But if you listen to everyone else, oy vey: "Many respected sources have required that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe, says Wikipedia, citing The Economist and the MLA. But there are exceptions. Our anonymous British friends who don't put a period after Mr. say this: "Although singular in other respects, the United States, the United Nations, the Philippines, etc, have a plural possessive apostrophe: eg, Who will be the United States' next president?" Also? "Try to avoid using Lloyd's (the insurance market) as a possessive; it poses an insoluble problem."
Insoluble? A few sources suggest that Biblical and classical names are an exception -- Jesus', Socrates', Ramses'. Then there's one person who says "when a word of 3 syllables or longer ends in s, you just put the apostrophe for the possessive, unless that makes the sentence sound ambiguous" -- Laertes', but Claudius's.
But we here at ALOTT5MA don't believe in insoluble situations. We believe in answers. So when we ponder why all of Anthony Hopkins's recent films have sucked, should we just say Hopkins'? Is Richard Dreyfuss' career on the rebound, or Richard Dreyfuss's? And how can we praise sufficiently Pythagoras' contributions to our understanding of right triangles? The floor is yours.
added, January 28: Final poll results:
- Add an apostrophe ("Dickens' novels") -- 71 (47%)
- Add apostrophe + s ("Dickens's novels") -- 29 (19%)
- Usually add apostrophe + s, but with exceptions -- 48 (32%)
I know I was in the minority in the double-spacing discussion (I've never double-tapped), and I'm sure I'll be in the minority here, but I never put the extra s- just the look of it gives me the blehs.
ReplyDeleteWith my usual caveats that pedantry is worse than being wrong, and that with style choices internal consistency is what matters, not which style you choose...
ReplyDelete...and there's also the fact that my job really does have a strict style guide that I have to follow, no matter what I think. (In this case I agree with it, but that's not necessarily always the case)...
To me it's glaringly obvious that adding an 's after singular nouns, regardless of what letter they end with, is the more logical choice, and much easier to implement consistently than the alternative.
I accept the Biblical/Classical exception as a quirk of our wonderfully weird language.
The problem with examples like the United States or the Phillipines is not really about the 's, but a larger question of the ambiguity of whether those terms are plural or singular. Because they're kind of both.
Lloyd's' and Lloyd's's are equally ugly, so again, we rely on logic: it's not plural. So, 's it is.
There's another element, which is how these words are said out loud. Someone who is a strict apostrophe-only person, would they really say, out loud, the phrase "Lance Bass' guinea pig" (if they had reason to say such a phrase) and pronounce it the same as "Lance Bass guinea pig"? Or would they pronounce the extra S even though they didn't write it?
It's all about effective communication. 's more effectively communicates that a singular word is possessive than apostrophe only, both in print and (especially) aloud.
(I typed a lot for someone whose official answer is "it doesn't matter, as long as you're consistent.")
As an aside- we are experiencing Snowpocalypse 3-D! in southern NH.... another 6-8 inches expected today, and another big storm coming Tuesday (although it is rumored that that one will miss us to the South. Just straight up snow- no freezing rain, sleet, ice pellets, ice needles, hail, etc. Bitter cold this weekend (below 0) means this snow will be around for awhile- and people teased us when the first thing we bought when we closed on the house was a snowblower....
ReplyDeleteI go by the principle that it's a contraction; to write out "Barry's" would read to me as "Barry is". Unfortunately, that leaves us completely without a possessive in English so we have a problem right there. So, I ignore the logic here, uses "Barry's" as a possessive, and if the name/title ends in an S, I simply use an apostrophe ("Jesus' exercise bike") and move on.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, the Brits might be able to get by with single spacing something, since they don't (and I'd forgotten this) use a period at the end of contractions like Mr. and the like. Since they don't need a double space to distinguish between the single space after a title's period and the double space after the end of a sentence, they wouldn't have the problem of clarity and flow that a single space after a sentence presents in American English and in HTML's shocking disregard for personal standards.
A friend introduced me to a rule that made a lot of sense to me: add an "s" in this situation if you would pronounce it. So: Lewis's name would get an added s, but not Louis' name.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to guess, however, that this rule seems too loosey-goosey for many of y'all.
