and the book) should have been entitled "Bridget Jones' Diary".


----------



## Panpan

This is what I was taught (in the UK).  I don't guarantee it is correct.

The Chris' dog is correct.  It is both plural and possessive.  It means there are two people, both called Chris, who jointly own a dog.  Cf; the robins' nest.

Apostrophe s is the possessive case, except where the possessor is plural.

'Chris' is singular, therefore the possessive case is Chris's dog.

Hope that helps

Panpan


----------



## Wordsmyth

gaer said:
			
		

> If you search by using the flags, actually going to a different version of Google, the results are different than if you simply choose a country in advanced tools. Why the results are different I don't know!
> 
> Gaer
> 
> PS: Results *1* - *10* of about *5,850* for *"Chris' brother" (UK)*
> [...]


Thanks for the tip, Gaer. I'd never done the comparison, and I don't know why different results either. Curiously, I find different results for the UK, but the same results with the two methods for Australia!

*Re PS*: Oops. Reading your reply made me realise that I'd misread your post #48. I thought you were talking about two different things: 'results' and 'hits'. Sorry  

W


----------



## timpeac

I posted this in another thread but I thought I'd put it here as it is relevant too -

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Scotsloon has hit the nail on the head. "Drive-through" is a combination of verb + adverb. This makes it different from all your example in post number 3 which were all based on nouns.*

*"Drive-through's" is definitely correct (with or without the apostrophe - this wasn't a mistake by the way, it is acceptable to use an apostrophe in forming a plural if it aids clarity, as here where the plural is being put on what is traditionally not a noun, viz "through").*

*ps - Scotsloon, why have you named yourself such? I always seem to agree with what you say. Maybe I'm a loon and just don't know it.*

This is an important point as if clarity is aided it always seems reasonable to add an apostrophe to a plural. 1900's for example. This obviously doesn't make it a "posessive" apostrophe.


----------



## elroy

Panpan said:
			
		

> This is what I was taught (in the UK).  I don't guarantee it is correct.
> 
> The Chris' dog is correct.  It is both plural and possessive.  It means there are two people, both called Chris, who jointly own a dog.  Cf; the robins' nest.
> 
> Apostrophe s is the possessive case, except where the possessor is plural.
> 
> 'Chris' is singular, therefore the possessive case is Chris's dog.
> 
> Hope that helps
> 
> Panpan



I agree, of course.

As for "Chris' dog," though, if it means that there are two owners with the same name, shouldn't it be "the Chrises' dog"?  (The plural of Chris is Chrises, not just Chris.)


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> According to what I read and the rules I posted, even from a very open-minded source, these rules still seem to dominate in offical publications.
> 
> So without the extra "s", you feel as though people would think that "Elias' dog" would be pronounced "Elias dog"? Hmm…
> 
> Well, obviously some people have really strong feelings about:
> 
> Elias's, Chris's, 1900s/1900's, etc.
> 
> I have no strong feelings at all, but I do wonder why exceptions were made in the first place for biblical names. And if "Elias's" is pronounced "Eliasez", I still wonder how the possessive form of Jesus and Moses is pronounced, regardless of punctuation!
> 
> Jesusez, Mosesez? I truly don't know!
> 
> Gaer
> 
> Gaer



I have heard "Jesusez" and "Mosesez" as well as "Jesus" and "Moses."  I think it depends on how fast you're talking and how comfortable it sounds.


----------



## gaer

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> Thanks for the tip, Gaer. I'd never done the comparison, and I don't know why different results either. Curiously, I find different results for the UK, but the same results with the two methods for Australia!
> 
> *Re PS*: Oops. Reading your reply made me realise that I'd misread your post #48. I thought you were talking about two different things: 'results' and 'hits'. Sorry
> 
> W


Results (or hits) vary for so many reason, I've given up trying to figure it out!

Gaer


----------



## gaer

timpeac said:
			
		

> I posted this in another thread but I thought I'd put it here as it is relevant too -
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *Scotsloon has hit the nail on the head. "Drive-through" is a combination of verb + adverb. This makes it different from all your example in post number 3 which were all based on nouns.*
> 
> *"Drive-through's" is definitely correct (with or without the apostrophe - this wasn't a mistake by the way, it is acceptable to use an apostrophe in forming a plural if it aids clarity, as here where the plural is being put on what is traditionally not a noun, viz "through").*
> 
> *ps - Scotsloon, why have you named yourself such? I always seem to agree with what you say. Maybe I'm a loon and just don't know it.*
> 
> This is an important point as if clarity is aided it always seems reasonable to add an apostrophe to a plural. 1900's for example. This obviously doesn't make it a "posessive" apostrophe.


Good point, Tim, and one I had not even considered. So much of the time it all comes down to common sense, doesn't it? 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> I have heard "Jesusez" and "Mosesez" as well as "Jesus" and "Moses." I think it depends on how fast you're talking and how comfortable it sounds.


Well, I truly did not know what other people consider to be more correct. The rule about Jesus' and Moses', if there is an extra ending, sort of throws off the logic of adding an 's for other singular plurals. After all these posts, it still seems to me that there is no clear right way, because the logic itself does not remain consistent. 

Gaer


----------



## Wordsmyth

gaer said:
			
		

> [...] After all these posts, it still seems to me that there is no clear right way, because the logic itself does not remain consistent.
> 
> Gaer


Indeed, Gaer

(This point may have been raised earlier but 64 posts is a lot to check!) : 

Trying to explain the logic of apostrophes to English-learners, I've more than once seen furrowed brows when I tell them that "it's" is not a possessive, but that "its" is !!

W


----------



## Juzza

timpeac said:
			
		

> Erm te gato I don't understand your problem. It's not BE versus AE in the sense of a competition (at least not to my mind) but what's the point in pretending that there is no difference? At the end of the day, the evidence in this thread would lead us to believe that Yanks would write Chris' and Brits would write Chris's. I think that's an important point to make, if nothing else for the foreigners who might want to know the usage in the country they are in.



Can I throw a bit of a spanner in the works and add another classification as such? Mine is Australian English and for all intents and purposes I'd say Chris' dog however more and more people are tending towards Chris's dog. It really does vary from person to person though it is still most common to say Chris' dog here. That is generally deemed correct.


----------



## timpeac

gaer said:
			
		

> Good point, Tim, and one I had not even considered. So much of the time it all comes down to common sense, doesn't it?
> 
> Gaer


 
Here is another one "pro's and cons". I don't view that first ' as abusive since to me pros would look funny.


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:
			
		

> Here is another one "pro's and cons". I don't view that first ' as abusive since to me pros would look funny.



Interesting... I've always written "pros and cons" without thinking twice...


----------



## Drew

I don't have my style book in front of me (and it's too late to go looking for it), but I seem to remember that it has something to do with whether the "s" makes an "s" sound or a "z" sound.  If I'm remembering it correctly, the "s" sound takes an "apostrophe s" and the "z" sound just takes an apostrophe.  Comments?


----------



## te gato

I would simplify it..and just say..

that dog belongs to Chris... 

and please tell Chris to take him for a walk, and give him a bath, he stinks!!

tg


----------



## te gato

Drew said:
			
		

> I don't have my style book in front of me (and it's too late to go looking for it), but I seem to remember that it has something to do with whether the "s" makes an "s" sound or a "z" sound. If I'm remembering it correctly, the "s" sound takes an "apostrophe s" and the "z" sound just takes an apostrophe. Comments?


 
Here is what I found...

http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/possessives.htm

http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/apostrophe.htm

tg


----------



## gaer

Wordsmyth said:
			
		

> Indeed, Gaer
> 
> (This point may have been raised earlier but 64 posts is a lot to check!) :
> 
> Trying to explain the logic of apostrophes to English-learners, I've more than once seen furrowed brows when I tell them that "it's" is not a possessive, but that "its" is !!
> 
> W


Actually, THIS is the one place where I feel as though I'm on solid ground, because of:

his, hers, their, ours, its

So this makes sense to me. 

But after all the rules I've read, it still seems as though the best advice is simply to choose a solution and stay as consistent as possible. 

Gaer


----------



## gaer

te gato said:
			
		

> Here is what I found...
> 
> http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/possessives.htm
> 
> http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/apostrophe.htm
> 
> tg


I think I've already read through those sites, and here is my conclusion:

I would definitely write "Chris's dog".

Or I would definitely write "Chris' dog".

The first looks alright to me, and the second looks all right too.

I'm not sure if I have seen less examples of the first or fewer examples of the second.

I wonder if other people are as confused as me? Or as amused as I?  

Gaer


----------



## elroy

gaer said:
			
		

> I think I've already read through those sites, and here is my conclusion:
> 
> I would definitely write "Chris's dog".
> 
> Or I would definitely write "Chris' dog".
> 
> The first looks alright to me, and the second looks all right too.
> 
> I'm not sure if I have seen less examples of the first or fewer examples of the second.
> 
> I wonder if other people are as confused as me? Or as amused as I?
> 
> Gaer



Haha, nice, Gaer.  Imagine this discussion got into that much detail...it might break the record for longest thread ever!


----------



## gaer

elroy said:
			
		

> Haha, nice, Gaer. Imagine this discussion got into that much detail...it might break the record for longest thread ever!


Well, as always I learned many things. It all started out with a question that looked so simple.  

Gaer


----------



## PSIONMAN

But if the dog belonged to Christopher and Christine it would be Chrises' dog wouldn't it?


----------



## elroy

PSIONMAN said:
			
		

> But if the dog belonged to Christopher and Christine it would be Chrises' dog wouldn't it?



Yes, that's what I said earlier but no one answered me...


----------



## cuchuflete

That might make it the fleas' dog rather than the Chrises'.


----------



## lsp

It's a hot topic, each time it comes up it gets excited responses from the forum like this thread and this one, too. 

Gaer, those links helped, especially the first (or do I just think so because it supports my own opinion ). Seems that consistency is more important than which way you write it.


----------



## CanuckPete

I'm pretty late in the game here; but, I'll add in my two-cents. At work we go by the Canadian Press Style Guide which states that for plural nouns - use s', for singular nouns - use s's. 

"The teachers' room." 

"Chris's dog."

Do with that what you will. 

