NationStates Jolt Archive

I am confuzzled about apostrophes after the letter 's', and browsing the net for an answer gives contradictory messages. I'm down with the simple stuff, like:

"That is Jack's ball."

But what about the ball that belongs to (for example) Fass? Which one is it:

(a) "That is Fass's ball."
(b) "That is Fass' ball."

And, for I'm under the impression that the rule is different, which one is correct here (multiple companies):

(a) "The companies's profits."
(b) "The companies' profits."

Thanks in advance for the help.

(a) "That is Fass's ball."
(b) "That is Fass' ball."


Both are correct, but I believe b) is better form. Same with the example below.

I think it's A, B. I'd have to check Strunk and White to be sure though.

I think both answers are B, not positive though. You'll want a second opinion.

It is about whether it is a plural or not. The is only one Fass thankfully so something belonging to Fass is Fass's. Companies is a plural so the apostrophe follows the s - so it is companies'. If it was a singular company it would be the company's.

It is about whether it is a plural or not. The is only one Fass thankfully so something belonging to Fass is Fass's. Companies is a plural so the apostrophe follows the s - so it is companies'. If it was a singular company it would be the company's.

Exacatackaly.

It is about whether it is a plural or not. The is only one Fass thankfully so something belonging to Fass is Fass's. Companies is a plural so the apostrophe follows the s - so it is companies'. If it was a singular company it would be the company's.
... OK.

That makes sense.

It's B for both, as far as I know.

The correct answers would be "That is Fass's ball." and "The companies' profits.", assuming the final sound in "Fass" is /s/ and in "companies" is /z/.


5. If a singular noun ends in an "s," use "'s" to create the possessive form only if the noun ends in a "s" sound. However, if the noun ends in a "z" sound, use just an apostrophe without adding an additional "s." This produces a more pronounceable possessive.


Correct: The car in question was Roger Weiss's red convertible.


Also Correct:

I was a student in Professor Abrams' Torts class.

6. If a plural noun ends in an "s," it is preferable to use only an apostrophe -- and not an additional "s" -- to create the possessive. Of the three formulations presented below, the first most clearly and concisely indicates a plural possessive.


Correct: The car in question was the Weisses' red convertible.


Less Desirable:

The car in question was the Weiss's red convertible.


Also Undesirable:

The car in question was the Weisses's red convertible.
http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaPossessives.htm

Fass got balls?

Both are correct, but I believe b) is better form. Same with the example below.

Nope.

I think it's A, B. I'd have to check Strunk and White to be sure though.

Yep.

I think both answers are B, not positive though. You'll want a second opinion.

Nope and yep.

It is about whether it is a plural or not. The is only one Fass thankfully so something belonging to Fass is Fass's. Companies is a plural so the apostrophe follows the s - so it is companies'. If it was a singular company it would be the company's.

Almost, but not quite.

The correct answers would be "That is Fass's ball." and "The companies' profits.", assuming the gfinal sound in "Fass" is /s/ and in "companies" is /z/.



http://www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaPossessives.htm

Not to be contrary, but you can find style guides that disagree with that one, and take the view that singular proper names ending in an ‘s’ should be made possessive by adding only an apostrophe. (like the AP stylebook (http://www.apstylebook.com/), for instance).

It appears that both conventions are in regular use.

Fass got balls?

That may or may not be grammatically correct, depending on whether you wanted the simple past or simple present tense.

Did you want to say "Fass possesses 'balls'." or "Fass obtained 'balls'." In the former case, you've dropped thye contracted has. It'd be "Fass's got balls."

Have got or have gotten?
According to Patricia O'Conner, author of Woe Is I, "At one time, everyone agreed that the verb get had two past participles: got and gotten.... It's true that the British stopped using have gotten about three hundred years ago, while we in the Colonies kept using both have got and have gotten. But the result is not that Americans speak improper English. The result is that we have retained a nuance of meaning that the unfortunate Britons have lost.
When we say, Bruce has got three Armani suits, we mean he has them in his possession. It's another way of saying he has them.
When we say, Bruce has gotten three Armani suits, we mean he's acquired or obtained them.
It's a useful distinction...(191-2).
http://www.drgrammar.org/faqs/#111

Nope.


It depends if you're talking about how you say it, or how your write it. If you're talking about how you pronounce it, then you would be correct. However, in writing it, the way I've been taught is that although both are acceptable, it looks better if do it the option b) way whether it's a name or a plural.

