Apostrophe + S for Names that End With the Letter S

[WannabeWriter]

I do know about the rule where you add apostrophe plus "s" ('s) after a singular noun for possession, even if the name ends in the letter S. But do fiction editors have a problem with that?

I have two characters in my book where this is involved. One is a supporting character named Thomas, whose name I can't change because I've gotten used to the name for this character. The other is one I refer to by last name, which ends with the letter S, and which I can change since he's a much more minor character.

What do you think?

[Sean D. Schaffer]

I do know about the rule where you add apostrophe plus "s" ('s) after a singular noun for possession, even if the name ends in the letter S. But do fiction editors have a problem with that?

I have two characters in my book where this is involved. One is a supporting character named Thomas, whose name I can't change because I've gotten used to the name for this character. The other is one I refer to by last name, which ends with the letter S, and which I can change since he's a much more minor character.

What do you think?


I read something about that in Strunk & White's Elements of Style, but having never gotten past the submissions stage with the majority of my writing, I couldn't tell you whether or not an editor would have an issue.

I'm sure someone else will come along, though, who will be more knowledgeable in this matter. :)


--Sean

[Mumut]

I've always been told Thomas' as the possessive form of a singular noun ending with an 's'.

[dpaterso]

The Elements of Style (http://www.bartleby.com/141/) is available online.

One of the first index entries is Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's (http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html#1)

I have to say, I don't agree with the first 2 examples:

Charles's friend
Burns's poems
the witch's malice
...because I wouldn't say "Charles's friend" [Charles-zays] -- I'd say "Charles' friend." Likewise, I wouldn't say "Burns's poems" [Burns-zays] I'd say "Burns' poems."

But with "Thomas" I would say "Thomas's" [Thomas-zays] as in "Thomas's shoes" so that's how I'd write it, and that's how I decide these things, it's not an automatic decision based on the name ending with an "s".

-Derek

[seun]

One of my characters was named Harris. I refused to write Harris's and stuck with Harris'. The first way just looks clumsy to me.

[dpaterso]

One of my characters was named Harris. I refused to write Harris's and stuck with Harris'. The first way just looks clumsy to me.
Can't argue with that, tho' I'd say Harris's rifle so that's how I'd write it too (assuming the bloke has a rifle :)).

I do the s's. I have a character named Dubious Pickles. Double slam. It does look awkward...but hey, too bad for me. Dubious's it is.
<nod of agreement>

-Derek

[seun]

Can't argue with that, tho' I'd say Harris's rifle so that's how I'd write it too (assuming the bloke has a rifle :)).

-Derek

Harris was 13. I don't think he'd be allowed a rifle. :D

[dpaterso]

Harris was 13. I don't think he'd be allowed a rifle. :D
Point well taken, sir! Harris, put that rifle down, you horrible little boy! Everyone, take note that Harris's rifle is no longer Harris's rifle. It's Thomas's rifle now. Tomorrow it'll be Charles' rifle because his sibilant "s" sounds softer than the others -- and that's the closest I can come to a reason why.

-Derek

[Mel]

I was taught (old school) you can go either way as long as you stay consistent.

Jess's car broke down.
Jess' car broke down.

First one looks like overkill. But, to be consistent you need to decide one way for all the names in your story that end in s and double s.

[Expanding Ink]

I'm with Mel on this one - as long as you're consistent throughout the story, it doesn't really matter. That is, no one's going to notice. Once you start jumping around within the same work, though, the readers might (:e2faint:*gasp*) remember that they're reading, not actually hanging out with rifle-wielding 13-year-olds ;).

That said, I tend to use different forms in different works. I usually choose based on what seems to go best with the MC's name.

[Potluck]

Oh somebody give the definitive answer please! I have a character named Travis and have always thought it should be Travis' toys not Travis's toys. You guys are just confusing the crap out of me now.

[Bufty]

Call him Trav.

[Toothpaste]

Uh . . . so we can just do whatever grammar rules we feel like so long as we are consistent? Honestly, that is so weird to me.

The rule is: If the "s" at the end is singular, like Thomas, then you have to do "Thomas's". If the "s" is plural, so "cats", then you do "cats' ". It isn't about the fun that we can have with apostrophes. There are rules, and so what if you don't like how it looks, that's how it goes.

It's like saying, "Eh, I prefer to put in commas instead of periods because they have cute little tails."

[IceCreamEmpress]

It's Harris's toys and Travis's tea and Charles's pot of basil.