I get around this by never using possessive at all for names ending in S. It takes some doing to always remember to talk about "the exercise bike that belongs to Jesus" or "the films of Anthony Hopkins," but I think it's worth it.
ReplyDeleteAlso: Pythagoras.
Fixed. I thought that looked weird.
ReplyDeleteThe Government Printing Office has to be wrong. An s or an s sound? The examples all end in s. But, do they really advocate that the clothes worn by Jodie Foster in Silence of the Lambs are Clarice' clothes? That the words sung by Amy Lee are Evanescence' lyrics? Or that the money earned by a Zurich-based bank is Credit Suisse' profits?
ReplyDeleteI am all for the clear rule of adding 's to any singular noun. It looks like it sounds and it makes for a rule everyone can easily learn. It also has the advantage of adding context to a sentence when it is ambiguous whether a possessive noun ending in s is singular or plural.
I don't think it's too loosey-goosey, but you give kind of an odd example because assuming you mean you pronounce Louis the same as Louie, and Louis' the same as Louie's, you're actually pronouncing the second, possessive S (that's not actually there), not the first S that is always silent. So you're actually leaving out the S you do pronounce and, obviously, leaving in the S you don't pronounce. (There are probably some that WOULD write Loui's, which would of course be terrible by all measures). It's fairly rare for something to end in a silent S, and different than how our language gets rid of the final S when something is plural (the Lewises' house).
ReplyDeleteA did-you-know from the US Board on Geographic Names:
ReplyDelete<span>
Since its inception in 1890, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names has discouraged the use of the possessive form—the genitive apostrophe and the “s”....
Myths attempting to explain the policy include the idea that the apostrophe looks too much like a rock in water when printed on a map, and is therefore a hazard, or that in the days of “stick–up type” for maps, the apostrophe would become lost and create confusion. The probable explanation is that the Board does not want to show possession for natural features because, “ownership of a feature is not in and of itself a reason to name a feature or change its name.”
Since 1890, only five Board decisions have allowed the genitive apostrophe for natural features. These are: Martha's Vineyard (1933) after an extensive local campaign; Ike's Point in New Jersey (1944) because “it would be unrecognizable otherwise”; John E's Pond in Rhode Island (1963) because otherwise it would be confused as John S Pond (note the lack of the use of a period, which is also discouraged); and Carlos Elmer's Joshua View (1995 at the specific request of the Arizona State Board on Geographic and Historic Names because, “otherwise three apparently given names in succession would dilute the meaning,” that is, Joshua refers to a stand of trees. Clark’s Mountain in Oregon (2002) was approved at the request of the Oregon Board to correspond with the personal references of Lewis and Clark.
</span>
You will be pleased to know that i solved this problem. For singular nouns ending in -s in the possessive case, one should write apostrophe z. Thus, Lloyd's'z.
ReplyDeleteInternal consistency matters the most, I think. But when there are areas where it's unclear whether there's a singular or a plural word ending in -s that takes a possessive, a rule about apostrophe s (or apostrophe z) would be helpful.
I have never in my life heard of a rule that classical names should be pluralized. That seems, for one, stupid. For another, there's a line drawing problem. Descrartes? Ralph Vaughn Williams?
ReplyDeleteThere's a whole can of worms I didn't choose to open yet -- French names/words ending with an s, x or z which is silent -- Dumas, pince-nez, Périgueux, Descartes.
ReplyDeleteAs someone whose last name gives me a very personal interest in this question, I agree with your loosey-goosey rule - When I send out invitation to parties, it's always listed as Amy Watts's house. (I often have a co-hostess which is why it doesn't just say "my house.") It's wrong according to everything I was taught growing up, but it looks better to my eye and it matches what anyone would say out loud.
ReplyDeleteWasn't there a bit of a kerfuffle when the "Diary of Bridget Jones" crossed the pond? The original British publications would've been "Jones's" but they were afraid it would look "wrong" to American readers?
Strangely enough, in a name like Pierre Boulez, the z is not silent. Based on my new rule (apostrophe z for sounds ending in s-like apparati), we should say things like "Pierre Boulez'z influence can be heard in several of Henri Dutilleux's compositions."