Not to be contrary, but you can find style guides that disagree with that one, and take the view that singular proper names ending in an ‘s’ should be made possessive by adding only an apostrophe. (like the AP stylebook (http://www.apstylebook.com/), for instance).

It appears that both conventions are in regular use.

Hmmm... your link doesn't seem to support your assertion, from what I see. Can you quote and link what actually supportys your assertion please.

Singular not ending in S:

Add apostrophe-S.

"This is Jack's ball."

Plural ending in S:

Add an apostrophe.

"This is the Johnsons' house."

Singular ending in S:

Disputed among grammarians. I greatly prefer apostrophe-S myself, as a better reflection of how the result is pronounced:

"This is Linus's blanket." (One typically says Ly-nus-iz, not Ly-nus.)

Plural not ending in S:

Add apostrophe-S.

"This is the women's dressing room."

Clear enough? :)

The English language has no central regulatory body, so you can write in whichever way you please. But if you must, you can follow the Oxbridge rules or whatever - i.e. Daistallia.

The English language has no central regulatory body, so you can write in whichever way you please. But if you must, you can follow the Oxbridge rules or whatever - i.e. Daistallia.

:::tips hat:::

And here we get to the real crux of the question - prescriptive vs descriptive grammars.

While recognising the fact that languages are "living" and ever changing, I also acknowledge the need for prescription as well as description, in that it allows for clear communication.

If one was allowed to write in whatever way one pleased, I could write "rulz don yu yur ai ouf wannu fallu fuk" and claim it was a syntactically correct English sentence that communicate my message.

NO LETTERS FOR YOU! *Snatches keyboard*:D

:::tips hat:::

And here we get to the real crux of the question - prescriptive vs descriptive grammars.

While recognising the fact that languages are "living" and ever changing, I also acknowledge the need for prescription as well as description, in that it allows for clear communication.

If one was allowed to write in whatever way one pleased, I could write "rulz don yu yur ai ouf wannu fallu fuk" and claim it was a syntactically correct English sentence that communicate my message.

Well there is a distinction between literary language, and its evolution, and vulgar language and its evolution. Now vulgar usage has usually been confined to verbal means, and now also on the internet and mobile phones (adding to it), but when we talk about evolutionary tendencies of the language, we talk exclusively about authoritative print: newspapers, dictionaries, books et al. These do inevitably evolve, particularly via newspapers, and as such, you can't really argue against most, if any, of the uses that change over time, because of the lack of a regulatory body, whereas the use of vulgar is automatically assumed to be incorrect (the word used is "non-literary"), and is not subjected to further analysis and argument.

So "rulz don yu yur ai ouf wannu fallu fuk" is not deemed worth an evaluation, whereas color/colour is purely a matter of preference, but you can argue that "colour" is preferable, due to it being more common in British Standard Dialect.

But what about the ball that belongs to (for example) Fass? Which one is it:

(a) "That is Fass's ball."
(b) "That is Fass' ball."

No matter what letter a name ends with, you always use an " 's " afterwards. The " ' " replaces an e. In the case of James, or Fass, it would become James's or Fass's ball.

And, for I'm under the impression that the rule is different, which one is correct here (multiple companies):

(a) "The companies's profits."
(b) "The companies' profits."

I think in a multiple situation (b) is the correct answer.

But what about the ball that belongs to (for example) Fass? Which one is it:

(a) "That is Fass's ball."
(b) "That is Fass' ball."Currently the first version is in vogue, for modern names.
So Fass's ball, but Archimedes' screw; because Archimedes is ancient.
Yes, screwed up; but that's the convention at the moment (well, at the moment Lynn Truss wrote her booklet.)

It is about whether it is a plural or not. The is only one Fass thankfully so something belonging to Fass is Fass's. Companies is a plural so the apostrophe follows the s - so it is companies'. If it was a singular company it would be the company's.

Actually not. It is about whether the last letter is 's' or not. Jesus' Sermon, now this is presuming that we are talking about one Jesus (which I indeed am) or companies' profits, or company's profits... it's not a plural issue, for example "The three moose's antlers were very large.' even though it is plural, the apostrophe comes before the 's' because 's' is not the last letter.

EDIT: So, B for both.

So, in summation:
Do whichever the hell you want. But be consistent. And if you're in college and therefore should be using a specific school of thought (MLA, APA, etc.), you should find a handbook for the style you want to use (or more likely, the style your professor wants you to use) and follow that. Personally, I use "Fass' balls" because it looks more neat and tidy to me than "Fass's balls".