That's the correct way to do it. Seriously, folks, it's not hard to follow the rules.

The only exception is names from antiquity--either Greek and Roman names, or names from other languages that have been Hellenized or Romanized.

Charles's understanding of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount was a bit lacking, so he borrowed Harris's copy of Irenaeus' treatise on the subject.

The "but I don't say 'Charles's'" doesn't wash with me, but then I'm an American and we do say "Charles's".

As an editor, if I see "Harris' toys" or "Charles' hat" I don't think the person is lacking in basic punctuation skills, though. I just quietly change it to the correct thing and move on.


Also, the cocktails belonging to Nick and Nora Charles are "the Charleses' martinis".

[Appalachian Writer]

The Empress is correct. However, the cumbersome nature of pronunciation of such possessives, I believe, is what causes the confusion. Follow the Empress.

[ReneC]

The Elements of Style (http://www.bartleby.com/141/) is available online.

One of the first index entries is Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's (http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html#1)

I have to say, I don't agree with the first 2 examples:


...because I wouldn't say "Charles's friend" [Charles-zays] -- I'd say "Charles' friend." Likewise, I wouldn't say "Burns's poems" [Burns-zays] I'd say "Burns' poems."

But with "Thomas" I would say "Thomas's" [Thomas-zays] as in "Thomas's shoes" so that's how I'd write it, and that's how I decide these things, it's not an automatic decision based on the name ending with an "s".

-Derek

Writing isn't supposed to reflect how we speak. It's more efficient than speech (or at least it should be if done properly), being deliberate and usually very carefully considered.

Then again, with the proliferation of blogs, forums such as these, chat programs and text messaging, many of the rules are being ignored in an effort to save time. I'll cling to my romantic notions that the printed word is sacred and the rules that govern it should be gospel, no matter the medium or circumstance, even though I have not yet fully mastered the rules myself.

Everyone, please feel free to point out my hypocrisy. I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunity. :Shrug::e2tongue:

[IceCreamEmpress]

I agree with you icecream...but man, your delivery. )-;

I give my pet peeves room to roam!

Also, I hope that dpaterso and seun know that I think they're both incredibly smart, talented people who are just mistaken on this one teeny-tiny issue.

[Potluck]

Arrrgh!!! Damn it! This is how I had learned it in high school. (I like learned, sounds so redneck.) Where do these stupid wrong rules come from?

[dpaterso]

I bask in the glory of being 15 percent right most of the time. There's no hope for sean.

-Derek

[JimmyB27]

The Elements of Style (http://www.bartleby.com/141/) is available online.

One of the first index entries is Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's (http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html#1)

I have to say, I don't agree with the first 2 examples:


...because I wouldn't say "Charles's friend" [Charles-zays] -- I'd say "Charles' friend." Likewise, I wouldn't say "Burns's poems" [Burns-zays] I'd say "Burns' poems."

But with "Thomas" I would say "Thomas's" [Thomas-zays] as in "Thomas's shoes" so that's how I'd write it, and that's how I decide these things, it's not an automatic decision based on the name ending with an "s".

-Derek
That's funny, because I would say (and write) "Charles's friend." "Charles' friend." sounds to me like a guy named 'Charle' who has a friend (when it's said, not when it's written).

[Sean D. Schaffer]

The Empress is correct. However, the cumbersome nature of pronunciation of such possessives, I believe, is what causes the confusion. Follow the Empress.


I'm not so sure of that. I was taught, in Grade School, in the United States, that putting an 's at the end of a name that ended with an s, was wrong in every case. There was no discussion as to the validity of spellings like charles's, etc. It was considered absolute truth that you do not put an 's at the end of a name that ends with an s.

So I don't think, honestly, that it's a matter of pronunciation. It's what schools are teaching children that is the problem.

[JimmyB27]

It's Harris's toys and Travis's tea and Charles's pot of basil.

That's the correct way to do it. Seriously, folks, it's not hard to follow the rules.

The only exception is names from antiquity--either Greek and Roman names, or names from other languages that have been Hellenized or Romanized.

Charles's understanding of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount was a bit lacking, so he borrowed Harris's copy of Irenaeus' treatise on the subject.

The "but I don't say 'Charles's'" doesn't wash with me, but then I'm an American and we do say "Charles's".

As an editor, if I see "Harris' toys" or "Charles' hat" I don't think the person is lacking in basic punctuation skills, though. I just quietly change it to the correct thing and move on.