ReplyDeleteYes, I think that I meant to type Louie. The things that happen when I try to post quickly before getting ready to go to a doctor's appointment.
ReplyDeleteOr maybe I just picked a bad example. But anyway. Y'all know what I mean.
ReplyDeleteI know it only from Bluebook.
ReplyDeleteDon't Laertes and Claudius both have three syllables?
ReplyDeleteI shouldn't advertise my ignorance of the bluebook so much, huh. I only ever use the sections on legal authorities' citations.
ReplyDeleteLoui's [sic] was a restaurant/hangout in Providence. Lasted a long time despite the punctuation.
ReplyDeleteI came here to post the same thing, but I counted the syllables in both for an embarrassingly long time to make sure I wasn't missing something.
ReplyDeleteThis is all very timely for us...we just named our son Wes and have been concerned about this very issue.
ReplyDelete"What that site claims is "<span>You don't write about Laertes's speech, you write Laertes' speech. However, if you're writing about the villainy of Claudius, you write Claudius's villainy rather than Claudius' villainy, because the latter sounds very similar to Claudia's (even though there's no character called Claudia in Hamlet)."</span>
ReplyDeleteI certainly leave off the 's when I'm talking, because it's just spitty and awkward to say "Hopkins's" or "Pythagoras's".
ReplyDeleteIn writing I think it's better to use it across the board, but I vote for it being silent when spoken aloud.
Which has nothing to do with how many syllables they have, but with the exception, and only if you're an idiot. The sentence should be: "when a word of 3 syllables or longer ends in s, you just put the apostrophe for the possessive, unless that makes the sentence sound ambiguous -- Laertes', but Brutus's, and for the exception, Claudius's, because we're all too stupid to realize that we're not talking about some non-existent character named Claudia."
ReplyDeleteMore importantly, why do we write "Claudius's villiany" when the stated problem is how it sounds?
In theory, you could get that down to one syllable: Lertz.
ReplyDeleteOh, you were alive in Shakespeare's time and knew how he pronounced things? (I guess there's the iambic pentameter argument . . .)
Classical names aren't pluralized. They simply don't use a second S in possessives if the names end in S.
ReplyDeleteI think I got it from Strunk and White, but I can't find my copy to verify. It's possible S&W only mentions Biblical names, not Classical. That would be an easier line to draw.
Speaking of which: I remember a TV show, a long time ago, where the protagonist liked Ed Asner, and he got some local theater to do a retrospective on the "Films of Ed Asner," except that there was a typo, and literally every piece of merchandise touted "THE FLIMS OF ED ASNER."
ReplyDeleteDid anyone else see this, or did I only dream it?
Reluctantly giving up my crown as America's Favorite "Gay Blogger," 2011-2020, not because I don't deserve it, but because the quotation marks are screwing things up.
ReplyDeleteThat ate my last comment. Let's see if I can find it.
ReplyDeleteThere is also not a boy babysitter names Claudius in the Babysitter's Clubs books.
ReplyDeleteWhat I said before I blew it up is that apostrophe-s is clearer than apostrophe-only. Let's say your neighbors to the right are Roger and Mary Williams. Your neighbors to the left are William Rzepczynski and his partner, William Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwy. When you get to your doorstep, you find a note from your wife: "Urgent - meet me at the Williams' house. Not a moment to spare!" Where do you go, now that your precious imprecise grammar rule has failed you? BLOOD IS ON YOUR GRAMMAR'S HANDS.
ReplyDeleteDitto on both the spacing and the S. My last name ends in an S and I always just add the apostrophy.
ReplyDeleteSingular possessive gets 's. Plural possessive gets '. Plural non possessive gets s.
ReplyDeleteThat is all I have to say.
Actually, here's a question. When pluralizing a last name that under normal grammatical rules would get a specific pluralization, do you do it that way, or stick to the customary -s?
ReplyDeleteExamples:
Easy one: Lisa and Mark Silverman are presumably the Silvermans, not the Silvermen. (Although the latter is more fun.)
But what about Mary and Fred Hirsh? Are they the Hirshes or the Hirshs? I argue the former, but actual friends in possession of a similar last name do the latter.
