Apostrophe irritation's
Mar 18th 2009, 8:59 am
#48
A lion in your lap
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Sparta NJ
Posts: 7,605
Re: Apostrophe irritation's
It bugs me how often I see "Manhattan" spelled wrong on here
Mar 18th 2009, 11:15 am
#49
Not living a 9 to 5 life
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,061
Mar 18th 2009, 11:34 am
#50
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: My Old KY Home!
Posts: 6,498
Mar 18th 2009, 12:47 pm
#52
I'm back!
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Richmond, VA, USA
Posts: 4,316
Re: Apostrophe irritation's
The one i'm never sure of is if the name ends in s.
i think you just have an apostrophe after the s and leave it (eg James' hat) But i'm never sure so usually think sod it and stick another s on (eg James's hat).
To clear this whole mess up we should just ban people from having names that end in s.
i think you just have an apostrophe after the s and leave it (eg James' hat) But i'm never sure so usually think sod it and stick another s on (eg James's hat).
To clear this whole mess up we should just ban people from having names that end in s.
Now, if there were TWO people named Charles and they did a group project together for their homework, then "Charles' homework" would make sense. But if you're only talking about one person named Charles, then it would be "Charles's homework."
Anyway, on a more general note, you all might get a kick out of the following website: The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotes
Seriously, I could spend hours looking at all the photos they have on there -- such ghastly grammar!!!!
Here's a photo Mark actually sent to them and they posted, taken in Yorkshire during our trip to England last May:
http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/200...f-special.html
~ Jenney
Mar 18th 2009, 3:03 pm
#53
Arrogant ****
Joined: Jan 2004
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 4,323
Re: Apostrophe irritation's
I was taught to add "'s" after names ending with "s" --> James's hat and Charles's homework. The fact that the name ends in "s" doesn't change the fact that you're adding "'s" to create the possessive form of a single object (in this case, a person). After all, James and Charles aren't the plural forms of Jame and Charle. If you only write James' or Charles', then you are simply tacking an apostrophe onto their names but not actually making them possessive....
Possessive for singular names ending in 's'
AP (which is applicable for newsletters and news releases) endorses adding only an apostrophe (thus, the possessive of Gus is Gus' and for Williams it is Williams'—regardless of the first letter of the word that follows.
Example: "That is Gus' shovel and this is Dave Williams' wheelbarrow."
In contrast, the Chicago stylebook recommends addition of an apostrophe and an "s".
Example: "That is Gus's shovel and this is Dave Williams's wheelbarrow."
The Chicago manual does makes exceptions specifically for Jesus, Moses and multisyllabic names that have unaccented "eez"-sounding endings. Examples:
"in Jesus' name"
"Moses' leadership"
"Euripedes' plays".
The Chicago manual leaves room for additional interpretation, adding that the second "s" may be dropped if dictated by "tradition and euphony"—in other words, when the following word begins with a sibilant sound, as in "for righteousness' sake".
Plural for names ending in 's'
The AP and Chicago stylebooks are in agreement here; to form plurals of common nouns as well as proper names ending in "ch," "s," "sh," "ss," "x" and "z," add "es". Examples:
"the Martinezes" and "the Williamses".
Plural possessive for names ending in 's'
The AP and Chicago manuals agree that the plural possessive of proper nouns ending in "s" is formed by adding only an apostrophe to the plural form. The Chicago manual shows these examples:
"The Rosses' and the Williamses' lands" and "the Joneses' reputation".
From EditPros Guide to names ending in "s"AP (which is applicable for newsletters and news releases) endorses adding only an apostrophe (thus, the possessive of Gus is Gus' and for Williams it is Williams'—regardless of the first letter of the word that follows.
Example: "That is Gus' shovel and this is Dave Williams' wheelbarrow."
In contrast, the Chicago stylebook recommends addition of an apostrophe and an "s".
Example: "That is Gus's shovel and this is Dave Williams's wheelbarrow."
The Chicago manual does makes exceptions specifically for Jesus, Moses and multisyllabic names that have unaccented "eez"-sounding endings. Examples:
"in Jesus' name"
"Moses' leadership"
"Euripedes' plays".
The Chicago manual leaves room for additional interpretation, adding that the second "s" may be dropped if dictated by "tradition and euphony"—in other words, when the following word begins with a sibilant sound, as in "for righteousness' sake".
Plural for names ending in 's'
The AP and Chicago stylebooks are in agreement here; to form plurals of common nouns as well as proper names ending in "ch," "s," "sh," "ss," "x" and "z," add "es". Examples:
"the Martinezes" and "the Williamses".
Plural possessive for names ending in 's'
The AP and Chicago manuals agree that the plural possessive of proper nouns ending in "s" is formed by adding only an apostrophe to the plural form. The Chicago manual shows these examples:
"The Rosses' and the Williamses' lands" and "the Joneses' reputation".
...or
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. Examples include the Modern Language Association and The Economist.[10] Such sources would demand possessive singulars like these: Senator Jones's umbrella; Mephistopheles's cat. On the other hand, some modern writers omit the extra s in all cases, and Chicago Manual of Style allows this as an "alternative practice".[11] Generally, Chicago Manual of Style is in line with the majority of current guides, and recommends the traditional practice but provides for several exceptions to accommodate spoken usage, including the omission of the extra s after a polysyllabic word ending in a sibilant.[12]
From Wikipedia's guide to the apostrophe
Mar 18th 2009, 3:43 pm
#54
The Unmod
Joined: Jul 2005
Location: Glen Mills, PA
Posts: 8,870
Re: Apostrophe irritation's
It matters because some people genuinely don't know the difference, and other people's errors perpetuates the problem - some complex situations can be forgiven but get the basics right. I don't know how you can make a typing error between there/their/they're or your/you're - if you make that mistake it's a language error (and you can be forgiven a language error when pissed or half asleep so there are sometimes you can get away with it - just not all the time 
).
).
Mar 18th 2009, 3:56 pm
#55
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Apostrophe irritation's
We have an unabridged Merriam-Webster at home and quite often in family disputes on language, we find out that both usages are "correct."
On of my Israeli cousins speaks and writes excellent American English -- but she is stubborn about refusing to use a spell checker -- we often have to read her stuff out loud! Many of the other cousins let Hebrew syntax sneak into their English.
Mar 18th 2009, 11:36 pm
#56
Unmitigated Gall
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: it's still too dark to tell
Posts: 16,162
Mar 19th 2009, 12:22 am
#57
Not living a 9 to 5 life
Joined: Jun 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 11,061
Re: Apostrophe irritation's
Yes, I'm asking and yes, I would like to know the answer? Don't you? Just a straightforward "yes" or "no" will do.
Mar 19th 2009, 12:27 am
#58
Not here much
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: Highland Park, NJ
Posts: 2,452
Re: Apostrophe irritation's
You're right, and I obviously didn't proofread my post. However, I was talking about the errant apostrophe issue rather than all grammar and spelling. I still maintain it's not hard to get that right even if you're not paying much attention to what you're doing.
Mar 19th 2009, 1:00 am
#59
Unmitigated Gall
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: it's still too dark to tell
Posts: 16,162
Mar 19th 2009, 1:04 am
#60
Sursum corda
Joined: Sep 2002
Location: Richmond Hill, GA USA
Posts: 38,860
Re: Apostrophe irritation's
rogue punctuation, it's out there, be afraid, be very afraid. 