For an even more fun and controversial discussion: List the proper uses of a comma. (Oxford comma FTW.)

Actually not. It is about whether the last letter is 's' or not. Jesus' Sermon, now this is presuming that we are talking about one Jesus (which I indeed am)...

Moot point, as everyone knows the plural of Jesus is Jesi, making the plural possessive "Jesi's".

I'm an Oxford comma whore :(

I am confuzzled about apostrophes after the letter 's', and browsing the net for an answer gives contradictory messages. I'm down with the simple stuff, like:

"That is Jack's ball."

But what about the ball that belongs to (for example) Fass? Which one is it:

(a) "That is Fass's ball."
(b) "That is Fass' ball."

And, for I'm under the impression that the rule is different, which one is correct here (multiple companies):

(a) "The companies's profits."
(b) "The companies' profits."

Thanks in advance for the help.

Singluar possessive = 's
Plural possessive = s'
PLURAL = NO BLEEDING APOSTROPHE. I saw this grammatical abortion in Eastern Washington cherry-tree country (a place I love): "cherrie's". Thy bothered to change the "y" to "ies" for the proper plural AND THEN ADDED A DAMNED APOSTROPHE. GAAAH!

Sorry. Massive psychotic pet peeve.

By the way, Daistallia's Grammar-fu is mighty.

:hail:

Don't use 'company', use 'exploiter'. :)

Don't use 'company', use 'exploiter'. :)

Unnecessary, mate.

Don't use 'company', use 'exploiter'. :)

Must you? In EVERY thread?

(a) "That is Fass's ball."
(b) "That is Fass' ball."


Fass=singular
Fass'=possessive singular, plural, possessive plural

Fass' is correct


(a) "The companies's profits."
(b) "The companies' profits."


Company=singular
Company's=possessive singular
Companies=plural
Companies'=possessive plural

Companies' is correct


Basically, never use 's for a word that ends in s, just use '

Actually not. It is about whether the last letter is 's' or not. Jesus' Sermon, now this is presuming that we are talking about one Jesus (which I indeed am) or companies' profits, or company's profits... it's not a plural issue, for example "The three moose's antlers were very large.' even though it is plural, the apostrophe comes before the 's' because 's' is not the last letter.

EDIT: So, B for both.

How is companies' or company's not a plural issue? Moose is a singular and a plural so you could not have picked a worse example. Jesus's sermon and Jesus' sermon are both accepable. It would be company's profit (not profits) and companies' profits.

Don't use 'company', use 'exploiter'. :)

I prefer to use the term 'greedy capitalistic pigs'.

I prefer to use the term 'greedy capitalistic pigs'.

Dude, unnecessary. The topic is grammar, not vocabulary.

Thank you to everyone who contributed.

Singular not ending in S:

Add apostrophe-S.

"This is Jack's ball."

Plural ending in S:

Add an apostrophe.

"This is the Johnsons' house."

Singular ending in S:

Disputed among grammarians. I greatly prefer apostrophe-S myself, as a better reflection of how the result is pronounced:

"This is Linus's blanket." (One typically says Ly-nus-iz, not Ly-nus.)

Plural not ending in S:

Add apostrophe-S.

"This is the women's dressing room."

Clear enough? :)
Yes, very.

Thank you!


NO LETTERS FOR YOU! *Snatches keyboard*:D
Awwwww. :(


Currently the first version is in vogue, for modern names.
So Fass's ball, but Archimedes' screw; because Archimedes is ancient.
Yes, screwed up; but that's the convention at the moment (well, at the moment Lynn Truss wrote her booklet.)
That is screwed up.

I won't be keeping to that convention, thank you very much.


Sorry. Massive psychotic pet peeve.
S'ok.

You should hear my Ma when someone writes the name of her town as "St. Andrew's"...


Don't use 'company', use 'exploiter'. :)
If nothing else, I applaud you for the effort.

I prefer to use the term 'greedy capitalistic pigs'.
Well said.

You should hear my Ma when someone writes the name of her town as "St. Andrew's"...
.

hmmmmmm

why is it st andrews? are there more than one st andrew?

hmmmmmm

why is it st andrews?
It's supposed to be the resting place of some of St. Andrew's bones; in the Middle Ages, pilgrims from all over Europe came to visit his shrine.

But, town names don't have to follow grammatical rules.

It's supposed to be the resting place of some of St. Andrew's bones; in the Middle Ages, pilgrims from all over Europe came to visit his shrine.