Well, I would guess that you meant the house of Roger and Mary Williams, because you used "the Williams." That implies to me that you mean a last name. No one would say "Meet me at the Isaac's house." They'd just say "Meet me at Isaac's house." Definite article adjectives strike back!
ReplyDelete-es to pluralize nouns whose singular form end in -s, -sh, -ch, and -x. No different for proper nouns.
ReplyDeletei think the big difference between the two examples (Silverman and Hirsh) is that the -es rule is a major plural spelling rule, while man/men is an irregular plural. The former applies accross the board, the latter is by definition an exception for that specific word.
I love ALOTT5MA Friday Grammar Rodeos and hope they continue.
ReplyDeleteAnd this rule, or lack of a universal rule always makes me nuts, because I always feel like I'm doing it wrond no matter what I do. I opt for Williams' not Williams's, but both always look slightly off to me. I also am an unofficial proofreader around my office (I have no copywriting experience but am generally a good speller and know my grammar -- not that you'd guess that from many of the comments I leave in here -- so people send me their stuff to review) and I'm never sure how to correct plural possessives.
In grade school, they taught us the Biblical/Classical exception to the rules. I'm seeing a lot more use of the single apostrophe after a name ending in s. I'm not sure how I feel about this at all.
ReplyDeleteMy wife was taught just the apostrophe method. We're not even a year apart in school.
My job includes copy editing, and now my worldview is being shattered. I don't even know what to believe any more.
I'd do Hirsches, no question. Lisa and Mark are "the Silverman family" -- I'd reword the sentence to avoid ambiguity, because it should be Silvermen or Silverpeople.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate our mutual friend who, for sake of anonymity, let's call him Marty Astro, and who refers to his family as the Astronauts.
There's nothing off about using the definite article when there are two or more people with that name--normally it would IMPLY that it's their last name, but it also makes perfect sense if it were two or more people with the same first name. It just would happen much more rarely.
ReplyDeleteAnd most people would probably say "William and William's house" especially if they also had a family called Williams on the other side. But it doesn't make "the Williams" wrong when referring to two people name William.
I had a client whose founders both had the name Henry. Even though one of them went by a nickname, everybody called them, collectively, "the Henrys."
ReplyDeleteIn any event, Midwest Andrew, you were wrong! Tragedy has befallen William Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwy -- a tragedy that only you could have averted, had you not wasted precious time exchanging pleasantries with Roger and Mary.
But the house belonging the Roger and Mary Williams is the Williamses' house, no? A William plus a William are Williams, but a Williams plus a Williams are Williamses.
ReplyDeleteWinkelvii.
ReplyDeleteBut the house belonging to Roger and Mary Williams is the Williamses' house, no? A William plus a William are Williams, but a Williams plus a Williams are Williamses.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. If you have a rule saying certain words end in s', you are tacitly saying they are plural for that purpose. And what about something like Lazarus', given that the Bible contains two Lazaruses? What about someone like Ramses, who was a historical King but is also mentioned in the Bible? Is that a Biblical name? I don't like that rule, it doesn't make sense to me, and I'm not going to follow it.
ReplyDeleteIf I knew a gay couple both named Willaim or a male/female couple both named Jamie or a two Chris couple, I would SOOOOO call them by the plural of their singular names. I am that kind of smart ass.
ReplyDeleteYou write Claudius's villany because that is correct.
ReplyDelete<span>I vote for "as simple as possible." Use apostrophe + s to form the possessive of singular names and apostrophe alone to form the possessive of plural names. Simple, elegant, and no crazy variables to consider. It was gratifying to see Chicago 16 can "Euripedes' exception" of apostrophe only for "classical names of two or more syllables that ends in an <span>eez </span>sound." I mean, for Jesus's sake, right? </span>
ReplyDelete<span> </span>
<span>Here's an excption: Names of entitoes that are singular in meaning but plural in form, like the United States, get the singular-form treatment when it comes to subject/verb agreement but the plural-form treatment when it comes to possessives. </span>
<span></span><span> </span>
<span>When I am dining with Sir Tony and his wife at the Hopkinses’ crapmovie-financed estate, we will be talking about the resurgence of Richard Dreyfuss’s career, Dickens’s novels, the United States' foreign policy, Descartes’s life and works, Popular Mechanics’ latest issue, and the Phillies’ starting rotation. There will be lots of wine.</span>
<span> </span>
I cannot abide s's. The end. I can't like it. I can't do it because it just looks dumb. Even if I would say it with multiples of s.