Also, the cocktails belonging to Nick and Nora Charles are "the Charleses' martinis".
What! You mean I now have to research the origins of every name I use? Sheesh.

[JimmyB27]

I'm not so sure of that. I was taught, in Grade School, in the United States, that putting an 's at the end of a name that ended with an s, was wrong in every case. There was no discussion as to the validity of spellings like charles's, etc. It was considered absolute truth that you do not put an 's at the end of a name that ends with an s.

So I don't think, honestly, that it's a matter of pronunciation. It's what schools are teaching children that is the problem.
It's not one of those US/UK divides, is it? Like how you guys can't spell 'grey', or 'colour'. ;)

[Sean D. Schaffer]

It's not one of those US/UK divides, is it? Like how you guys can't spell 'grey', or 'colour'. ;)


I have no idea. :o Sorry about that.

I remember being taught to spell the word 'judgement' with an 'e' in the middle early on, then getting the same spelling marked wrong in a spelling assignment in, I think, the Fifth Grade. I also was taught that any word that ended with a 'p' in present tense had an extra 'p' in past tense. It's not that way anymore, so with words like 'worship', the way I was taught to spell it in past tense was 'worshipped', not 'worshiped.' Yet the way I was taught is not considered right. :Shrug:

This has always been a point of frustration for me, because in Grade School and High School, these things were taught as absolute fact, instead of being discussed. Here I was, writing things the way I had been taught early on as absolute fact, and getting those things wrong because those things were absolute nonsense in later years.



--Sean

[RedScylla]

I despise s's. Despise, you hear me?

It just seems like wasted ink, and perhaps, secretly I still remember my childhood Bible, with Jesus' words in red.

[IceCreamEmpress]

I'm not so sure of that. I was taught, in Grade School, in the United States, that putting an 's at the end of a name that ended with an s, was wrong in every case.

You were taught wrong, then. And I feel for you--when I was teaching composition to college freshpeople, I had at least one student in every class whose teachers had taught them something HORRIBLY wrong, like using "it's" for the possessive of "it", or saying "Just between you and I" or something similar.

Some of the kids would bring in papers from high school where teachers had "corrected" them incorrectly. I'm amazed my desk survived, considering the hardness of my head!


secretly I still remember my childhood Bible, with Jesus' words in red

"Jesus' words" is correct, because it's a Hellenized name.


The French have it easier, because the Academie publishes a Big Book of Everything That's Correct every few years.

[IdiotsRUs]

It's not one of those US/UK divides, is it? Like how you guys can't spell 'grey', or 'colour'. ;)

I was taught the s' in the Uk so I don't think so.

However I did find this:

Traditionally it was more common to require and many respected sources still do require that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe. Such sources would demand possessive singulars like these: Senator Jones's umbrella; Mephistopheles's cat. Some respected style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style recommend the more modern addition of an s but specifically state that both habits are correct.Rules that modify or extend this principle have included the following:
If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added sibilant, do not add an extra s; Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates' later suggestion; James's house, or James' house, depending on which pronunciation is intended.
Classical, biblical, and similar names ending in a sibilant, especially if they are polysyllabic, do not take an added s in the possessive;


Some people like to reflect standard spoken practice in cases like these with sake: for convenience' sake, for goodness' sake, for appearance' sake, for compromise' sake, for peace' sake, etc. This punctuation is preferred in major style guides.



ps - did you know there is a apostrophe protection society?

[C.bronco]

I was taught s' too, but I think it sounds more amusing to say davids's pronounced davidses, and so I do that in casual speech.

We refer to the difficult neighbors (not the nice ones!) as "The Stifflerses." (Stiffler is not their real name).

[Sean D. Schaffer]

You were taught wrong, then. And I feel for you--when I was teaching composition to college freshpeople, I had at least one student in every class whose teachers had taught them something HORRIBLY wrong, like using "it's" for the possessive of "it", or saying "Just between you and I" or something similar.


I may have been taught wrong, but it's pretty wide-spread. I went to five different Grade Schools in two different states, and they ALL taught me that way.

Ironically, they never taught me 'it's' for the possessive of 'it' or "Just between you and I."

I think there's a difference in the language, even between portions of the States, because the country is so large. I was raised on the West Coast, and things could be very different between East and West, North and South, etc. I noticed some differences, for instance, between schools in Oregon, versus schools in Arizona.