<<Not relevant and therefore deleted by moderator. >>


----------



## Forero

I have been seeing forms like _Chris'_ more and more often in recent years, but I have never heard the possessive of _Chris_ pronounced as less than two syllables.

I was taught all through school, from 1956 through 1976, that possessives are to be written as they sound: add a syllable to _Chris_, and you have _Chris's_; don't add a syllable to _Jesus_, and you can have _Jesus'_.

There seems to be a new rule never to write the combination _s's_ at all, no matter what the pronunciation, but I don't know when it started or why, or how widespread it is.


----------



## mplsray

Forero said:


> I have been seeing forms like _Chris'_ more and more often in recent years, but I have never heard the possessive of _Chris_ pronounced as less than two syllables.
> 
> I was taught all through school, from 1956 through 1976, that possessives are to be written as they sound: add a syllable to _Chris_, and you have _Chris's_; don't add a syllable to _Jesus_, and you can have _Jesus'_.
> 
> There seems to be a new rule never to write the combination _s's_ at all, no matter what the pronunciation, but I don't know when it started or why, or how widespread it is.



An advantage to the newer rule (as I've mentioned elsewhere, it is the rule given in the latest edition of the US Government Printing Office Style Manual) is that the reader can pronounce the word with a final schwa-_s_ sound (or short-_i_ plus _s_ sound) if they wish to, or can refrain from pronouncing it. This is an advantage because the writer doesn't have to worry about differences between his own pronunciation and that of the reader.

As it turns out, this even works in a case such as _boss'_, which no one pronounces as one syllable (to the best of my knowledge--I am not so sure about _Chris'_). If _everyone_ pronounces _boss'_ as two syllables, _boss'_ is just as useful a spelling as _Dickens'_, as long as the reader is aware of the rule.

The one potential problem I can see is in getting the reader to read song lyrics and poetry as the writer intended them to be read.


----------



## jumpygrouch

It's so interesting that this subject went on for so many pages! I think we often forget that when something is awkward in written form, sometimes the best thing to do is to rearrange the sentence so you don't have the awkward phrase. That said, having worked many years in marketing, I've learned that contrary what what some people have written here, readers actually pronounce the 's after someone's name and so they do not find it awkward at all to read. When it's in a lot of text, "Chris's dog" would cause the reader to read faster than "Chris' dog" - the reason being that we've all learned in school that the s is left off for plural nouns, so an s' just makes a reader stop and unconsciously ponder whether the noun is plural. It's my belief that after leaving school, we all forgot in which situation we are supposed to leave off the s, and instead of looking it up we started to just drop the s after the apostrophe on singular nouns as well, and it's gone on so long that now we are starting to dispute which is right. But having an s at the end of my last name, I've found people sometimes leave off the s because they're confused, and using "'s" at the end of it clears that up.


----------



## CheChrissie

My name is Chris and I am British. I was taught by my lovely primary school teacher Miss Morgan (rest her soul) to write, Chris' Dog. I do seem to see Chris's dog more often nowadays and was just wondering about it hence me finding this superb forum. Thank you.


----------



## mofo80503

semiller said:


> Some people have stated that they prefer "Chris's" in comparison to "Chris'" because we pronounce the extra s in speech.  My challenge to this would be that we could imagine the ' as having the s sound in "Chris' ."  I know that this might sound far fetched, but it does support the argument of those in favor of the traditional "Chris'" rather than "Chris's."  Thanks!



I realize it's VERY late to comment on this question I it's been bugging me lately and I've been doing the same as semiller. Taking my name Chris' and pronouncing it Chrises. I always alway taught by my Trinidad and Tobago (English system) that Proper noun possessive ending in s simply has an apostrophe at the end. The teachers never said how it was pronounced but all my friends used Chrises. So I'm going with that. 

I may switch down the road to aviod confusion however. These days, I think most folks are flexible...


----------



## nzfauna

Personally, I like to standardise everything, so I always add _*'s*_, regardless of the name.

However, I believe the becoming-quaint rule is that if the name itself ends in an [IZ] sound, then you don't add _*'s*_. [I tihnk I'm quoting 'Fowler's Modern English Dictionary' here]

E.g. Someone's sex toy.

Jesus = [DJEEZ-IZ] = Jesus' walnuts (which I personally think looks right stupid).
Jesus = [HAY-ZOOS] = Jesus's walnuts
Chris = [KRIS] = Chris's walnuts
James = [DJAYMZ] - James's walnuts


----------



## Shaazaam

I know this is a few years late but I noticed on the first page people siding towards Chris' being more proper for American English and Chris's for British English.  Although I will admit that I do not remember much about this from my grammar classes, I do happen to side with Chris's as it feels more comfortable to me.


----------



## JulianStuart

Shaazaam said:


> I know this is a few years late but I noticed on the first page people siding towards Chris' being more proper for American English and Chris's for British English.  Although I will admit that I do not remember much about this from my grammar classes, I do happen to side with Chris's as it feels more comfortable to me.


Welcome Shaazzaam!
I only use the -s' version for words where the s denotes plural.  For all others (mostly names) the -s does not denote plural so it gets -s's.  This allows the elimination of ambiguities for William and Williams (and similar) name forms : Williams' means belonging to the William brothers, while Williams's means belonging to Williams. Willamses means two or more people called Williams.  Their belongings are e.g. the Williamses' tennis rackets - similarly the Joneses' rackets for the Jones brothers.


----------



## funnyhat

I, too, am an American who was always taught to write it as Chris's, James's, etc.  I am not sure that this has anything to do with BE vs. AE.  In any event, it seems like both forms are more or less acceptable by the mainstream.


----------



## Egmont

Shaazaam said:


> ... I do happen to side with Chris's as it feels more comfortable to me.


Count me as one more Yank who would write "Chris's." If I see "Chris' ," to me it means there are two or more people named "Chri," and whatever it is belongs to all of them.


----------



## Wordsmyth

There've been several suggestions in this thread that there could be an AE/BE distinction, or an older/newer usage, but I can't spot any constant trend.

There's an Elvis Presley album entitled " *Elvis' Christmas Album *" [sic, on the original and on all sleeve variants, re-issues, etc]. 

So, unlike Egmont (& funnyhat & others) ... 





Egmont said:


> Count me as one more Yank who would write "Chris's." _[...] _


 ... Elvis (or his record company) was apparently in the camp of Yanks who would have written " Chris' " 

And on the question of changing trends ... 





Forero said:


> I have been seeing forms like _Chris'_ more and more often in recent years, _[...]_.
> 
> I was taught all through school, from 1956 through 1976, that possessives are to be written as they sound: add a syllable to _Chris_, and you have _Chris's [...].
> _
> There seems to be a new rule never to write the combination _s's_ at all, no matter what the pronunciation, but I don't know when it started or why, or how widespread it is.


 ... that Elvis album came out in 1957, so the " Chris' " usage can't be all that new.

Ws


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

And then you have the strange practice of the product sold in the US as "Thomas' English Muffins", but which is pronounced as "Thomas's"; indeed, its advertising slogan is "Thomas' promises", with both words rhyming.

For my part, were I the muffin mogul, I would have written it as "Thomas's."


----------



## Wordsmyth

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> _[...] _with both word's rhyming. _[...] _



This " apostrophe s " thing gets to you after a while! 

Ws


----------



## panjandrum

If it belongs to Chris, I say Chrisses and write Chris's.
If it belonges to Moses, I can't bring myself to say Moseses, so I say Moses as a possessive and write it as Moses' - same with any name that ends with a - zuzz sound.
In other words, I write it as I speak it.


----------



## JulianStuart

It appears at first glance that age and fame contribute to not getting an s after the apostrophe for names that end in s.  Jesus and Moses are ancient examples and it appears Elvis is a modern day instance.  However, Jones, Williams and Evans would be examples where I could not bring myself to omit the s after the apostrophe, either written or spoken, and cringe when I see William's as the possessive form of someone called Williams.  I would write Williams's and say Williamses. Similarly for Lapidus's said as Lapisusses. Panj, perhaps Jesus and Moses don't get the extra s because they already have two and no-one likes the three esses cluster?


----------



## mplsray

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> And then you have the strange practice of the product sold in the US as "Thomas' English Muffins", but which is pronounced as "Thomas's"; indeed, its advertising slogan is "Thomas' promises", with both words rhyming.
> 
> For my part, were I the muffin mogul, I would have written it as "Thomas's."



I don't know whether Mr. Thomas wrote "Thomas's English Muffins" or "Thomas' English Muffins," but the latter spelling has been around for a long time, according to this Google Books search. The following is from an ad in The New Yorker, Vol. 11, Part 2, Page 51, shown in facsimile in "snippet view":



> It's always a fine morning when you start with Thomas' English Muffins....


----------



## JulianStuart

gaer said:


> To all, more that I found…
> 
> The following is from my own book, "English Usage" (MW).
> 
> There is mixed usage with regard to indicating the genitive case of a singular noun ending in an \s\ or \z\ sound with an apostrophe plus _s_ or an apostrophe alone. Our evidence shows that for common nouns more writers use _'s_ than the apostrophe alone: _the boss's desk, the princess's wedding_ are more common than the _boss' desk, the princess'_ wedding. But when a polysyllabic _s_ or _z_ noun is followed by a word beginning with an _s_ or _z_ sound, the apostrophe alone is more frequent: _for convenience' sake_.
> 
> This same basic observation can be made of proper nouns: [i*]Jones's house, Dicken's novels[/i] are more common than Jones' house, Dickens' novels*. There are more exceptions with proper names, however: _Jesus' time, Moses' law_. Multisyllabic names and particularly those of biblical and classical origin usually take only the apostrophe: _Odysseus' journey, Aristophanes' plays_. Single-syllable names, however, even the classical ones, more often have _'s_: _Zeus's anger_.
> 
> Gaer



 The Dicken's I just bolded has to be a typo in that old post! It's as bad and wrong as Jone's 

Having had nothing better to do for a few minutes, I re-read the thread.  There was only one faint voice from a BrE speaker who said they had been taught to add just an apostrophe after a singular name ending in s (e.g. Chris') but otherwise all the BrE speakers vote for Chris's while only some of the AmE do. For the Canadians and Aussies - I'm sorry Dave :insufficient data to compute!


