Apostrophe use in names

The apostrophe indicates possession, not plural. So unless you're talking about something the Martin family owns, "the Martin's" is wrong and there should be no apostrophe. If you do want to indicate possession the s comes after the apostrophe, since there would be more than one Martin.

"These are the Martins. This is the Martins' house."

The first one I'm not sure about* - the Martin's - I think the Martin family is already a group (although I bet that one could be argued both ways). However if they weren't a family and just, say, three Martins in a row, then it would be the Martins'.

The second is definitely the young Martins as they don't posess anything.

I hate posessive apostrophes...

* provided you're referring to them owning something as in the Martin's house. If it's just the family referred to in plural then there is no apostrophe as it denotes possession not a plural

CathleenT said:

I've got a work in progress that uses family names. For instance, the Martin family is referred to as the Martin's, and the Callahan family as the Callahan's. I believe that's right, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

But then there's a point where another character addresses just the brother and sister. He calls them 'young Martin's.'

For some reason, I really wanted to leave the apostrophe off that one. It came back from a beta, and she struck it out, too.

What would be the correct way to handle this?

Click to expand...

You're wrong.

The Smiths.

The Smiths' house.

Mr. Smith's house. (he's singular)

CathleenT said:

I've got a work in progress that uses family names. For instance, the Martin family is referred to as the Martin's, and the Callahan family as the Callahan's. I believe that's right, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

But then there's a point where another character addresses just the brother and sister. He calls them 'young Martin's.'

Click to expand...

All three examples are wrong. No apostrophes. As mentioned, apostrophes indicate possession, not plural. Consult the Purdue OWL grammar and style site for a thorough guide to such usage.

caw

CathleenT said:

Thank you, everyone. I did it that way (Callahan's) originally because that's how Word wanted it. I thought perhaps there was an obscure apostrophe rule I'd missed.

Click to expand...

Word is wrong. Asroc and Cornflake are correct.

CathleenT said:

1. We went to the Callahan's. (Because house or home is assumed.)
2. The Callahans walked in the door.
3. "Well done, young Martins," Mr. Dunne said.

Do I have it right this time?

Click to expand...

Almost. Number one should be: We went to the Callahans', as Asroc showed with the Martins' house.

The rule in this case: Callahans is plural, then add an apostrophe for possession, as the house belongs to the lot of 'em.

Chase is right.

And always be dubious about Word. I think they shrank the dictionary.

Never rely on Word (or any word processor for that matter) to correct your grammar or even your spelling. A word processor relies on a limited dictionary and predefined grammatical rules. Only you will know if what you're writing is correct. In other words, being able to spell and know basic grammar is a distinct advantage when writing

CathleenT said:

Thank you, everyone. I did it that way (Callahan's) originally because that's how Word wanted it. I thought perhaps there was an obscure apostrophe rule I'd missed.

So, it would be:

1. We went to the Callahan's. (Because house or home is assumed.)
2. The Callahans walked in the door.
3. "Well done, young Martins," Mr. Dunne said.

Do I have it right this time?

Click to expand...

Word's grammar check is an extremely valuable tool. It isn't always correct, but it's seldom wrong. You have to check the rule it gives you when it asks you to change something. If you click on "About this sentence" when you do it Word's way, it tells you that "callahan's" is a possessive.

This tells you that your original way of writing it was correct.

If you take the time to look up the rule when Word tells you something, you will learn grammar much faster. Even when Word is wrong, it almost always give the right rule for why it does what it does.

Jamesaritchie said:

when you do it Word's way, it tells you that "callahan's" is a possessive.

This tells you that your original way of writing it was correct.

Click to expand...

Except Callahan's is possessive for one person named Callahan.

Cathleen's question was if "the Callahan family" should be written "as the Callahan's." The answer is no. In that case, Word's robot stance was dead wrong.

The Callahans' is also possessive--the more accepted possessive of a plural (family of Callahans) for her needs.

CathleenT said:

Thank you, everyone. I did it that way (Callahan's) originally because that's how Word wanted it. I thought perhaps there was an obscure apostrophe rule I'd missed.

So, it would be:

1. We went to the Callahan's. (Because house or home is assumed.)
2. The Callahans walked in the door.
3. "Well done, young Martins," Mr. Dunne said.

Do I have it right this time?

Click to expand...

We went to the Callahans' (because the Callahan family consists of more than one person, and the house belongs to all of them in this context).

You'd say, "It was Mr. Callahan's" however, since he's just one person.

And "The Callihans are a large family," because in this case, Callihans is a plural, not a possessive. You don't use apostrophes in plurals. I don't think word's dictionary or grammar checker acknowledge plurals for proper names, even though they're common in idiomatic use. Word is not really a program for authors, or anyone else writing in any kind of colloquial voice. It's not really for scientific or academic writing either, which leaves me wondering who it really was designed for. Microsoft employees, perhaps. Do they ever have to write anything besides code, though?