[CatMuse33]

Wait, worshiped is now correct, vs. worshipped???? I was taught with the double p, too! Because if you said you shipped something via FedEx, you wouldn't say shiped. You need the double p to keep the vowel sound short. You wouldn't say skiped, instead of skipped. (Although now you can also Skype, which is a whole different thing.) ;)

I was also taught that you never, ever, ever add the s after an apostrophe if the name ends in s. So... always: Thomas' rifle and Charles' paintball gun. (Being that he's 13?) LOL

I think the other way looks cumbersome in print, although I would say Thomas's (pronounced Thomases) or Charleses if I were speaking.

Dawn


Dawn

[dobiwon]

I remember being taught to spell the word 'judgement' with an 'e' in the middle early on, then getting the same spelling marked wrong in a spelling assignment in, I think, the Fifth Grade. I also was taught that any word that ended with a 'p' in present tense had an extra 'p' in past tense. It's not that way anymore, so with words like 'worship', the way I was taught to spell it in past tense was 'worshipped', not 'worshiped.' Yet the way I was taught is not considered right. "Worshipped" is the first spelling in Merriam-Webster Online. It adds "also worshiped". The example it gives uses "worshipped".

As for "judgement/judgment", I was also taught that the first was correct, although Merriam-Webster lists that as a variant to "judgment". Well, live and learn.

[onlyhere]

I used to write colour but quit. I may go back to doing it that way. As for the s', I prefer it that way and tend to fight against the s's or as in my son's case who's nickname ends in s, I just call him by him full first name and problem solved.

[Dale Emery]

Oh somebody give the definitive answer please! I have a character named Travis and have always thought it should be Travis' toys not Travis's toys. You guys are just confusing the crap out of me now.

The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed. says add 's. See sections 7.17 and 7.18.

Section 7.17: The possessive of most singular nouns is formed by adding an apostrophe and an s...

Section 7.18: The general rule [sec 7.17] covers most proper nouns, including names ending in s, x, or z...

Section 7.20: [an exception] The possessive is formed without an additional s for a name of two or more syllables that ends in an eez sound.

Is The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed. definitive? I think so. But then, my definition of "definitive" is "agrees with me."

Anyway, in the end, Chicago has it both ways. Section 7.23 says: Those uncomfortable with the rules, exceptions, and options outlined above may prefer the system, formerly more common, of simply omitting the possessive s on all words ending in s...

Bah!

Dale

[Sean D. Schaffer]

The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed. says add 's. See sections 7.17 and 7.18.

Section 7.17: The possessive of most singular nouns is formed by adding an apostrophe and an s...

Section 7.18: The general rule [sec 7.17] covers most proper nouns, including names ending in s, x, or z...

Section 7.20: [an exception] The possessive is formed without an additional s for a name of two or more syllables that ends in an eez sound.

Is The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed. definitive? I think so. But then, my definition of "definitive" is "agrees with me."

Anyway, in the end, Chicago has it both ways. Section 7.23 says: Those uncomfortable with the rules, exceptions, and options outlined above may prefer the system, formerly more common, of simply omitting the possessive s on all words ending in s...

Bah!

Dale


I noticed something similar with Elements of Style as I flipped through the introduction earlier today.

Speaking about Rule #1, the rule that others quoted, E.B. White said the following:

Style rules of this sort are, of course, somewhat a matter of individual preference, and even established rules of grammar are open to challenge. Professor Strunk, although one of the most inflexible and choosy of men, was quick to acknowledge the fallacy of inflexibility and the danger of doctrine. "It is an old observation," he wrote, "that the best writers sometimes disregard the rules of rhetoric. When they do so, however, the reader will usually find in the sentence some compensating merit, attained at the cost of the violation. Unless he is certain of doing well, he will probably do best to follow the rules."

So really, although the English Language has rules to follow, what I get from this paragraph is that the world is not going to end if I don't put an apostrophe 's' at the end of a possessive noun with 's' as the last letter. It might be incorrect, but the issue is more or less a writer's individual preference.


--Sean

[WannabeWriter]

I think the apostrophe S issue is one that has gotten very confusing and has been left that way. For now, I'm going with the rule of consistent use.

[ishtar'sgate]

One of my characters was named Harris. I refused to write Harris's and stuck with Harris'. The first way just looks clumsy to me.
It IS clumsy but it seems to be the way a lot of publishers are doing it now. My publisher did it that way and since then I've noticed it elsewhere. Not sure when it changed or why.
Linnea

[Lavinia]

dpaterso- Thank you so much for the link to Elements of Style. I didn't know it was online. How perfect! I already have it saved to my favorites. Thanks again. ~Karen

[Dana-Lynn]

I find this thread very helpful, since one of my main characters is named Thomas. LOL!