But, town names don't have to follow grammatical rules.

no they dont.

was it ever longer? like "st. andrew's bones" or something?

Hmmm... your link doesn't seem to support your assertion, from what I see. Can you quote and link what actually supportys your assertion please.

I'd love to, but I can't access the AP source that I referenced earlier from this PC (no login from home).

However, there is this excerpt from the Times Online style guide (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and_services/specials/style_guide/article986718.ece), which basically says the same thing:
apostrophes with proper names/nouns ending in s that are singular, follow the rule of writing what is voiced, eg, Keats's poetry, Sobers's batting, The Times's style (or Times style); and with names where the final “s” is soft, use the “s” apostrophe, eg, Rabelais' writings, Delors' presidency; plurals follow normal form, as Lehman Brothers' loss etc. Note that with Greek names of more than one syllable that end in "s", do not use the apostrophe "s", eg, Aristophanes' plays, Achilles' heel, Socrates' life, Archimedes' principle.

Beware of organisations that have variations as their house style, eg, St Thomas' Hospital, where we must respect their whim. Also, take care with apostrophes with plural nouns, eg, women's, not womens'; children's, not childrens'; people's, not peoples'. Use the apostrophe in expressions such as two years' time, several hours' delay etc.

Or this, from the Emory Writing Center (http://www.writingcenter.emory.edu/apostrophe2.html) (whoever the hell they are)
Singular Nouns Ending in -s
Add an apostrophe and the letter s as per usual.
Exceptions: With nouns or proper names where pronunciation would be awkward (especially words ending with an ees sound like Sophocles), you may add only the apostrophe. Either use is acceptable: the bass's fins, Pardes' students, Pardes's students.

I was taught always to use an apostrophe and an 's', regardless of whether or not the proper noun I was adding the possessive to ended in an 's' or not. I'd like to say that I've stuck to that convention but it's just not true. I seem to switch between the two styles, and I've even caught myself using both in a single paragraph... perhaps I'm just getting lazy :(

How the hell did this thread get this much attention?!

was it ever longer? like "st. andrew's bones" or something?
Not to my knowledge.

How the hell did this thread get this much attention?!
Because I'm that cool...

How the hell did this thread get this much attention?!

Linguistics, etymology and grammar are interesting topics to some people. Why does ANY thread get attention? What kind of question is that? Seems to me like your question was designed to put down those who would find such a topic interesting. What's your problem with it?

Because I'm that cool...

Well, yeah, there's the obvious explanation, too.

Well, yeah, there's the obvious explanation, too.
Your other reasons probably had something to do with it too...

:p

Not to be contrary, but you can find style guides that disagree with that one, and take the view that singular proper names ending in an ‘s’ should be made possessive by adding only an apostrophe. (like the AP stylebook (http://www.apstylebook.com/), for instance).

It appears that both conventions are in regular use.

Oh, god, don't look at the AP stylebook, it's shit.

/trauma

:::tips hat:::

And here we get to the real crux of the question - prescriptive vs descriptive grammars.

While recognising the fact that languages are "living" and ever changing, I also acknowledge the need for prescription as well as description, in that it allows for clear communication.

If one was allowed to write in whatever way one pleased, I could write "rulz don yu yur ai ouf wannu fallu fuk" and claim it was a syntactically correct English sentence that communicate my message.

Of course, if you were with a group of people who used similar grammar you could make that claim, and be well justified. This is why we should be able to live in peace with academic English (and subdivisions thereof) and dialect or slang. As long as everyone understands the difference and purpose, there's no conflict.

But you try telling that to a bunch of kids that use OMG in their essays, or people who think the inner-city dialect isn't "right" English.

Singluar possessive = 's
Plural possessive = s'
PLURAL = NO BLEEDING APOSTROPHE. I saw this grammatical abortion in Eastern Washington cherry-tree country (a place I love): "cherrie's". Thy bothered to change the "y" to "ies" for the proper plural AND THEN ADDED A DAMNED APOSTROPHE. GAAAH!

Sorry. Massive psychotic pet peeve.

Grammatical abortion! Oh, I love it.

The random use of apostrophes on shop signs drives me crazy. I want to steal out in the dead of night and pry off the offending mark with a screwdriver.

A restaurant opened up in my city called "Loz Kompadre'z". Every time I drive by it I kind of want to hang myself. Or the owners.

random apostrophes are bad but i think not keeping up with modern idiom is worse.

one of the local restaurants that featured food made from scratched advertised it in their window with the phrase "ho' made"

Grammatical abortion! Oh, I love it.