----------



## Wordsmyth

JulianStuart said:


> _[...] _There was only one faint voice from a BrE speaker who said they had been taught to add just an apostrophe after a singular name ending in s (e.g. Chris') but otherwise all the BrE speakers vote for Chris's while only some of the AmE do. _[...]_


 I was also taught the same at school in the UK : _Chris'_. But it didn't take me long to switch to the seemingly more logical _Chris's_, so that is indeed where my vote lies. 

However, to confuse things, I've just done a quick survey of five BrE-speaking colleagues with a fair age-spread. All five instinctively wrote *Chris' dog, *with the justification that it's what they were taught and they'd never thought much about it. That would seem to mess up the BrE stats, Julian. 

But maybe there's another factor: the sample of forum members essentially covers people who reflect on language (or they wouldn't be posting here); my survey involved people who have no special interest in language, so they just follow what they perceive as rules. 

So perhaps that's another possible usage split: linguistic thinkers vs unconcerned rule-followers? ... (or not!!) 

Ws


----------



## JulianStuart

Thanks Wordsmyth!
Hal tells me that the data now no longer compute.  He is working on a new algorithm based on your suggestion.  He feels there is also a component based on age involved and that the teaching in this area has changed both over time and with respect to geography and will need more data still.  Did you ask your colleagues (or could you) about Jones', Jone's eek or Jones's for a single person called Jones - the situation may be more desperate than we thought, Cap'n.


----------



## panjandrum

If you would like to feed Hal some additional data, try some of the other threads where the topic has been discussed.
I've selected these from the many listed at possessive that address the possessive form of names ending with a sibillant.
It might be interesting to see whose minds have changed over the years 
Possessive - proper names ending in Z or S
Possessive - Beatriz's book, Beatriz' book?
Possessive: Carlos's, Fritz's, the Sanchez's?
Possessive: History, and proper nouns in "ss" - Ross' or Ross's


----------



## Wordsmyth

JulianStuart said:


> Did you ask your colleagues (or could you) about Jones', Jone's eek or Jones's for a single person called Jones - the situation may be more desperate than we thought, Cap'n.



Nope, didn't ... and can't now as they've all gone home. And as they're pretty unconcerned, they probably wouldn't be keen on a second round just to satisfy Hal.

I'm sorry, Dave! However the mission is not threatened, because I can predict with reasonable confidence what they would say: _Jones'_ vs _Jones's_ is just like _Chris'_ vs _Chris's_ ; and _Jone's_ is definitely not an option (because if you're a rule-follower it's wrong, and if you're a thinker it's just silly).

Maybe Hal will find some conclusion in Panj's suggested reading, or maybe he'll just go mad trying. Personally I suspect that the answer is 42.

Ws


----------



## MuttQuad

Everything you ever wanted to know about how to use -- and misuse -- apostrophes, may be found in this delightful book:

Comma Sense: A Fun-damental Guide to Punctuation 




books.google.comRichard Lederer, John Shore - 2007 - 160 pages - Preview


Co-written  by the grammarian author of the best-selling Anguished English series, a  lighthearted primer on the fundamentals of American-language  punctuation devotes a series of chapters to each of the major  punctuation marks,


----------



## JulianStuart

Thanks Panj!
Hal is requesting to post a poll: choose one from the following 6 options for forming possessives
A). I was taught to add just apostrophe to anything that ends in s
B). I was taught to add apostrophe and s to anything *singular* that ends in s but only an apostrophe to a *plural* that ends in s.

For each of A and B we have 
a) I was taught this rule in the US
b) I was taught this rule in the UK
c) I was taught this rule elsewhere (Canada , Australia, NZ, India, South Africa)

Category c in the last is only intended to keep the dataset geographical as such (and not pooled into "BrE of any and all sorts"  )
We may have to exclude Moses, Jesus and others (Elvis???) from the discussion ....


----------



## JulianStuart

Wordsmyth said:


> I'm sorry, Dave! However the mission is not threatened, because I can predict with reasonable confidence what they would say: _Jones'_ vs _Jones's_ is just like _Chris'_ vs _Chris's_ ; *and Jone's is definitely not an option (because if you're a rule-follower it's wrong, and if you're a thinker it's just silly).*
> 
> Maybe Hal will find some conclusion in Panj's suggested reading, or maybe he'll just go mad trying. Personally I suspect that the answer is 42.
> 
> Ws


Nice comment 
I re-read some of Panj's selected threads and concluded, in greement with Hal, that the dataset is too heterogeneous to process.


----------



## Wordsmyth

OK, I'm A.b. (but converted to B.)

You could indeed reasonably exclude those three august personalities from the discussion: they wouldn't contribute much, seeing they've shuffled off this mortal coil (well, Moses definitely ...). Also, two out of the three spoke Hebrew, which probably has different rules for the possessive! 

Ws


----------



## JulianStuart

Wordsmyth said:


> OK, I'm A.b. (but converted to B.)


That would confuse Hal - but if we wanted to account for such things as conversion from one way to another, we'd need to ask pollees* about their age, when they learned (or learnt) and when they converted.  I'm sorry, Dave.

(Is this a legitimate new word formation for people who have been polled?)

Apologies to anyone who does not recognize Hal and Dave as characters from the movie and then book 2001: A Space Odyssey


----------



## Eng Lit Teacher

It would be Chris's dog. When showing possession or plural for words ending in s the rule is 's for words with one syllable e.g. St James's Palaces and s' for words with more than one syllable e.g. Father Christmas'


----------



## timpeac

Eng Lit Teacher said:


> It would be Chris's dog. When showing possession or plural for words ending in s the rule is 's for words with one syllable e.g. St James's Palaces and s' for words with more than one syllable e.g. Father Christmas'



A rule, rather than the rule - surely?

Ps - welcome Eng Lit Teacher!


----------



## Loob

timpeac said:


> A rule, rather than the rule - surely?


Yes.

I've never come across that 'rule', Eng Lit Teacher....


----------



## MuttQuad

Eng Lit Teacher said:


> It would be Chris's dog. When showing possession or plural for words ending in s the rule is 's for words with one syllable e.g. St James's Palaces and s' for words with more than one syllable e.g. Father Christmas'



Never heard any such rule about number of syllables.  Singular words ending in "s" form their possessive as "s's" if the second "s "is pronounce -- regardless of the number of syllables, e.g. Father Christmas's, George Stephanopoulos's,etc.


----------



## JustKate

I don't think there is a rule. There are guidelines that some people consider to be rules, but there definitely isn't _a_ rule. It would be nice if there was, but that's the way it goes.


----------



## Nattuma

semiller said:


> I have a grammar question. Consider the following sentence. "The dog of Chris ate the food." Alright, because this sentence sounds awkard (and it's a way of avoiding the grammatical problem I have) would it be, "Chri*s'* dog ate the food," or "Chri*s's* ate the food." As a young child in grade schools in the 1980's I was taught that if there was already an s, you simply inserted an apostrophe. I have seen it written with an extra s lately. Which is way the correct way now? Is there a difference between U. S. and British English here? Thanks!


 "The dog of Chris ate the food" is not a way to escape the problem only a way to enhance the problem as it is absolutely wrong grammar! Here is the REAL original and absolutely correct written grammar rules (note that speech and writing can be considered to have each their own "grammar") regarding possessive forms: for animate objects (humans and animals): if the word ends on "s" you add only ' (Chris'). If there are no s at the end of the word add 's (The dog's tail).
For inanimate objects (planets, plants, metals and so on): use the "of" construction (windows of the house, leaves of the tree). Never use possessive "of" construction for animate objects and never use '/'s for inanimate objects. 
Of course since the spoken language is a totally different story from the written language and the pronunciation Chris' dog would in spoken language sound like it should be Chrises dog. Such a thing might confuse some or even make some authors believe that the correct spelling should be Chris's dog, however I do not know of any Ministry of education in Australia, Canada, U.S.A, or most importantly Britain, which has announced such a change in the written grammar rules. A little hint as to the differences in written and spoken grammar: The word "aint" often used in spoken language is a contraction of are, is, and not, as in there are not and there is not as a cleaver way to avoid the grammar rules all together by simply using both “is” and “are” at the same time. The word could be written as a/i-n't or something of the sort (not in contraction = n't) however simply do not belong in any written articles. Does that make the use of the word wrong? NOT AT ALL! Written and spoken language is not the same! While written language is rules by the construction of letters and symbols, the spoken language is based on the understanding of the listeners, basically no rules except whether the listener understands the meaning (given the listener understands conversational English . So when teaching English it is always important to make sure if you are to teach written language (including speech in the fashion of the written language), spoken language, or both of them at the same time.
Also note about the written grammar rules for possession regarding locations such as: we will meet at the Bakers' (baker as in location not as the living person) or ...it all happened when we were at his Fathers' (his father's place is correct, but when referred to as a location and not as one of the father's possessions it will always be Fathers'.


----------



## Forero

Welcome to the forum, Nattuma.

The traditional rule taught in schools in the 1950s and '60s is to add _'s_ to any singular noun ending in _s_ when the added _s_ is meant to be pronounced, which is usually the case. Now students in some places are being taught always to add only _'_ when the word already ends in _s_.

This represents a change in culture in those places, but there is no Ministry of Education in the U.S.

"The dog of Chris" sounds unnatural, probably to all native speakers, but "the dog of Chris, Janet, and Liz" and even "the dog of Chris Harris" are not wrong. 

Both "the tree's leaves" and "the leaves of the tree" are proper English, but the latter is obviously useful when we need to distinguish one tree's leaves from several trees' leaves in speech.

Your "rule" about locations is new to me. I have only ever heard or read to use the same form when the modifier becomes a noun as when a noun follows: _his father's place_ -> _his father's_; _the baker's place_ -> _the baker's_ (i.e. the bakery); _the Bakers' house_ -> _the Bakers'_ (i.e. where the Bakers live). Note my use of capitalization. A baker is someone who bakes (bread); the Bakers are a family whose surname is Baker.


----------



## drategon

how to we say:
- chris' mother's dog or chris' mother dog?
- Alan's mother's dog or Alan's mother dog?


----------



## EStjarn

Hello drategon.

I know one would not say either "Chris' mother dog" or "Alan's mother dog" to refer to dogs that belonged the mothers of Chris or Alan.