ReplyDeleteIf we're talking about both Biblical characters named Lazarus, are they the Lazarii?<span> </span>
ReplyDeleteAs I noted in our board-room discussion of this last week, this is the silliest war since the War of Jenkins' (or Jenkins's) Ear.
ReplyDeleteActually, yes, the Other Kate has it.
ReplyDeleteNow, getting people to see that they still need to add -es to names that end in S in order to pluralize them is a similar but ultimately separate issue from getting people to add 's to names that end in S in order to possessivize them.
You could rewrite the word problem so that on one side of your house you have the two men named William and on the other side you have one man who goes by the moniker, The Williams.
Well, there are two men named William, hence "the Williams' house." It's a plural possessive. If people were to break it down as christy in nyc suggests, those people really should be saying "William's and William's house," because each William has a possessory interest (I saw the deed).
ReplyDeleteThat is (sorry christy in nyc) another grammatic pet peeve of mine -- the dropping of the first possessive in the construction ___'s and ___'s [noun]
I don't agree with "Williamses," but let's modify. Roger passed away 200 years ago, leaving only Mary as your neighbor. Instead of a note, you get a text. "Urgent:meet @ Williams' hse ASAP," it says. One Williams or two Williams? Which is it, Midwest Andrew and Other Kate?
ReplyDeleteYou may or may not think much of Strunk & White, but this rule is the first rule cited on PAGE ONE of The Elements of Style:
ReplyDelete<span> </span>1. Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's.
<span> </span>Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,
<span> </span>Charles's friend
<span> </span>Burns's poems
<span> </span>the witch's malice
<span> </span>Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in -es and -is, the possessive Jesus',
<span> </span>and such forms as for conscience' sake, for righteousness' sake. But such forms as Moses' Laws,
<span> </span>Isis' temple are commonly replaced by
<span> </span>the laws of Moses
<span> </span>the temple of Isis
Chicago Manual agrees, if memory serves....
I'm definitely fine with not liking or not following the Biblical/Classical exception, especially because I am all about the logic.
ReplyDeleteI just mean it's not actually pluralizing it. I think part of the problem with these kinds of discussions is that sometimes people conflate separate functions that have similar execution.
Saying "Jesus' exercize bike" is no more pluralizing the word Jesus any more than using Christy's to mean "Christy has" is possessivizing the word Christy. They're separate functions that happen to look similar.
If anything it's even less like it, because if Jesus' were plural, it would actually mean belonging to Jesu and Jesu, not Jesus and Jesus.
Again, it's all about effective communication. If I sent you an email out of the blue saying "what color was Jesus' hair?" would you really not know how many people I was talking about?
To me, consistency is a perfectly good reason to ignore the exception, but it's an exception to the singular possessive rule, it's not changing the meaning.
The multiple Lazuruses are beside the point. Lazurus' or Lazurus's for singular possessives, depending on whether you accept the exception, Lazuruses' for plural possessive, regardless of the exception.
If I got that text, I'd head to Chez Rzepczynski and Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwy. Instead of calling those guys the Williams, let's call them the guys. "Meet @ guys' hse. It's the same issue of adding an apostrophe to make a plural possessive.
ReplyDeleteThe Williamses' house will always be the Williamses' to me. Gone 200 years but still not forgotten, Roger.
I don't know why I misspelled Lazarus repeatedly, but the endings are the same.
ReplyDeleteI think your revised scenario is sound, Isaac, but I am perplexed by your rejection of Williamses, which is, again, admittedly a separate issue. You really consider the plural of Williams to be Williams?
ReplyDeleteI would consider that a common and understandable mistake but uncontroversially a mistake once pointed out.
A mistake as opposed to a style choice, which is what Williams' vs. Williams's is.