The random use of apostrophes on shop signs drives me crazy. I want to steal out in the dead of night and pry off the offending mark with a screwdriver.

A restaurant opened up in my city called "Loz Kompadre'z". Every time I drive by it I kind of want to hang myself. Or the owners.

Ah, a kindred (aggravated) spirit!

I once went to a play in a new theater whose concession stand had a sign which read, among other things, SANDWICHE'S. When I pointed this howling error out to the stand's manager, she said, in a rather sneering tone, "well, it got your attention, didn't it?" As if to somehow justify poor attention to detail because I'm there to point it out. I said "well, I can't help but wonder about what other details you might have missed if you can't spell your product's name correctly. Hmmm...suddenly, I'm not hungry." I walked away, and they lost a sale.

Careless mistakes are perfectly human and always understandable. Attempting to gloss them over by calling them a selling point is annoying and shows a lack of willingness to take responsibility.

random apostrophes are bad but i think not keeping up with modern idiom is worse.

one of the local restaurants that featured food made from scratched advertised it in their window with the phrase "ho' made"

Must...resist...urge...to ask...

"Which one of you ho's [apostrophe left in not possessive but retained to show slang clip] wants to cook me a meal and give me a blow job?"

Kidding.

Also, it's "made from scratch." "Made from scratched" makes me dread what the next noun might be: "made from scratched scabs"....etc.

Must...resist...urge...to ask...

"Which one of you ho's [apostrophe left in not possessive but retained to show slang clip] wants to cook me a meal and give me a blow job?"

Kidding.

Also, it's "made from scratch." "Made from scratched" makes me dread what the next noun might be: "made from scratched scabs"....etc.
yes yes it is. i dont know why i didnt notice the typo.

random apostrophes are bad but i think not keeping up with modern idiom is worse.

one of the local restaurants that featured food made from scratched advertised it in their window with the phrase "ho' made"

You don't know, she could have been a fine cook. ;)

Ah, a kindred (aggravated) spirit!

I once went to a play in a new theater whose concession stand had a sign which read, among other things, SANDWICHE'S. When I pointed this howling error out to the stand's manager, she said, in a rather sneering tone, "well, it got your attention, didn't it?" As if to somehow justify poor attention to detail because I'm there to point it out. I said "well, I can't help but wonder about what other details you might have missed if you can't spell your product's name correctly. Hmmm...suddenly, I'm not hungry." I walked away, and they lost a sale.

Careless mistakes are perfectly human and always understandable. Attempting to gloss them over by calling them a selling point is annoying and shows a lack of willingness to take responsibility.

I am a terrible grammar nazi, made worse by the fact that I'm often paranoid about my own use of language (I will ask "Is that the word I meant to use" several times a day... even though it ALWAYS IS). We must root out evil in ourselves before we can save others!

Totally agree with the latter point. It's the intellectual laziness that upsets me most. My best friend can't spell worth a good god damn, but her brain is just wired that way and she can't help it, she uses spell check, and I never harass her. There's no excuse for laziness and lack of professionalism, however.

Both are B.

Linguistics, etymology and grammar are interesting topics to some people. Why does ANY thread get attention? What kind of question is that? Seems to me like your question was designed to put down those who would find such a topic interesting. What's your problem with it?

Sorry, I didn't mean it like that. I tried to answer the question too. I meant no offense. My apologies.

Sorry, I didn't mean it like that. I tried to answer the question too. I meant no offense. My apologies.

Oh.

My apologies, too, then for leaping at your throat. :(

Oh.

My apologies, too, then for leaping at your throat. :(

It's all good. :D

(a) "That is Fass's ball."
(b) "That is Fass' ball."

(a) "The companies's profits."
(b) "The companies' profits."



both (b) I think.

But what about the ball that belongs to (for example) Fass? Which one is it:

(a) "That is Fass's ball."
(b) "That is Fass' ball."

It's (a). This is the case for nouns ending in s or x having only one syllable. If it has more than one syllable, omit the s after the apostrophe.

Hence:

Fass's ball.
Marx's ball.
Jesus' ball.

And, for I'm under the impression that the rule is different, which one is correct here (multiple companies):

(a) "The companies's profits."
(b) "The companies' profits."It's (b). If the noun is plural, always omit the concluding s.

Hence:

Bees' honey.