I think your first versions are correct, and I also think it would be correct to say "the dog of Chris' mother" and "the dog of Alan's mother."


----------



## Rover_KE

drategon said:


> *H*ow *d*o we say:
> - *C*hris' mother's dog or *C*hris' mother dog?
> - Alan's mother's dog or Alan's mother dog?



I'd say (and write)

'Chris's mother's dog' and 'Alan's mother's dog'.


----------



## Edinburgher

EStjarn said:


> and I also think it would be correct to say "the dog of Chris' mother" and "the dog of Alan's mother."


 Not recommended.  Are you talking about the dog belonging to someone's mother, or about someone's dog's mother?  I know the latter is unlikely, but compare "The King of Spain's daughter".


----------



## EStjarn

Edinburgher said:


> Not recommended.  Are you talking about the dog belonging to someone's mother, or about someone's dog's mother?  I know the latter is unlikely, but compare "The King of Spain's daughter".



I see your point. Out of context it can be understood two ways. But in context, would you call the phrasing wrong? Or even unidiomatic?


----------



## Edinburgher

Not totally wrong, but unnatural enough to be worth avoiding.  I think if you want the structure "the dog <something> Chris's mother", I'd use "belonging to" and not "of", but really I'd prefer "Chris's mother's dog".


----------



## EStjarn

Thank you, Edinburgher.


----------



## timpeac

EStjarn said:


> I see your point. Out of context it can be understood two ways. But in context, would you call the phrasing wrong? Or even unidiomatic?


It's a funny one - if we are talking about just one person then I'd say it's just wrong - e.g. *"the dog of Chris". Adding in the mother, e.g. "the dog of Chris's mother", makes it a little bit more acceptable but as Edinburgher says rather unnatural and I'd avoid it too. I'm not sure why the second should not be as "wrong" as the first though.


----------



## EStjarn

But if instead of her dog we referred to her house - "the house of Chris's mother" - would that also seem odd to you? Or is this phrase perhaps acceptable because it can be understood only one way? (Houses don't have mothers.)


----------



## timpeac

EStjarn said:


> But if instead of her dog we referred to her house - "the house of Chris's mother" - would that also seem odd to you? Or is this phrase perhaps acceptable because it can be understood only one way? (Houses don't have mothers.)


No, it's exactly the same. "The house of Jane" is impossible (well unless Jane is a surname as in "the house of Usher" where this is a particular and rather unusual meaning of "house" means "dynasty" - "A dynasty is also often called a _house_ (e.g., _House of Saud_ and _House of Windsor_), and may be described as imperial, royal, ducal, princely or comital depending upon the chief title borne by its rulers" , but I'm sure that's not what you meant). "The house of Chris's mother" is the same too, more acceptable but still highly unusual.

I wonder if the reason that "the house of Chris's mother" is more acceptable - or rather simply not impossible as "the house of Chris" is - is that it is clearer, particularly if there are many possessives as in "the house of Chris's mother's ex-husband's first daughter's son". Putting "the house of..." in this last example doesn't seem strange at all.


----------



## EStjarn

Thank you, timpeac.


----------



## ShineLikeStars

Oh my. 

This thread has given me a headache. 

Please could someone just answer yes or no to my question below?

There is no set rule and it depends on the country.  Yes or No?

Chris's dog is BE
Chris' dog is AE.


----------



## Hildy1

ShineLikeStars said:


> Oh my.
> 
> This thread has given me a headache.
> 
> Please could someone just answer yes or no to my question below?
> 
> There is no set rule and it depends on the country.  Yes or No?
> 
> Chris's dog is BE
> Chris' dog is AE.



No.


----------



## ShineLikeStars

Hildy1 said:


> No.



Thanks for your reply, Hildy1. What is the official rule then?


----------



## Hildy1

Sorry, I was taking the "just answer yes or no" question literally. My "no" was to the statement that "Chris's dog" is BE and "Chris' dog" is AE. That's too simple. I agree that there is no agreement about the matter, as seen by the seven pages (so far) of posts.


----------



## JulianStuart

ShineLikeStars said:


> Thanks for your reply, Hildy1. What is the official rule then?



There is no official rule.  Unless you have to answer to an editor or style guide, you can choose your own answer.


----------



## ShineLikeStars

Ok, perfect. Will do. Thanks, guys!


----------



## Fumiko Take

<<Moderator note: Fumiko's question has been merged with the previous discussions.  Feel free to read from the top>>


Genetive case: Anais's or Anais'? James's or James'? Chris's or Chris'?
Apparently, the pronunciations I've heard is /ˌænaɪˈiːs*ɪz*/, /dʒeɪmz*ɪz*/ and /krɪs*ɪz*/. But I'm not sure about the spellings.


----------



## Parla

I would advise adding the *'s*.


----------



## Smauler

I'd usually say just "James" (with more of an emphasis on the sibilant at the end than the normal name), but always say Chris's.


----------



## africansage

*FYI
*
In South Africa, (being a child of the 80s myself), we were taught the following rules:

1.  Chris (is an individual) = Chris's dog (shows Chris's possession of the dog);
2.  Executors (as a group) (not an individual) = executors' dog (shows the executors' possession of the dog).
*
So:
*
As it is John's dog, it too is Chris's dog, and it is also the executors' dog.

As such, if one wrote Chris' dog, it would mean Chris was a group and not an individual.

*Although remember:*

A company is still a single entity - McDonalds's burgers.  (McDonalds owns the burgers and is a single entity).

*But a group:*

The Companies' shares. (Many companies own the shares).


----------



## Forero

africansage said:


> ...
> A company is still a single entity - McDonalds's burgers.  (McDonalds owns the burgers and is a single entity).
> ...


Unfortunately, the name of the company is not _McDonalds_ but _McDonald's_.

I would write "McDonald's burgers", referring to the burgers made and sold by the company.


----------



## panjandrum

africansage said:


> *...*
> As such, if one wrote Chris' dog, it would mean Chris was a group and not an individual.


Following the logic of the executors' dog, Chris' dog would be the dog belonging to a lot of people called Chri.


----------



## africansage

Forero said:


> Unfortunately, the name of the company is not _McDonalds_ but _McDonald's_.
> 
> I would write "McDonald's burgers", referring to the burgers made and sold by the company.



Lol! You can see I'm not a meat eater 

As such, your use of the apostrophe above, is absolutely correct


----------



## africansage

If you knew for a fact that Chris was more than one person or a group of people, then you could use the apostrophe at the end:  "Chris' dog".  I would say that it would be rare that just "Chris" would be used for many people or a group of people.


----------



## MuttQuad

A possessive for a word ending in "s" generally takes  apostrophe-s, e.g. Chris's. The possessive for a plural word ending in "s" generally takes just an apostrophe, e.g the spectators' enthusiasm as opposed to the spectator's enthusiasm, if only one spectator is being referred.

One great rule of thumb mentioned by language expert Richard Lederer is that you write it the way you pronounce it.


----------



## Wordsmyth

africansage said:


> _[...] _A company is still a single entity - McDonalds's burgers.  (McDonalds owns the burgers and is a single entity). _[...] _



That's the trouble with rules that are too rigid. Even if the name of the company were written "McDonalds", your "McDonalds's" would suggest the pronunciation "McDonaldses". Since, as far as I'm aware, nobody says that, then that _s's _would be totally unrepresentative.

Ws


----------



## Forero

Wordsmyth said:


> That's the trouble with rules that are too rigid. Even if the name of the company were written "McDonalds", your "McDonalds's" would suggest the pronunciation "McDonaldses". Since, as far as I'm aware, nobody says that, then that _s's _would be totally unrepresentative.
> 
> Ws


I say that, but I don't know how to write it since it has that apostrophe between "d" and "s". I pronounce "Chris's" as two syllables, and that is why I write it that way.


----------



## Wordsmyth

Do you mean you actually say "McDonaldses", Forero? That sounds really weird to me.

I fully agree with your previous post: 





Forero said:


> Unfortunately, the name of the company is not _McDonalds_ but _McDonald's_.
> 
> I would write "McDonald's burgers", referring to the burgers made and sold by the company.


I would also write it that way, and I'd say it as it's written. That seems logical to me ...  

If the McDonald brothers had played it like Henry Ford (the Ford Motor Company, not Ford's Motor Company), then the company name would've been "McDonald ...", and people would eat McDonald hamburgers (just as they drive Ford cars). In fact the brand name (Ford, McDonald's), when used before the product name, isn't really a possessive like Chris's dog; it's actually a name being used attributively (Ford cars, Boeing aircraft, Levi's jeans, Macy's menswear, ... McDonald's hamburgers). Would anyone say "Macyses" or "Levises"?

I suppose, since McDonald's was started up by two brothers, that it could be argued that the name should have been _McDonalds'_, but if that were the case I'd still write (and say) "McDonalds' hamburgers".

Ws


----------



## Forero

Wordsmyth said:


> Do you mean you actually say "McDonaldses", Forero? That sounds really weird to me.


I have never tried write it, and I cannot guess how to, but where I come from we say, strictly informally speaking, something that sounds like "McDonaldses" for both a possessive (e.g. "M...s default sauces for a hamburger") and a plural (e.g. "Our town is big enough for three M..s").


----------



## Wordsmyth

OK, I live and learn! I've actually spent some time in Houston, but I didn't ever notice that. Maybe I didn't go to enough Macdos (as they're often called where I live — there, that solves the problem).

So what about Macy's? (as a possessive or a plural ... I think you have more than one of them, too.) 

Ws


----------



## MuttQuad

Today's Wall Street Journal uses McDonald's as the corporate name and also McDonald's as the possessive. "McDonald's plan to...".


----------



## Half_Prince

Seeing as this thread has literally been going on for years, I won't feel too bad about throwing my question in here. 

After reading through the thread, I gather there is obviously no agreement on how to spell the possessive. But would you say there is some disagreement too on how to pronounce the possessive form of certain names? From what I've read here, whether they're written as Jesus' or Jesus's, Moses' or Moses's some people would pronounce these names as /Jesus/ and /Moses/ and others as /Jesuses/ and /Moseses/, some would say /Macdonalds/ and some /Macdonaldses/ burgers. Am I right?