I, too, was taught in school (in three different states. . . Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Ohio) to omit the s after an apostrophe when the last letter is an s.

BUT I like the way Thomas's looks better than Thomas', so I'm going with keeping the s after the apostophe. If that means I'm following the "rules" too, well then Yay for me.
:Sun:

[Mumut]

Harris was 13. I don't think he'd be allowed a rifle. :D

I used a rifle at age 13 in school cadets. It was a 303. Wonderful weapon. That's why I have hearing loss at the frequency of the 303 - it's called 'shooter's notch'.

[giusti]

To reiterate: IceCream is correct. Short and simple:

- Charle's shoe <-- The shoe of Charle
- Charles's shoe <-- The shoe of Charles
- Charles' shoe <-- The shoe of one or more Charle
- Charleses' shoe <-- The shoe of one or more Charles

If you say Charles', you are technically implying that there are multiple people, all named Charle, that own this shoe.

-giusti

[Sean D. Schaffer]

To each his own. You say 'Potahto', I say 'Potato'. From what I've read in the various posts here, BOTH ways are correct. If you want to be absolutist about it, that's your problem, not mine.

But I'm going to continue writing the way I was taught. If you don't like it, too bad.

If Charles' shoe was on the other foot, well, it's one of those shoes that fits either side. :rolleyes:

[DWSTXS]

I've always been confused by this too. I swear I've seen it both ways.

[giusti]

XD fair enough, sean

(Most people learn pretty quick to ignore my absolutisms. Often correct, mostly meaningless, whether correct or false.)

-giusti

[IceCreamEmpress]

I've always been confused by this too. I swear I've seen it both ways.

Yes. But only one way is actually correct. But if you don't care about doing it the correct way, people will generally understand what you mean if you do it the other way.

;)


In other words, do what you want. The copyeditors will change it to what the house style is anyway.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

XD fair enough, sean

(Most people learn pretty quick to ignore my absolutisms. Often correct, mostly meaningless, whether correct or false.)

-giusti


:)

Sometimes we get just a little bit passionate around here about tiny things. No problem.

[Potluck]

The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed. says add 's. See sections 7.17 and 7.18.

Section 7.17: The possessive of most singular nouns is formed by adding an apostrophe and an s...

Section 7.18: The general rule [sec 7.17] covers most proper nouns, including names ending in s, x, or z...

Section 7.20: [an exception] The possessive is formed without an additional s for a name of two or more syllables that ends in an eez sound.

Is The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed. definitive? I think so. But then, my definition of "definitive" is "agrees with me."

Anyway, in the end, Chicago has it both ways. Section 7.23 says: Those uncomfortable with the rules, exceptions, and options outlined above may prefer the system, formerly more common, of simply omitting the possessive s on all words ending in s...

Bah!

Dale

So, this says I can use Travis'? Even though Icecream says I can't? Wait, did I mention I'm confused? (I really like question marks.)

[Dale Emery]

So, this says I can use Travis'? Even though Icecream says I can't? Wait, did I mention I'm confused? (I really like question marks.)

Icecream doesn't say you can't use Travis', but only that it's incorrect.

Chicago doesn't say that Travis' is correct, but only that you may prefer it.

There's no contradiction there. Travis's is correct according to both Chicago and Icecream. And according to each authority, you may prefer the incorrect Travis'.

Dale

[IceCreamEmpress]

So, this says I can use Travis'? Even though Icecream says I can't?

No, no, I said you should do what you want. Gives the copyeditors something to do.

I'm just the empress of ice cream, not of EVERYTHING.

[HeronW]

Are apostrophes trophes of apos' or of apos's and whatthehell is an apos? :}

[JB_Finesse]

Do you have a friend/family member/whatever whose name ends with an S? Saying "Are these Travis' shoes" out loud just sounds...wrong.

[cress8]

I agree--IceCreamEmpress is correct. Funny, I was taught that you ALWAYS use the 's on names ending in s. I suppose you can do it any way you want, but if I were looking at it from an editor's standpoint, I'd toss out anyone who wrote "Travis' shoes." I'd assume you can't manage basic punctuation, nor be bothered to look it up.

That being said, I have to admit that this one is a pet peeve of mine. Don't even get me started on the British ommission of the serial comma, or a period outside the quotes! :)