MS Word (and Mozilla's on-board spell checker too) is often wrong about spelling, especially when it comes to possessives. There are a lot of words that aren't in their database either, and they don't understand context. They have their own in-house dictionary, I believe, and it is heavily abridged. The best thing you can say about it is that you can customize it by adding words. Just make sure you look up the spelling in a real dictionary first

Roxxsmom said:

You don't use apostrophes in plurals.

Click to expand...

(Shhh . . . I'm just butting in to say that you do sometimes use apostrophes in plurals. Ex:

"Mind your p's and q's.")

guttersquid said:

(Shhh . . . I'm just butting in to say that you do sometimes use apostrophes in plurals. Ex:

"Mind your p's and q's.")

Click to expand...

For now. The Guardian has already gone to no apostrophe in this case as well.
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/apostrophes-and-plurals?page=1

guttersquid said:

(Shhh . . . I'm just butting in to say that you do sometimes use apostrophes in plurals. Ex:

"Mind your p's and q's.")

Click to expand...

Isn't the apostrophe in this case to indicate missing letters? ie. P(lease)s and I guess the 'q' for thank-yous just gets one for consistency because p's and qs would look silly...
I really shoudn't wander into these conversations because I have a tendency to make things up

"Mind your p's and q's" was a caution to typesetters back in the day, where they might accidentally use one when they meant the other due to the letters' similar appearance. It could come out looking like this:

The regiment was qosted to a puiet village.

guttersquid said:

"Mind your p's and q's" was a caution to typesetters back in the day, where they might accidentally use one when they meant the other due to the letters' similar appearance. It could come out looking like this:

The regiment was qosted to a puiet village.

Click to expand...

I hadn't heard that one. When I was little it was a reminder to mind your manners - your pleases and thank-yous.

The saying originated with typesetting, but the phrase took on the manners meaning over time. Don't know why.

Apostrophe do's and don'ts
Apostrophe dos and don'ts
Apostrophe do's and don't's

Hmmmm....

Example 2 is consistent but looks funny. Example 1 is inconsistent but common. Example 3 is consistent but incorrect.

I think

This reminds me of another apostrophe problem that has probably been covered in other threads, but I'll mention it anyway. Which one of these is correct?

Jason and Susan are married. So:

#1. "We were invited to Jason and Susan's party."

#2 "We were invited to Jason's and Susan's party."

Or these?

#3. "We went in Mom and Dad's car."

#4. "We went in Mom's and Dad's car."

Or these:

#5. "Laurel and Hardy's comedic timing was impeccable."

#6. "Laurel's and Hardy's comedic timing was impeccable."

Logic might seem to call for both nouns to have apostrophes. On the other hand, since two people are being treated as a unit, perhaps one apostrophe will suffice. Any ideas?

Nymtoc said:

This reminds me of another apostrophe problem that has probably been covered in other threads, but I'll mention it anyway. Which one of these is correct?

Jason and Susan are married. So:

#1. "We were invited to Jason and Susan's party."

#2 "We were invited to Jason's and Susan's party."

Or these?

#3. "We went in Mom and Dad's car."

#4. "We went in Mom's and Dad's car."

Or these:

#5. "Laurel and Hardy's comedic timing was impeccable."

#6. "Laurel's and Hardy's comedic timing was impeccable."

Logic might seem to call for both nouns to have apostrophes. On the other hand, since two people are being treated as a unit, perhaps one apostrophe will suffice. Any ideas?

Click to expand...

In all cases cited the pair of people should be taken as a unit. Jason and Susan are a unit in marriage. Laurel $ Hardy were a unit. Mom and Dad are a unit. Bacon and eggs is a unit even more so.

Chase said:

Except Callahan's is possessive for one person named Callahan.

Cathleen's question was if "the Callahan family" should be written "as the Callahan's." The answer is no. In that case, Word's robot stance was dead wrong.

The Callahans' is also possessive--the more accepted possessive of a plural (family of Callahans) for her needs.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is wrong, but the rule it gives explains why it wanted it this way, and let's you understand why Word is wrong, and how to do it correctly.

Even when Word is dead wrong, the rule it gives will give you the right answer, one way or another. It does so in this case.

King Neptune said:

In all cases cited the pair of people should be taken as a unit. Jason and Susan are a unit in marriage. Laurel $ Hardy were a unit. Mom and Dad are a unit. Bacon and eggs is a unit even more so.

Click to expand...

Absolutely correct.

Individual apostrophes show individual ownership; an apostrophe on the final name shows group ownership.

"Grandpa and Grandma's good glasses" probably means their crystal tumblers for when company comes--items they own together.

"Grandpa's and Grandma's good glasses" has to refer to their newest individual prescription spectacles--items each keeps separate from the other.

Rhymes with Clue said:

1. Apostrophe do's and don'ts
2. Apostrophe dos and don'ts
3. Apostrophe do's and don't's

Click to expand...

The apostrophe use in #2 looks correct to me, because it is correct.

The other examples are wrong--common usage by people who don't understand apostrophe use. The same people write:

Rock n' roll instead of Rock 'n' roll.

Hat's for sale instead of Hats for sale.

This is the Smith's house instead of This is the Smiths' house.