How would you pronounce ''Achilles'' in ''Achilles' heel'', /Achilles/ or /Achilleses/? Would anyone pronounce ''Bridges' appeal'' (as in someone surnamed 'Bridges' appealing a verdict) as /Bridgeses/? (I'm guessing not but you never know lol)  

@JulianStuart: Thanks for directing me to this thread! I find your spelling system quite logical, but I'd still like to make sure I'm pronouncing the possessive forms properly. 


JulianStuart said:


> Welcome Shaazzaam!
> I only use the -s' version for words where the s denotes plural.  For all others (mostly names) the -s does not denote plural so it gets -s's.  This allows the elimination of ambiguities for William and Williams (and similar) name forms : Williams' means belonging to the William brothers, while Williams's means belonging to Williams. Willamses means two or more people called Williams.  Their belongings are e.g. the Williamses' tennis rackets - similarly the Joneses' rackets for the Jones brothers.



Could you —or anyone else— tell me if Williams', Williams's and Williamses' are all pronounced [Williamses]?  (I really hope Williamses' isn't pronounced [Williamseses] because I couldn't bring myself to say that ).   

I would appreciate any help


----------



## JulianStuart

Half_Prince said:


> Seeing as this thread has literally been going on for years, I won't feel too bad about throwing my question in here.
> 
> After reading through the thread, I gather there is obviously no agreement on how to spell the possessive. But would you say there is some disagreement too on how to pronounce the possessive form of certain names? From what I've read here, whether they're written as Jesus' or Jesus's, Moses' or Moses's some people would pronounce these names as /Jesus/ and /Moses/ and others as /Jesuses/ and /Moseses/, some would say /Macdonalds/ and some /Macdonaldses/ burgers. Am I right?
> 
> How would you pronounce ''Achilles'' in ''Achilles' heel'', /Achilles/ or /Achilleses/? Would anyone pronounce ''Bridges' appeal'' (as in someone surnamed 'Bridges' appealing a verdict) as /Bridgeses/? (I'm guessing not but you never know lol)
> 
> @JulianStuart: Thanks for directing me to this thread! I find your spelling system quite logical, but I'd still like to make sure I'm pronouncing the possessive forms properly.
> 
> 
> Could you —or anyone else— tell me if Williams', Williams's and Williamses' are all pronounced [Williamses]?  (I really hope Williamses' isn't pronounced [Williamseses] because I couldn't bring myself to say that ).
> 
> I would appreciate any help


For me:
The first is said as written - Williams' - there are several people called William so the Williams form is a plural.  Thus it gets only the apostrophe and is not pronounced with the extra -es. 
The second is one person named Williams and it is not a plural, so it gets the 's and the extra -es in pronunciation. 
The last is a group of people whose last name is Willams.  As a family they are "The Williamses" - that is how we make plural out of a proper name ending in -s.  Now when we make a possessive out of it, we simply add the ' and no extra syllable, so it's pronounced the same as the second version "Williams's".  In short, the second and third are pronounced Wlliamses.


----------



## Half_Prince

JulianStuart said:


> For me:
> The first is said as written - Williams' - there are several people called William so the Williams form is a plural.  Thus it gets only the apostrophe and is not pronounced with the extra -es.
> The second is one person named Williams and it is not a plural, so it gets the 's and the extra -es in pronunciation.
> The last is a group of people whose last name is Willams.  As a family they are "The Williamses" - that is how we make plural out of a proper name ending in -s.  Now when we make a possessive out of it, we simply add the ' and no extra syllable, so it's pronounced the same as the second version "Williams's".  In short, the second and third are pronounced Wlliamses.




It's clear now. Thank you so much!


----------



## london calling

Smauler said:


> I'd usually say just "James" (with more of an emphasis on the sibilant at the end than the normal name), but always say Chris's.


I always say James's and Chris's but tend to write James' and Chris' (I'm old school), but St. James's Park in London is written and pronounced with an 's' (I'm a Londoner).


----------



## Edinburgher

london calling said:


> I always say James's and Chris's but tend to write James' and Chris' (I'm old school),


"Old school"?  Blimey!  More like pre-historic!  You must be older-school even than Fowler, who writes that "it *was formerly* {my emphasis, here and below} customary, when a word ended in _-s_, to write its possessive with an apostrophe but no additional _s_."
He adds that in verse and reverential contexts this custom is retained, but that there is no "ziz" pronunciation, "the number of syllables is the same as in the subjective case" so that _Achilles'_ has three and _Jesus'_ has two.
He continues: "But elsewhere we *now usually* add the _s_ and the syllable, *always* when the word is monosyllabic, and *preferably* when it is longer."


----------



## JulianStuart

Edinburgher said:


> "Old school"?  Blimey!  More like pre-historic!  You must be older-school even than Fowler, who writes that "it *was formerly* {my emphasis, here and below} customary, when a word ended in _-s_, to write its possessive with an apostrophe but no additional _s_."
> He adds that in verse and reverential contexts this custom is retained, but that there is no "ziz" pronunciation, "the number of syllables is the same as in the subjective case" so that _Achilles'_ has three and _Jesus'_ has two.
> He continues: "But elsewhere we *now usually* add the _s_ and the syllable, *always* when the word is monosyllabic, and *preferably* when it is longer."


I know it's a long thread but if you go back, you will find that the apostrophe without a following s is still quite common in AE.  Chicago's style guide still allows both as correct but more recently has expressed a preference for the addition of the s.


----------



## london calling

Edinburgher said:


> "Old school"?  Blimey!  More like pre-historic!


No need to be rude. And I'm sure I'm not the only English person who still writes it this way. Wouldn't know about the Scots.


----------



## Loob

I'm like lc - I pronounce the possessive of _James or Charles _with two syllables but I quite often write it as _James' _or _Charles' .  _It's good to know we have the support of the_ Chicago Manual of Style_!


----------



## Edinburgher

london calling said:


> No need to be rude.


I'm sorry.  I didn't mean to be rude.  It was intended as a jocular exaggeration.


Loob said:


> It's good to know we have the support of the_ Chicago Manual of Style_!


Well, their waning support, going by Julian's comment._ _


----------



## OmniLingual

elroy said:


> I realize that this topic has been positively exhausted, but I still want to share my two cents.
> 
> I was taught at my American school that the 's was required after names ending with s, except for "ancient" or "Biblical" names like Jesus, Moses, Xerxes.  Now, I realize that this is obviously a debatable issue (otherwise we wouldn't be on post #52 now) but I like that rule and therefore stick to it.  It makes sense; just because the name ends with an s doesn't mean it has to be shafted and robbed the s it rightfully deserves in the possessive.  Perhaps I'm particularly adamant about this issue because my own name is Elias, and I can't stand it when people write _Elias'_.  It looks as though I'm being treated like an ancient historical figure or something.  (Incidentally, I wonder what other people whose names actually end in s think.  Should I start a poll?  Hmmm...how far do we want to take this?!)
> 
> As for the apostrophe-with-years bit, I was also taught that the plurals of numbers and letters required an apostrophe.  (For example, mind your p's and q's.). While these are of course not possessives, that is not the only case that governs apostrophe usage.  Apostrophes serve many other functions, the most significant of which is that of our trademark contactions (which I don't  know what I'd  do if we didn't  have!).  Furthermore, I really don't think numbers and letters should be jumbled up together; after all, there's probably a reason that "tendency" (if we choose to settle for that term) has persisted until recently, when grammarians and linguists couldn't leave good enough alone and began to question the validity of a most conventional apostrophe usage.
> 
> In closing, I support rules over feeling - but that's just me.  There are many times I find myself writing something correctly even if it doesn't "look" right.  Usually I settle for rewording.
> 
> That's all from *Elias's * camp.
> 
> PS - The grocer's apostrophe is simply inexcusable!





elroy said:


> I realize that this topic has been positively exhausted, but I still want to share my two cents.
> 
> I was taught at my American school that the 's was required after names ending with s, except for "ancient" or "Biblical" names like Jesus, Moses, Xerxes.  Now, I realize that this is obviously a debatable issue (otherwise we wouldn't be on post #52 now) but I like that rule and therefore stick to it.  It makes sense; just because the name ends with an s doesn't mean it has to be shafted and robbed the s it rightfully deserves in the possessive.  Perhaps I'm particularly adamant about this issue because my own name is Elias, and I can't stand it when people write _Elias'_.  It looks as though I'm being treated like an ancient historical figure or something.  (Incidentally, I wonder what other people whose names actually end in s think.  Should I start a poll?  Hmmm...how far do we want to take this?!)
> 
> As for the apostrophe-with-years bit, I was also taught that the plurals of numbers and letters required an apostrophe.  (For example, mind your p's and q's.). While these are of course not possessives, that is not the only case that governs apostrophe usage.  Apostrophes serve many other functions, the most significant of which is that of our trademark contactions (which I don't  know what I'd  do if we didn't  have!).  Furthermore, I really don't think numbers and letters should be jumbled up together; after all, there's probably a reason that "tendency" (if we choose to settle for that term) has persisted until recently, when grammarians and linguists couldn't leave good enough alone and began to question the validity of a most conventional apostrophe usage.
> 
> In closing, I support rules over feeling - but that's just me.  There are many times I find myself writing something correctly even if it doesn't "look" right.  Usually I settle for rewording.
> 
> That's all from *Elias's * camp.
> 
> PS - The grocer's apostrophe is simply inexcusable!



Hello, Elias & Gang:
This is my first time out, venturing into the WR forum. I like languages, and freely confess I am an Anglophile; even though my last surname is Irish, deriving from County Mayo, Sure and Begorrah  !!!  I speak Spanish más o menos, ein bischen Deutsch, & studied 2 years of Sanskrit, plus a smattering of Japanese, and taught myself un puo di Italiano when we went to Italy in '09.  I reckon this makes me sort of a polyglot. I am such a complete word nerd that I read the first 50 responses this afternoon. Today is the birthday of my stepson, Chris. So after writing: "Chris's Birthday" on our family calendar,  I tried to remember what the exact spelling rules were I learned in grammar school 50-odd years ago ???  I went 50-50 on: "Chris's" versus "Chris'". So then I searched through the Internet; and ended up reading the first 50 responses in this thread, and I preferred yours the best ! The rule seemed simple and straightforward, and probably what I remembered learning as a kid. I also prefer writing about: the "1970's", not the "1970s" ??? (probably a mod British persuasion).  Anyways, nice to meet you, Elias; and looking forward to chatting more with you & the the forum members  !!!
Take care,  Scott


----------



## london calling

I was just reading you post, Omnilingual and noticed elroy's remark about the grocer's apostrophe. I am at a loss as to why it is inexcusable, _as to go to the grocer's_ is short for _to go to the grocer's shop_, so the apostrophe +s is a perfectly normal genitive. Do you agree with that as well?