ReplyDeleteHm. If we consider William and William as a unit with collective possession, "William and William's house" would be the way to convey that. As a parallell, we would say "She is George and Susan's daughter," not "She is George's and Susan's daughter."
ReplyDelete<span>Hm. If we consider William and William as a unit with collective possession, "William and William's house" would be the way to convey that. As a parallel, we would say "She is George and Susan's daughter," not "She is George's and Susan's daughter." </span>
ReplyDelete<span></span>
<span></span>
In the spirit of free-association, your memory reminded me of a tiny bit of an episode of "Friends" (tying neatly into the sitcom thread from earlier this week) where Rachel is looking for a job and sending out paper resumes, and she talks about how she's sent out like 200 of them, and Ross picks one up and reads, "Excellent compuper skills." I couldn't begin to tell you what the rest of the episode was about, but that line has stayed with me.
ReplyDeleteAlso, tv.com tells me that one episode of "The Popcorn Kid" was called "A Day in the Life of Ed Asner" and the plot apparently was that Ed Asner was set to make a public appearance as the guest of honor at the Majestic's "Ed Asner Flim Festival" but the festival was threatened by bad weather. Sound about right?
My childhood best friend's parents were Sandy and Sandee. Perhaps the different spelling is what prevented us from referring to them, even verbally, as The Sandies.
ReplyDeleteLoving the Williams debate, but I'm 100% with Christy that William + William = Williams, while Williams + Williams = Williamses.
Speaking of Richard Dreyfuss, his appearance in Piranha (which I caught this week) was rather delightful on various levels, whether it's a callback to Jaws, the original Piranha being a sort-of-satire of Jaws, or just seeing Dreyfuss on screen again. (And I enjoyed Piranha a lot as a silly monster movie that knew exactly what it wanted to be.)
ReplyDeleteOur friends, Mr. and Mrs. Wasserman, refer to their family collectively as the Wasserpeople. I prefer the more alliterative Wasserpersons, but their name, their choice.
ReplyDeleteNext week, plural of acronyms - RBI? RBIs? RBI's?
ReplyDeleteCan someone please explain WHY we need any sort of exception for Jesus, Moses, or any other Biblical or classical person? Is there something so foul about an apostrophe-s that we must not soil the name of Jesus or Moses? If it's that hideous, why do we besmirch all other names while applying some sort of bizarre grandfathering clause?
ReplyDelete(Please note - I was taught that this rule applies ONLY to Jesus and Moses, and assumed the inclusion of Moses in the rule was a nod by my teacher to ourLong Island school's 50% Jewish population.)
<span>Can someone please explain WHY we need any sort of exception for Jesus, Moses, or any other Biblical or classical person? Is there something so foul about an apostrophe-s that we must not soil the name of Jesus or Moses? If it's that hideous, why do we besmirch all other names while applying some sort of bizarre grandfathering clause?
ReplyDelete(Please note - I was taught that this rule applies ONLY to Jesus and Moses, and assumed the inclusion of Moses in the rule was a nod by my teacher to ourLong Island school's 50% Jewish population.)</span>
Every moment that you debate this trivial point, the killer becomes harder to track.
ReplyDeleteAmen, and I mean that both seriously and as a pun.
ReplyDeleteI think you're the killer and you're just trying to stall us from catching you.
ReplyDeleteRBI's plural is RBI because the R stands for Runs. If the acronym is a singular term, then I'm a fan of s, not 's, but that'll come later. That, Oxford comma wars, and so much more.<span> </span>
ReplyDeleteI think the answer to why we NEED the ancient names exception is that we don't.
ReplyDeleteOf course, there are very few irregulars and exceptions that we actually NEED for practical reasons, but we still have them.
What the origin of the exception is, though, is an interesting question, and one that my googling does not reveal. Maybe we should submit the question to A Way With Words podcast. I always just thought it was "because they're special," kind of along the same lines as the Royal We. But it would be neat if there were a more specific explanation available.
I'm so glad we are discussing this. I've been married for about a year and the new last name is Rosecrans. Folks have asked us what's the correct way to refer to us as a unit, and we both prefer 'the Rosecrans' to 'the Rosecranses.' It seems overly fussy and unnecessary. That said, 'the Williamses' doesn't seem so wrong to me. What gives? I welcome your advice, Thing Throwers.
