Are there rulings for possessive s's?

[grammarnerd]

I need some explanations about the possessive s's and is it really applicable to the English language?

[hubertus]

You'd get a workable summary of the rules as a starting point by googling your query.
There are numerous existing threads on this forum which might give further insights. For instance, below in the thread entitled:

Use of Apostrophes when someone's name ends in s

and in Quick Language Questions section, the thread entitled:

apostropohe on names ending in s

[Dave Miller]

I'll attempt some basics:

1. The apostrophe has two uses in English:  to stand for something missing, or to indicate possession
2. It is NOT a way to form a plural (apple's means "belonging to apple", not "more than one apple"!)
3. When it indicates possession, the "possessor" is what comes right in front of the apostrophe
4. Hence the boy's room belongs to the boy, while the boys' room belongs to the boys
   
5. That works for strange plurals like "children" and "people", too: at the children's playground; in the people's interest
6. If a word in the singular already ends in s, just carry on using the same pattern:  Chris's jumper; the boss's desk; Wales's capital; Prince Charles's income
7. Possession doesn't have to mean legal ownership:  the girls' changing room is the one FOR girls, though it won't be owned by the girls!
   
   
8. (Just to mess things up ...) the rules above are ONE way of doing it (what I'd call the "standard, British" way).  Rule 6, in particular, is not followed by many people, especially in American English:  people might write the boss' desk, Chris' jumper, and so on.  Personally, I find that style difficult to read, because (after all) we all say "krissiz" and "bossiz".

[Tone]

Sorry Dave, but:

>Rule 6, in particular, is not followed by many people, especially in American English: people might write the boss' desk, Chris' jumper, and so on. Personally, I find that style difficult to read, because (after all) we all say "krissiz" and "bossiz".<

Alternatively:
"Rule 6, in particular, is not followed by many people, especially in American and English English: many people would write the boss' desk, Chris' jumper, and so on (and Jesus' story). Personally, I find that style difficult to read, because (after all) we all say "krissiz" and "bossiz". And a lot of us don't!

Tone

[Sue M-V]

Just to rub some salt into the wound, I should point out that there are those of us who avoid two esses around an apostrophe, and therefore add a third ess to possessive forms of words that already end with two:

the dog's
the dogs'
Euripides'
Jesus'
the waitress's
the boss's
etc

We say it like that, too! The good news is that there can't be many of us left.

Sue

[Dave Miller]

Well, Sue, you are the only person I've ever encountered in my 59 years who does that!

[hubertus]

Jul 31, 2013 21:46:20 GMT Sue M-V said:

Just to rub some salt into the wound, I should point out that there are those of us who avoid two esses around an apostrophe, and therefore add a third ess to possessive forms of words that already end with two:

the dog's
the dogs'
Euripides'
Jesus'
the waitress's
the boss's
etc

We say it like that, too! The good news is that there can't be many of us left.

Sue

What is the term for a fear of the number two? Is it duophobia??

[Dave]

Jul 31, 2013 14:35:45 GMT Dave Miller said:

Rule 6, in particular, is not followed by many people, especially in American English:  people might write the boss' desk, Chris' jumper, and so on.  Personally, I find that style difficult to read, because (after all) we all say "krissiz" and "bossiz".

Why do we bring up pronunciation when we're addressing the possessive apostrophe and whether it should or shouldn't be followed by an s when attached to certain classes of words ending in s? The apostrophe, like the other letters, is just part of the spelling of words which themselves are representations of sounds used to communicate ideas, etc. We have plenty of words that don't sound like they're spelled--or is it that they're not spelled like they sound?! Almost all of our English language letters (Roman alphabet) are silent in at least one word: Silent Letters. Consider through, though, tough, and bough. Ask a child to sound them out! So if we're not concerned most of the time, why are we concerned about pronunciation when this situation presents itself?

[hubertus]

Aug 1, 2013 9:40:00 GMT Dave said:

Jul 31, 2013 14:35:45 GMT Dave Miller said:

Rule 6, in particular, is not followed by many people, especially in American English:  people might write the boss' desk, Chris' jumper, and so on.  Personally, I find that style difficult to read, because (after all) we all say "krissiz" and "bossiz".

Why do we bring up pronunciation when we're addressing the possessive apostrophe and whether it should or shouldn't be followed by an s when attached to certain classes of words ending in s? The apostrophe, like the other letters, is just part of the spelling of words which themselves are representations of sounds used to communicate ideas, etc. We have plenty of words that don't sound like they're spelled--or is it that they're not spelled like they sound?! Almost all of our English language letters (Roman alphabet) are silent in at least one word: Silent Letters. Consider through, though, tough, and bough. Ask a child to sound them out! So if we're not concerned most of the time, why are we concerned about pronunciation when this situation presents itself?

Eye toately ergrie.

[Dave Miller]

> Why do we bring up pronunciation when we're addressing the possessive apostrophe ... ? <

Well, there are often changes in the way spellings are said, and many silent letters, as you point out, but we rarely invent extra sounds that aren't there!

What would make us (though not, apparently, Tone) read Chris' and invent the extra sound "iz"?

(Incidentally, Tone, when you read Chris', do you say "kriss" or "krizz" - to match other possessives, which all end in "~iz"?)

[hubertus]

It would lend a little more consistency to spelling following pronunciation if we reverted to an earlier genitive-possessive-germanic form, ie
Chrises, Jesuses, Joneses, Baezes, Jameses etc.

Obviously you wouldn't be able to distinguish, in writing, plural forms from possessive for words like books, boys if the possessive apostrophe were to be abandoned.
But at least possessives in deers, sheeps etc would indeed be distinguishable in this regard.

[Sue M-V]

If you want to adopt the German genitive forms, you'll probably have to change our system of plurals and go back to forms like "children" and "men" for everything, which would avoid most of the confusion.

Sue

[Twoddle]

We could drop possessive apostrophes and genitive forms, and use only possessive prepositions - "the son of Fred", "the school for girls" etc. They seem to manage perfectly well with it in French, Italian, Spanish and so on, but I can't see it catching on in English.

[hubertus]

Aug 1, 2013 23:35:41 GMT Twoddle said:

We could drop possessive apostrophes and genitive forms, and use only possessive prepositions - "the son of Fred", "the school for girls" etc. They seem to manage perfectly well with it in French, Italian, Spanish and so on, but I can't see it catching on in English.

Indeed, these forms sound too wordy for our ears except in poetic uses. For instance 'the son of god', 'the cradle of civilisation'. 'two gentlemen of Verona'.

[Verbivore]

Aug 1, 2013 23:35:41 GMT Twoddle said:

We could drop possessive apostrophes and genitive forms, and use only possessive prepositions - "the son of Fred", "the school for girls" etc. They seem to manage perfectly well with it in French, Italian, Spanish and so on, but I can't see it catching on in English.

Certainly wouldn't, especially in speech. La plume de ma tante is why French takes twice as long to say something as does English -- is it not that that is so?