And as for the apostrophe when talking about decades. I personally prefer 1970s, as it is a simple plural, but let's not get into that, as it has laready been discussed may times and there are quite definitely two schools of thought: one for it and one against it. The same goes when I'm minding my ps and qs.


----------



## JulianStuart

london calling said:


> I was just reading you post, Omnilingual and noticed elroy's remark about the grocer's apostrophe. I am at a loss as to why it is inexcusable, _as to go to the grocer's_ is short for _to go to the grocer's shop_, so the apostrophe +s is a perfectly normal genitive. Do you agree with that as well?


(Just in case)
The apostrophe in the word _grocer's_  in your usage is just fine.  The one he was referring to is the apostrophe used in plurals like plum's, apple's and cabbage's. _That_ apostrophe is _called_ the grocer's apostophe.


----------



## london calling

JulianStuart said:


> (Just in case)
> The apostrophe in the word _grocer's_  in your usage is just fine.  The one he was referring to is the apostrophe used in plurals like plum's, apple's and cabbage's. _That_ apostrohe is _called_ the grocer's apostophe.


Oh I see! Good heavens yes, that IS inexcusable. I had no idea they called it that, thanks.


----------



## Wordsmyth

london calling said:


> Oh I see! Good heavens yes, that IS inexcusable. I had no idea they called it that, thanks.





JulianStuart said:


> The one he was referring to is the apostrophe used in plurals like plum's, apple's and cabbage's. _That_ apostrohe is _called_ the grocer's apostophe.



... and in the UK it's also known (perhaps even better known) as _the greengrocer's apostrophe_.






  ...... Other examples can be seen here.

There's an amusing story about the "greengrocer's apostrophe that wasn't" in Lynne Truss's book, _Eats, Shoots and Leaves_.

Ws


----------



## Got to get free

Edwin said:


> If you look at message number 13 (from the hermit thrush) in this thread and realize that Chicago is located in the US of A, you will see that it is not correct that *Chris'* is universally accepted usage in the US.



Alas! I think you may be right.  I had to search, come or go, and join so I could share my dismay over something I just read. The New York Times wrote - oh thank god, it's not the Times - it's the Washington Post that just wrote "got married even though Bill Gates’s opening line to his future wife was: “Do you want to go out two weeks from this coming Saturday?”


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Got to get free said:


> Alas! I think you may be right.  I had to search, come or go, and join so I could share my dismay over something I just read. The New York Times wrote - oh thank god, it's not the Times - it's the Washington Post that just wrote "got married even though Bill Gates’s opening line to his future wife was: “Do you want to go out two weeks from this coming Saturday?”


Just as a matter of interest, Got to get free, and not, therefore, necessarily leading you anywhere, how do you pronounce what I understand you prefer to write as *Bill Gates' wife*.  

Do you say *Bill Gates wife*, or _*Bill Gates z wife*_?


----------



## JulianStuart

Got to get free said:


> Alas! I think you may be right.  I had to search, come or go, and join so I could share my dismay over something I just read. The New York Times wrote - oh thank god, it's not the Times - it's the Washington Post that just wrote "got married even though Bill Gates’s opening line to his future wife was: “Do you want to go out two weeks from this coming Saturday?”



Welcome!

Just to be clear, your dismay is at the use of Gates's instead of Gates' ?


----------



## Got to get free

timpeac said:


> It's a funny one - if we are talking about just one person then I'd say it's just wrong - e.g. *"the dog of Chris". Adding in the mother, e.g. "the dog of Chris's mother", makes it a little bit more acceptable but as Edinburgher says rather unnatural and I'd avoid it too. I'm not sure why the second should not be as "wrong" as the first though.



I'm with Chris' mother's dog too.  When I read Chris' mother dog, I am hearing a mother dog that belongs to Chris, and the phrase would not be referring to Chris' mother at all.


----------



## Got to get free

JulianStuart said:


> Welcome!
> 
> Just to be clear, your dismay is at the use of Gates's instead of Gates' ?


Yes, you got that right, and I empathize with the first part of your tag line stating "My memory is so bad I can't even remember what I just forgot."  Oh, but I did search and I did find you guys.  I'm already addicted.


----------



## Got to get free

Thomas Tompion said:


> Just as a matter of interest, Got to get free, and not, therefore, necessarily leading you anywhere, how do you pronounce what I understand you prefer to write as *Bill Gates' wife*.
> 
> Do you say *Bill Gates wife*, or _*Bill Gates z wife*_?


I'm sounding it out ... It is not a hard z, as in zebra, it sounds like "Gates iz s" or the word "is" plus "s" and strangely - because I've never exactly explored this before - I can't really tell if the "is" plus the "s" is one syllable or two syllables.  ???


----------



## JulianStuart

Got to get free said:


> Yes, you got that right, and I empathize with the first part of your tag line stating "My memory is so bad I can't even remember what I just forgot."  Oh, but I did search and I did find you guys.  I'm already addicted.


I'm not sure how much of the thread you have read, but I already posted this one (#143).  As a follow-up to it, I wonder how you name the inidivuduals who have that last name : The Gateses, perhaps? or just The Gates. (Not asking about The Gates Family).  Gate is a surname also, so we would have Alan Gate's family being called the Gates and the possessive of this plural would be The Gates' house.  You can see where confusion can arise when using the "if it simply ends in -s" rule versus the "if it is a plural ending in -s" rule.  But, as noted above, it's a style choice and we choose differently


----------



## Got to get free

Wordsmyth said:


> OK, I live and learn! I've actually spent some time in Houston, but I didn't ever notice that. Maybe I didn't go to enough Macdos (as they're often called where I live — there, that solves the problem).
> 
> So what about Macy's? (as a possessive or a plural ... I think you have more than one of them, too.)
> 
> Ws


There's Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade.   Macy's Herald Square and Macy's at SmallTownBigState Shopping Center differentiate between the flagship and satellite stores.  There's only one Macy's Herald Square with wooden escalators that go clackity-clack where Garment District residents sometimes do their supermarket shopping. Does any other Macy's have wooden escalators?


----------



## Got to get free

Got to get free said:


> I'm sounding it out ... It is not a hard z, as in zebra, it sounds like "Gates iz s" or the word "is" plus "s" and strangely - because I've never exactly explored this before - I can't really tell if the "is" plus the "s" is one syllable or two syllables.  ???





Thomas Tompion said:


> Just as a matter of interest, Got to get free, and not, therefore, necessarily leading you anywhere, how do you pronounce what I understand you prefer to write as *Bill Gates' wife*.
> 
> Do you say *Bill Gates wife*, or _*Bill Gates z wife*_?


Oops, I didn't read your question the way you meant it.  My instinct is to say Bill Gates wife.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Got to get free said:


> Oops, I didn't read your question the way you meant it.  My instinct is to say Bill Gates wife.


You see, I couldn't say that, and that may be why I write it differently.  This has been my view on this issue for about fifty years, but I can't remember if I said as much in the dark ages of this thread.

I'm quite happy, as usual, to accept that American usage may be different from ours.


----------



## JulianStuart

Got to get free said:


> Oops, I didn't read your question the way you meant it.  My instinct is to say Bill Gates wife.


Perhaps my sensitivity/logic is based on the fact that my real-life name ends in s and some people will write an apostrophe before the s to make the possessive :  "Bill Gate's wife" - drives me crazy


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

I am among those Americans whose teeth go on edge when he reads "Chris' dog", especially since everyone will *say* "Chrisiz".

I will also point out that the using an apostrophe to form the possessive of a word that ends with _s_ is hardly something "new" in the US, as has been claimed by some here.  One might note, for example, the first edition of _ The_ _Elements of Style_, by William Strunk Jr. (1869-1946.)

Strunk's first rule of usage was this:



> *Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's.*
> 
> Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,
> 
> Charles's friend
> Burns's poems
> the witch's malice
> 
> This is the usage of the United States Government Printing Office and of the Oxford University Press.



Strunk's work appeared in 1918.  I seriously doubt that anyone here was in school before 1918, when this was already the preferred usage of the United States Government Printing Office.  Thus, all claims that this is a recent introduction which contradicts the universal American practice of the posters' schooldays are in error.


----------



## LouisFerdinand

<Merged with an earlier thread. Nat, Moderator>
There are times when there is a proper noun and it ends with a *s.* Ownership is shown with the *'*. Should an extra *s *be added or not? For example: Is it James's or James'


----------



## waltern

Possessive of Proper Names Ending in S

"The bottom line is that stylebooks do not agree on whether to write “Jesus’ name” or “Jesus’s name,” “Travis’ friend” or “Travis’s friend.” Writers not bound by a specific style manual must make their own decision and be consistent with it."​


----------



## JulianStuart

This thread has 160+ posts - it's somewhat controversial
<link removed>
(My personal view is that the 's is added to all singular nouns, whether they end in s or not)

<Thanks JS, the threads have been merged. Nat>


----------



## LouisFerdinand

In some Bibles the New Testament mentions "Jesus' Father". In other Bibles the New Testament mentions "Jesus's Father". I had wondered if there was one definite rule or not.


----------



## JulianStuart

Nope  Some follow my preference but break their own rule with historical figures such as Jesus, Moses, Socrates etc. but I never figured out the fame or age cut-off for that "rule"


----------



## natkretep

My rule of thumb is to add 's for monosyllables (James's, Chris's) and to polysyllables if they are easy to pronounce. The usual justification for Jesus' and Moses' is that there are already two sibilants there and writing 's would indicate three sibilants each.


----------



## msirois

To throw an extra wrinkle into the discussion, what about words or names that have a silent "s" at the end of the word? My last name is Sirois. It's pronounced Sir-wah. I'm American, of French descent. If we were talking about my dog, would it be "Sirois' dog" or "Sirois's dog." It would be pronounced "Sir-wahz dog."