ReplyDeleteYou still have time to change it and avoid the issue...<span> </span>
ReplyDeleteI think it is Rosencranses when being referred to as a couple, and you live in the Rosencras' house.
ReplyDeleteYes. Or RsBI.
ReplyDeleteIsn't Jesus somehwat 3 people? I mean, in the popular telling of the story, not necessarily in reality. Grammar fighting only!
ReplyDeleteSomeone call in the BAU!!!!
ReplyDelete<span>Embrace those syllables, Rosencranses. The Joneses get two, the Williamses get three, and you get four.</span>
ReplyDelete<span></span>
<span>I disagree about "the Rosencras' house." You can live in the Rosencrans house, the Rosencrans home, the Rosencrans place (like the Radley place, where Boo lives) or stately Rosencrans Manor. You don't need the apostrophe at all if you're using your surname like an adjective. Which house? The Rosencrans house. But when we introduce the possessive and ask "Whose house?", the answer is "The Rosencranses' house."</span>
<span></span>
Same with sisters-in-law and attorneys general.
ReplyDeleteThis is the second blog on which I participate to discuss this this week. I'm a staunch supporter of +'s for singular, +' for plural ending in s, and rewording to the Roberts family whenever possible.
ReplyDeleteAgree with the Other Kate again. Rosencranses, and either The Rosencrans House (no apostrophe) or The Rosencranses' House.
ReplyDeleteIf you really want to resist the syllable, you can ask people to call you The Rosencrans Family or somesuch.
Special dispensation for people with creative, flamboyant solutions a la the Astronauts and the Wasserpersons.
I noticed on Fangraphs that at least one writer was using RBI as plural, as in "so-and-so had 120 RBI this year." Don't know if it was everybody or if it stuck. But the better convention would be " " -- as we all know, RBI are not a particularly useful stat.
ReplyDeleteFor the last five or six years, I have referred to multiple document requests as "Requests No. 1-10," rather than the more common "Request Nos. 1-10." I probably should just say "Requests 1-10"; don't know why I don't.
The point of the trinity is its unity, not its separateness, right? And if God is all, then on the principle that, per TMBG, "there's only one everything," then shouldn't all versions of that concept be singular?
ReplyDeleteMichelle, all you have to do is change your last name to Guildenstern.
ReplyDelete(Because I know I'm the very first person to have made that joke to you, right?)
On occasion, I am wrong. In this case... I simply didn't read that William had a partner whose name is also William. I hope that William WhosenameIwillnotattempttospell can forgive me.
ReplyDeleteWell, if Mary's still alive, there wouldn't be any Rule against Perpetuities problems. Does that help?
ReplyDeleteOnly on this blog would a discussion on appropriate apostrophe usage turn theological. I love you guys.
ReplyDeleteI don't think so. Lazarus does derive from Latin, but was originally Greek and Aramaic, so no double ii for the plural, just Lazaruses (which looks really funny).
ReplyDeleteOkay, i've been busy all day and am just now reading through this thread and am laughing a lot. Brilliant.
ReplyDeleteI was lost until "There will be lots of wine." Now I'm good.
ReplyDeleteThis may have been mentioned before, but the book and movie were both spelled, "Bridget Jones's Diary." Not that that is a definitive source, but there you go.
ReplyDeleteThat must be it. I don't remember anything else about that series, but, Penelope Ann Miller and Faith Ford? I can see how 13-year-old me might have been interested.
ReplyDeleteSad to say, but we aren't Rosencrans, just Rosecrans, without the N in the middle (but yes, the Guildenstern joke and the misspelling happen all the time). I take the latter as a compliment, as it suggests we are MOT when really we are just FOT.
ReplyDeleteOh well, thanks for the feedback everyone. Guess when it comes to the possessive, I'm stuck with that extra syllable whether I like it or not!
Not to (continue to) mess with the hypothetical, but those guys would never be "the Williams". They'd be "the Willies" or "Billy 'n Willy" or somesuch. If for no other reason, then to distinguish them from Roger and Mary.
ReplyDelete