Use of apostrophe's

[Limehouse]

I've always thought that either Nichols' or Nichols's is correct and a matter of preference as to which you choose.

However, a lot of grammatical errors, spelling mistakes and literals are the result of hasty work. I recall that once I inscribed a copy of a book for you using the word 'who's' when it should have been 'whose'. I realised instantly what I had done but too late to correct without making a real mess. And boy was that the wrong place to make such an error!

That's correct Stewart. Names that end in 's' can carry an apostrophe before or after the 's' in possessive situations. Mmy son is Douglas - so I can write Douglas' room or Douglas's room. In official writing, many people would choose to place the apostrophe after the 's' as it look tidier.

However, a lot of confusion is caused where an ordinary noun (one not requiring a capital letter) ends in 's' and is possessive. For example, the business students at my college have enormous difficulty with the plural possessive of business. This requires them to add es to make the word plural (businesses) and then add an apostrophe to make it possessive - as in businesses' policies. The first challenge is to get them spelling business correctly! The second is to get them to realise that the apostrophe in most plural possessives is placed after the 's' - excpet for words such as men's, women's, children's, and people's.

[Chris]

The second is to get them to realise that the apostrophe in most plural possessives is placed after the 's' - excpet for words such as men's, women's, children's, and people's.

Except if you were writing the English-Speaking Peoples' History, for example ...

[Limehouse]

Except if you were writing the English-Speaking Peoples' History, for example ...

Yes! There are some historical examples which do not follow the modern rules, probably because they date form before the final standardisation of the language.

At some point, it was agreed that words such as men's women's and people's would not carry a possessive apostrophe after the 's' because the words themselves are always plural and confusion cannot arise over whether, in written language, owners are single or plural. For example, consider the following written message:

Mary, please contact Paul about your students mising books.

Now, how is Mary to know whether 'students missing books' refers to one student who has books missing or several students who have books missing? Thus: 'Mary, please contact Paul about your student's missing books' means that one of Mary's students has missing books. Whereas: 'Mary, please contact Paul about your students' missing books' means several of Mary's students have books missing.

In men's, women's and people's it is clear that the owners are plural.

Isn't this fun??!!

[Chris]

In the case of "people", isn't it more that it can be either the plural of "person" or a singular noun whose (why not who's?) plural is "peoples"?

[Stephen Thomas]

Its, even when possessive, is not a noun but a possessive pronoun.

Hi Limehouse

I believe that the preferred term now is 'possessive adjective'

eg ladies clothing, mens clothing, childrens clothing

Never an apostrophe in sight.

[Limehouse]

Hi Limehouse

I believe that the preferred term now is 'possessive adjective'

eg ladies clothing, mens clothing, childrens clothing

Never an apostrophe in sight.

Hi Stephen,

Yes, I agree, some linguists perfer the term 'possessive adjective' and other now insist that some of those words are determiners. It all becomes rather pedantic when it comes to naming the parts of language.

However, for teaching purposes, terms like possessive noun and possessive pronoun are more useful because they explain more clearly what role the words perform. For example, a pronoun replaces a noun or proper noun to avoid repetition (John's car broke down and his friend called the AA - rather than John's car broke down and John's friend called the AA). Now, it is much clearer to students that the possessive noun needs an apostrophe but the possessive word that replaces it (pronoun) does not.

David Crystal, one of the most respected and lucid of current linguists would argue that clarity is much more important than pedantry - and Crystal does not mind at all if apostrophes are misused as long as the text makes sense! He feels that fear of being corrected is harmful because it prevents people from putting pen to paper - thus depriving the nation of potentially creative talent.

I have mixed feelings about that - but I do think that there is a lot of snobbery about WHO is allowed to make mistakes. For example, James Joyce can get away with a minumum of punctation and call it 'stream of consciousness' where as 16 year old Mackenzie is branded illiterate!

[caz]

Or when it suit's you to criticise someones punctuation rather than addressing the substance of what they have posted, of course.

And what was the substance of your post above, Chris - apart from criticising me just for jolly (while making it appear to others that you don't know the first thing about apostrophe use )?

It's not likely to make me change my ways, is it?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I've always thought that either Nichols' or Nichols's is correct and a matter of preference as to which you choose.

However, a lot of grammatical errors, spelling mistakes and literals are the result of hasty work. I recall that once I inscribed a copy of a book for you using the word 'who's' when it should have been 'whose'. I realised instantly what I had done but too late to correct without making a real mess. And boy was that the wrong place to make such an error!

Ha! That would be the Ultimate JtR Sourcebook - and a perfectly lovely inscription:

For Caz,

Who's knowledge of the Ripper is exceeded only by her... [modesty forbids me from saying ]

With every good wish

Stewart - Scotland Yard November 2000

I giggled - not because of the error (I didn't notice it then), but because this was nearly ten years ago and I was thinking to myself: "that's not saying much, considering I know bugger all about the ripper!"

Keith's inscription was less kind, referring to me as:

Caroline (aka 'Dopey Doolally')... !!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

That's correct Stewart. Names that end in 's' can carry an apostrophe before or after the 's' in possessive situations. Mmy son is Douglas - so I can write Douglas' room or Douglas's room. In official writing, many people would choose to place the apostrophe after the 's' as it look tidier.

Er, that's not quite right, is it Limehouse? The apostrophe always goes after the 's' at the end of a name like Douglas. You can never put it before the 's' or you'd have Dougla's.

The decision to be made is whether or not to drop the second 's' that belongs after the apostrophe.

Love,

Caz
X

[Limehouse]

Er, that's not quite right, is it Limehouse? The apostrophe always goes after the 's' at the end of a name like Douglas. You can never put it before the 's' or you'd have Dougla's.

The decision to be made is whether or not to drop the second 's' that belongs after the apostrophe.

Love,

Caz
X

I think my example makes it quite clear what I mean.

[caz]

I think my example makes it quite clear what I mean.

Yeah, but to be fair, you and I knew what you meant because we already know whether apostrophes are meant to go before or after the 's' at the end of a name. The trick is to make it crystal clear to those who have difficulty.

And incidentally, although Chris didn't make it very clear what he was doing (ie trying to have a laugh at my expense), he really didn't need your detailed lesson related loosely to people's and peoples' - as his response to you showed. As he explained, people differ from men and women because you can have people in the singular.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chris]

And incidentally, although Chris didn't make it very clear what he was doing (ie trying to have a laugh at my expense)

As if Id do such a thing ...

[johns]

Another thing struck me about plurals today is why are some plurals the same as the singular?

eg sheep, deer and fish etc

[Robert]

I don't know. It's certainly very singular.

Also, how come Johns is only one John?

[johns]

Bit of a **** up when I registered there I'm afraid. I got confused... easily done... I wanted JohnL.. oh well