----------



## JulianStuart

I'd go for the latter choice: Sirois's.  The second s would still be silent and the z sound of Sir-wahz would be from the s after the apostrophe.  (But I'm of the persuasion that a name ending in an s is not a plural, so would not have simple apostrophe.)  If the person reading that knows that the name is sir-wah, then it will not be a problem.  If they don't know that, then there's a bigger problem


----------



## Forero

msirois said:


> To throw an extra wrinkle into the discussion, what about words or names that have a silent "s" at the end of the word? My last name is Sirois. It's pronounced Sir-wah. I'm American, of French descent. If we were talking about my dog, would it be "Sirois' dog" or "Sirois's dog." It would be pronounced "Sir-wahz dog."


I come from Arkansas, which was spelled by a French explorer with a silent final _s_. So it's "Arkansas's natural beauty", since _Arkansas_ is not plural, not "Arkansas' natural beauty".

Now I live in Texas, and the _s_ in _Texas_ is not silent. The possessive is still formed the same way: "Texas's natural beauty".

— On the other hand, if it is your own name, you can spell it any way you want. 

During the civil war, several states had two governments, a U.S. one and a Confederate one, so there were in effect two Arkansas (plural, pronounced "Arkansauz"), and there may have been two Texases too (plural, pronounced "Texassiz"). The respective possessive plural forms are _Arkansas'_ ("Arkansauz") and _Texases'_ ("Texassiz").

Similarly, where I live _chassis_ is pronounced "Chassee". The other three forms of the word are all pronounced "chasseez", but they are spelled _chassis_ (plural), _chassis's_ (singular possessive), and _chassis'_ (plural possessive).

And, speaking of French words in English, _fleur-de-lys_ is pronounced "flur de lee", and the three other forms are all pronounced "flur de leez", but they are spelled _fleurs-de-lys_ (plural), _fleur-de-lys's_ (singular possessive), and _fleurs-de-lys'_ (plural possessive), in case anyone is wondering.


----------



## CLaBeff

This is a very interesting conversation.  My nickname is Chris.  I was looking up the use of apostrophe to show ownership, when I came across this page.  I chose it because it specifically referenced my nickname!  I was writing an professional email.  My grammar is atrocious, since I've not actually had to practice using proper grammar since college!  I was taught, in an American public school system, in eigth grade, that we use apostrophe s when we can refer to ownership of a thing.  We use s apostrophe when we refer to ownership of a person. I was taught to remember that rule, this way:  Chris can own a piece of cake.  It's Chris's cake.  Chris cannot own a person.  There are laws against that.  It's Chris' doctor.  Both 's and s' are pronounced "Chris-es".


----------



## Myridon

CLaBeff said:


> I was taught, in an American public school system, in eigth grade, that we use apostrophe s when we can refer to ownership of a thing.  We use s apostrophe when we refer to ownership of a person. I was taught to remember that rule, this way:  Chris can own a piece of cake.  It's Chris's cake.  Chris cannot own a person.  There are laws against that.  It's Chris' doctor.  Both 's and s' are pronounced "Chris-es".


I think you may have had a "unique" eighth-grade teacher.  I've never heard of any rule like this.   I'm not sure how your rule helps you remember anything since it's all pronounced the same.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

CLaBeff said:


> I was taught, in an American public school system, in eigth grade, that we use apostrophe s when we can refer to ownership of a thing.  We use s apostrophe when we refer to ownership of a person. I was taught to remember that rule, this way:  Chris can own a piece of cake.  It's Chris's cake.  Chris cannot own a person.  There are laws against that.  It's Chris' doctor.  Both 's and s' are pronounced "Chris-es".



Welcome to the forum, Chris.

Because I am not as nice as Myridon (or perhaps because I am a New Yorker rather than a Texan...) I will be blunter:
Your teacher was wrong, and the rule that he or she taught you was absolute rubbish, which you need to forget right now.  Apostrophes do not only indicate ownership; they may also indicate another relationship of some kind.  You can certainly refer to_ John's mother_ (whom John does not own), or_ John's school_ (which he also does not own), or_ John's death_ (ditto.)  You can also use the apostrophe + s form for inanimate objects, or for concepts, which cannot "own" anything, as in _the ship's bell_, or_ yesterday's weather_, or_ love's old sweet song._

While I know some people follow another practice, I myself follow Strunk's rule that I gave in post #167 of this thread, and would always write "Chris's", just as I would write "Charles's" or "James's."  In your case, since you tell us that you are going to *say* it as Chris-ez, with a second "s" sound, it would seem best to write it using a second "s":* Chris's*.


----------



## Oddmania

I'd never heard this particular rule either. It sounds like the kind of complicated rule that you might come across in French, not English (« if _Français_ is a noun, it's capitalized, but if it's adjective, it takes a lowercase _f_ »).

One rule (or one piece of guidance, rather) I do remember reading about when I was a kid is that names of English origin ending in _S_ take _*'s*_ (_Charles's son_) while Latin or Greek names ending in _S _only take an apostrophe (_Jesus' apostles_). It didn't say anything about names of neither English nor Latin origin, though.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

I'm wondering if my guideline is consistent with many of these so-called rules.

My guideline is this: when a singular proper name ends in *s*, whether the *s* is silent or not, I only put* 's* when I add *iz* at the end of the name when I pronounce it.  When I wouldn't add an *iz* at the end I simply add an apostrophe to the proper name, to obtain the possessive form.

Thus I'd say _Bill Gatesiz father_, so I'd write _Bill Gates's father_.
I'd say _Arkansawiz_ (-saws) _natural beauty_, so I'd write _Arkansas's natural beauty_.
I'd say _The Brahms symphonies_, so I'd write _The Brahms' symphonies_.
I'd say _Brahmsiz symphonies_, so I'd write _Brahms's symphonies_.
I'd say _Sirois hat_, so I'd write _Sirois' hat_.
If I wrote _Sirois's hat_, that would suggest I said _Siroisiz hat_ - which isn't completely out of the question.
If someone wrote _Arkansas' natural beauty_, that would suggest to me that they would say_ Arkansaw natural beauty_.


----------



## JulianStuart

I'd go along with most of that.



> I'd say Arkansawiz (-saws) natural beauty. Arkansa*s*'s


 - here the bold (i.e., second) s is silent


> I'd say Sirois hat, so I'd write Sirois' hat


.  How do you pronounce Sirois - with or without an s sound?

But if the name is pronounced Sirwah the parallel is to Arkansaw, terminal s always silent.
So if you say Sir-whaz for the possessive, then it would be written as  Siroi*s*'s where the second s is still silent, no?


----------



## Thomas Tompion

JulianStuart said:


> I'd go along with most of that.
> 
> - here the bold (i.e., second) s is silent
> .  How do you pronounce Sirois - with or without an s sound?
> 
> But if the name is pronounced Sirwah the parallel is to Arkansaw, terminal s always silent.
> So if you say Sir-whaz for the possessive, then it would be written as  Siroi*s*'s where the second s is still silent, no?


Yes, I think you're right, Julian.  I think I'd put an *iz *on Sirois, so I ought to write _Sirois's hat_. 

You are right to correct me.


----------



## Edinburgher

Thomas Tompion said:


> I'd say _The Brahms symphonies_, so I'd write _The Brahms' symphonies_.
> I'd say _Brahmsiz symphonies_, so I'd write _Brahms's symphonies_.


I fully agree with "Brahms's" in the second example, but the first example should have no apostrophe at all.  In "The Brahms symphonies", like in "The Beethoven symphonies", the composer's name is in the nominative, not genitive.
It isn't "The Beethoven's symphonies" either, after all.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Edinburgher said:


> I fully agree with "Brahms's" in the second example, but the first example should have no apostrophe at all.  In "The Brahms symphonies", like in "The Beethoven symphonies", the composer's name is in the nominative, not genitive.
> It isn't "The Beethoven's symphonies" either, after all.


Yes, I agree.

There are people who say _*Brahms symphonies*_, meaning symphonies by Brahms.  They should write _*Brahms' symphonies*_.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

Thomas Tompion said:


> There are people who say _*Brahms symphonies*_, meaning symphonies by Brahms.  They should write _*Brahms' symphonies*_.



No, they should write _*Brahms's symphonies*_ (pronounced "Brahmziz"), just as they would write_ Mozart's symphonies_, or _Schubert's symphonies_.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> No, they should write _*Brahms's symphonies*_ (pronounced "Brahmziz"), just as they would write_ Mozart's symphonies_, or _Schubert's symphonies_.


In my view this would only be right if they said *Brahmziz*.

I'm not prepared to say that it's incorrect to say _*Brahmz symphonies*_: I've heard many people say it.


----------



## Edinburgher

Thomas Tompion said:


> In my view this would only be right if they said *Brahmziz*.


Yes, well, that is what they should say if they intend it to be possessive (and there's a separate issue, I suppose, of whether they should intend it to be).


Thomas Tompion said:


> I'm not prepared to say that it's incorrect to say _*Brahmz symphonies*_: I've heard many people say it.


Of course it's not incorrect to say *Brahmz symphonies*, but as I've already pointed out, then it would not be a possessive.  The equivalent would be _Mozart symphonies_, also meaning _symphonies by Mozart_, but using _Brahms/Mozart_ as an attributive noun.

To try a slightly different tack, if I'm going somewhere with my friend Chris, and he is giving me a lift in his car, then:
_I'm going in *Chrisiz* car._  (correct because _Chris's_ is correct)
_I'm going in *Chris* car._  (incorrect because _Chris' _is incorrect)
In practice, I might well avoid the controversy by saying "I'm going *with Chris*."


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Edinburgher said:


> Of course it's not incorrect to say *Brahmz symphonies*, but as I've already pointed out, then it would not be a possessive. The equivalent would be _Mozart symphonies_, also meaning _symphonies by Mozart_, but using _Brahms/Mozart_ as an attributive noun


My point is that it is possessive; for the speaker it's the equivalent of *Mozart's symphonies*.

This is not the proper noun being used adjectivally.


----------



## sdgraham

Thomas Tompion said:


> Yes, I agree.
> There are people who say _*Brahms symphonies*_, meaning symphonies by Brahms.  They should write _*Brahms' symphonies*_.


This is in line with _The Associated Press Stylebook_, the defacto style guide for American newspapers and journalism schools.


GreenWhiteBlue said:


> No, they should write _*Brahms's symphonies*_ (pronounced "Brahmziz"), just as they would write_ Mozart's symphonies_, or _Schubert's symphonies_.


This is not.

As always, one just has to choose a style guide and stick with it.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

sdgraham said:


> This is not.
> 
> As always, one just has to choose a style guide and stick with it.



I will take Strunk (whom I mentioned above, some years ago), who advises making the possessive of names that end in "s" with an apostrophe + s.  By the way, would the AP Stylebook criticize those who are appointed Ambassadors to the Court of St. James's -- which is nominally housed in St. James's Palace, near St. James's Park?


----------



## sdgraham

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> I will take Strunk (whom I mentioned above, some years ago), who advises making the possessive of names that end in "s" with an apostrophe + s.  By the way, would the AP Stylebook criticize those who are appointed Ambassadors to the Court of St. James's -- which is nominally housed in St. James's Palace, near St. James's Park?


The AP Stylebook doesn't criticize anything, but provides a guide for American reporters and editors. There are always exceptions, and indeed, the Stylebook says: "(An exception is St. James's Palace)".


----------



## Forero

I found the following statement about the AP Stylebook in Wikipedia:





> Its simplified grammar, such as dropping the Oxford comma and using figures for all numbers above nine, saves scarce print and web space.


In other words, if we can believe Wikipedia, the AP have decided to "simplify" in order to save space.

It is odd that they would want to save one character (the _s_) while at the same time cramming a webpage with overly complicated xml and imbedded sreaming videos.

I'll stick with the logical spelling based on the way my parents and teachers pronounced possessives (as I always have).


----------



## sdgraham

Forero said:


> I found the following statement about the AP Stylebook in Wikipedia:In other words, if we can believe Wikipedia, the AP have decided to "simplify" in order to save space.
> 
> It is odd that they would want to save one character (the _s_) while at the same time cramming a webpage with overly complicated xml and imbedded sreaming videos.
> 
> I'll stick with the logical spelling based on the way my parents and teachers pronounced possessives (as I always have).


AP practice is based not only upon space in the _printed_ pages of newspapers, but the limited transmission speeds common in the not-too-distant past, which was 50 or 56.8 bits (not kilobits or megabits) per second until it started to change slowly in the '70s.

Even if you don't like the style, it is used by an industry that still buys ink by the tank car load.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

sdgraham said:


> This is in line with _The Associated Press Stylebook_, the defacto style guide for American newspapers and journalism schools.
> 
> This is not.
> 
> As always, one just has to choose a style guide and stick with it.


Just to be clear, SDG:

I'm saying that I'd think both *Brahms' symphonies* and* Brahms's symphonies* correct on paper, and indicative of how the writer wished the phrase to be pronounced.


----------



## Forero

Thomas Tompion said:


> Just to be clear, SDG:
> 
> I'm saying that I'd think both *Brahms' symphonies* and* Brahms's symphonies* correct on paper, and indicative of how the writer wished the phrase to be pronounced.


For me, saying "all of Brahms' symphonies" sounds wrong, as if the speaker thought the name was "Brahm" (like "all of Brahm's symphonies"). And what's to stop a speaker who says "all of Brahms' symphonies" from also saying "the Brahms'" instead of "the Brahmses" and "the Brahmses'"?

I have heard and seen _the Williams'_ where _the Williamses_ was meant, and I find it confusing, and wrong. I prefer to distinguish a _Williams_ from a _William_ and something belonging to a Williams or a Peters from something belonging to a William or a Peter.

I can see how it can protect journalists from libel if they simply say up front that they will not make the distinction. But what about accuracy, which professional journalists are (or used to be) so proud of?


----------



## JulianStuart

Forero said:


> I have heard and seen _the Williams'_ where _the Williamses_ was meant, and I find it confusing, and wrong. I prefer to distinguish a _Williams_ from a _William_ and something belonging to a Williams or a Peters from something belonging to a William or a Peter.


I agree  
I occasionally see Jone’s but I must admit I’ve never seen Brahm’s


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Forero said:


> For me, saying "all of Brahms' symphonies" sounds wrong, as if the speaker thought the name was "Brahm" (like "all of Brahm's symphonies").


I'm prepared to be generous and think he just didn't like the sound of *Brahmziz* *symphonies*.


Forero said:


> And what's to stop a speaker who says "all of Brahms' symphonies" from also saying "the Brahms'" instead of "the Brahmses" and "the Brahmses'"?


This is to assume he is uneducated, a leap I'm not prepared to make.  The people I know who say this don't think plurals are normally formed by adding apostrophes. 

I've never heard anyone say anything like *I'm going to spend the evening with the Brahms* (ie. the Brahms family), as you suggest.

There is no problem with the *Brahmses' house*, because there one is obliged to say *Brahmziz*, and we are dealing with a plural ending in *s*, so the apostrophe follows the *s*.


----------



## dalanw

Please forgive my seemingly matter-of-fact attitude, but when  I was a U.S. Navy brat in the '70s I was expressly required to observe, in public schools anywhere from East Tennessee to Southern California to Guam, that there was no negotiation necessary nor tolerated in this matter. I was taught that the tertiary institutions of Great Britain (England) ultimately determined the correct way to speak and write in English and all of our textbooks were clear and uniform upon the handling of contractions and non-pronoun possessives. My understanding was that the apostrophe, when not being used to denote possession, represented missing characters of words either in contractions or truncations--i.e., "it's" (it is), "'70s" (1970s), or "the Wrights'" (belonging to the Wright family) in plural and "Jesus's" (belonging to Jesus) in singular possessive. I always assumed that any other convention was the result of mistake or ignorance.

_"There ain't no such thang as accidents... It's premeditated carelessness." -- *Brother Dave Gardner*_


----------



## sdgraham

dalanw said:


> I always assumed that any other convention was the result of mistake or ignorance.


Welcome to the forum.
I've never, ever found '"the Wrights'" (belonging to the Wright family) ' to be correct. My friends, the Wrights, live in Oregon. The Wrights' address (possessive) is the common style.
As a side note, one can find many preconceived ideas questioned in this forum of friendly folks.


----------



## dalanw

Do you mean "common" as opposed to formal or as in correct?

I'm certainly all for friendly disagreement. Just relating experience--technically not preconception, eh?


----------



## velisarius

I may be missing something but I'm puzzled by a seeming contradiction, sdg. 



sdgraham said:


> I've never, ever found '"*the Wrights'*" (*belonging to* the Wright family) ' to be correct.
> The* Wrights' *address (*possessive*) is the common style.


----------



## dalanw

velisarius said:


> I may be missing something but I'm puzzled by a seeming contradiction, sdg.


Exactly my thought


----------



## RM1(SS)

Ditto.


----------



## dojibear

In written English I might see "Chris' dog" or I might see "Chris's dog".

But in spoken English I would pronounce those 2 phrases the same: "Krɪs-es dɔg", with two separate S sounds.


----------



## Loob

dojibear said:


> In written English I might see "Chris' dog" or I might see "Chris's dog".
> 
> But in spoken English I would pronounce those 2 phrases the same: "Krɪs-es dɔg", with two separate S sounds.


Me too. As I'm sure I've said before, either in this thread or other related ones....


----------



## Thomas Tompion

velisarius said:


> I may be missing something but I'm puzzled by a seeming contradiction, sdg.


I concluded that SDG was making a point about double inverted commas; I'd assumed the single one before the first double one, which I first took for a fly dropping on my screen, was unintentional.


----------



## sdgraham

velisarius said:


> I may be missing something but I'm puzzled by a seeming contradiction, sdg.


Arghhhh. I must get new glasses.   
I misread it.
Apologies to all.


----------



## JulianStuart

Interesting variation on the theme.  We have not discussed names ending X very much in this thread.  Today's Guardian has an interesting take on the plural and possessive plural.


> Those close to *the Sussexes* say Meghan will be devastated that there were people who felt that in her orbit.


  This is a simple pluralization of Sussex.


> *The Sussex’s lawyers* have denied the bullying allegations, painting them as a smear campaign by staff.


This is the "variant" that I've not seen before. The example is not an isolated case but is used at least twice, so unlikely to have been done without thought or editorial approval.  I would have written Sussexes'. 

From 'Nobody wins': should palace fear Harry and Meghan's interview?


----------



## Edinburgher

JulianStuart said:


> I would have written Sussexes'.


Me too. Remember, the Guardian has a reputation to live down to.


----------



## JulianStuart

Edinburgher said:


> Me too. Remember, the Guardian has a reputation to live down to.


Do you think the lack of editorial oversight persists to this day?  I will check it over the next few days to see if it gets "corrected"


----------



## heypresto

I think the editor should have used one of the Tipp-Exes on his or her desk.


----------



## JulianStuart

I don't know what the Tipp-Exes' properties are - do they work on computer screens (said he, rushing off to patent the idea)


----------



## heypresto

Good point.


----------



## Edinburgher

JulianStuart said:


> rushing off to patent the idea


You're several decades too late.  Computers have been using virtual Tipp-Ex for donkeys' years -- ever since they were equipped with keyboards.  For trademark reasons, however, the name Tipp-Ex cannot be used for this feature.  We just call it the Delete Key now.


----------



## Roxxxannne

On the other hand, if the Guardian editors really wish to live down to their reputation -- and further -- they'd use the time-honored physical Tipp-Ex.


----------



## JulianStuart

Edinburgher said:


> You're several decades too late.  Computers have been using virtual Tipp-Ex for donkeys' years -- ever since they were equipped with keyboards.  For trademark reasons, however, the name Tipp-Ex cannot be used for this feature.  We just call it the Delete Key now.


Thank you for you insight 
The idea was to use a _device that is applied to the computer screen,_ not a virtual equivalent - it involves a screen and pen device that can _distinguish_ between something intended to perform action X (deleting a letter or more) and action B (changing letters to bold) and action I (changing to italic)   It's very unobvious and clearly patentable  All based on the notion that writing, reviewing and editing etc are done on screens not on paper. (I've not worked in a newspaper office, let alone in a pandemic, so I don't know how much paper they use these days)


----------

