The s's thing looks very weird to me.
Whereas Strunk I believe says to never omit the s after the apostrophe.
Help...?
Whereas Strunk I believe says to never omit the s after the apostrophe.
Help...?
Francis's or Francis' ?
- Thread starter goldmund
- Start date
My local Style Manual (U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual) has the following to say:
The possessive case of a singular or plural noun not ending in s is formed by adding an apostrophe and s.
The possessive case of a singular or plural noun ending in
s or with an s sound is formed by adding an apostrophe only.
So Francis' is correct.
Last edited:
I read that a rule of thumb is you add the 's to a word or name that ends in S only if you would pronounce it with that extra "es". Ex: "Francis-es ball" vs "Francis' ball"
So try reading the sentence aloud.
My English teacher still marked me off for using only an apostrophe after "H.G. Wells" though. (H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds seemed right to me...) It's apparently highly subjective.
For me, I'd probably go with Francis's. But if it bothers you too much to see it, do what you like and leave it up to the publisher later on. It wouldn't be that hard to do a search-and-replace later on. Just don't let it bug you while you're working.
So try reading the sentence aloud.
My English teacher still marked me off for using only an apostrophe after "H.G. Wells" though. (H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds seemed right to me...) It's apparently highly subjective.
For me, I'd probably go with Francis's. But if it bothers you too much to see it, do what you like and leave it up to the publisher later on. It wouldn't be that hard to do a search-and-replace later on. Just don't let it bug you while you're working.
Guardian, you should have strongly protested the teacher's action. You were right, and any authority in the matter would have supported you. Teachers like that should not be tolerated.
The "rule" is to keep the "s", but exceptions abound. You should always drop the s after a plural noun, you never add the s after Jesus, on and on.
It is, in fact, perfectly acceptable to drop the s when any word ends in s, as long as you're consistent. I went to college back when the trend was to always drop such an s, so I always have. In thirty-three years, not a single editor anywhere has added the s.
It is, in fact, perfectly acceptable to drop the s when any word ends in s, as long as you're consistent. I went to college back when the trend was to always drop such an s, so I always have. In thirty-three years, not a single editor anywhere has added the s.
As a living language, the rules of acceptable English usage constantly change.
While the only correct way to make possessive a singular noun or name ending in s was once to add an apostrophe (Francis' hat, my boss' temper, Lars' cottage), that is no longer the case. It's fully acceptable now to make those nouns and names possessive the same way you would any other, with apostrophe-s: Francis's hat, my boss's temper, Lars's cottage. The only exceptions are Jesus and the Greek and Roman gods whose names end in s. Those still get just the apostrophe.
As Jamesaritchie says, you will not be wrong if you go old-school, but you're free to embrace the newer practice if your prefer, so long as you're consistent and do not violate any style guidelines a publication makes available to its writers.
Maryn, solid on this
While the only correct way to make possessive a singular noun or name ending in s was once to add an apostrophe (Francis' hat, my boss' temper, Lars' cottage), that is no longer the case. It's fully acceptable now to make those nouns and names possessive the same way you would any other, with apostrophe-s: Francis's hat, my boss's temper, Lars's cottage. The only exceptions are Jesus and the Greek and Roman gods whose names end in s. Those still get just the apostrophe.
As Jamesaritchie says, you will not be wrong if you go old-school, but you're free to embrace the newer practice if your prefer, so long as you're consistent and do not violate any style guidelines a publication makes available to its writers.
Maryn, solid on this
There's one other exception that has always been allowed. When a singular noun ends in s, and the next word starts with an s, you're allowed to drop the s after the apostrophe, new school or old.
Something such as Francis's sister brings up the mental image of a snake hissing.
Place names are also a usual exception in the United States, and in most Federal writing.
And Jesus, yes, but also Moses.
I read somewhere, Wikipedia, I think, that when you look at the writing they hand down in decisions, even the Supreme Court is divided five to four in favor of keeping the additional s, unless one of the exceptions in brought into play. One new Justice, and we might have a reversal.
What swayed me was consistency. Enough exceptions exist that I found consistency was pretty much impossible if I kept the additional s. I like my writing to be as consistent as possible, so no additional s for me.
Does that division parallel the ideological split? Adding the "s" certainly is not part of the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution.
I'm sure it varies from one Supreme Court to the next, but, yes, oddly enough, it does currently follow the ideological split.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,249
- Reaction score
- 147
- Location
- Far North
- Website
- www.theragsoftime.com
When I learned English (of the British variety), I was taught that the grammatical correct way was to add 's. And as far as I know, St James's Palace was always St James's Palace and never St James' Palace (or Park or whatever - and pronounced Saint Jameses). So may this have been a case of British and American styles differing?
Because this is a matter of style and not grammar, there is no "right" or "wrong." Just pick one option and be consistent. If you submit for publication, the copy editor will change it if you've gone contrary to the publisher's style guide.
Thank you guys, you are lovely!
It's for a script, not a novel.
"Francis's" simply seems weird to me, ugly, not like a language ought to function. So if you say it's generally matter of preference, I'd go with a lonely '.
It's for a script, not a novel.
"Francis's" simply seems weird to me, ugly, not like a language ought to function. So if you say it's generally matter of preference, I'd go with a lonely '.
Interesting! Do you know whether it's the more conservative or more liberal who go for the extra 's'?
Last edited:
Not necessarily. That's merely a preference for one particular style within a particular department of a particular government.
A preference or an opinion about style is not a fact about grammar.
It's St James' park in Newcastle and Exeter. St Nicholas' Cathedral (Newcastle) and St Giles' Cathedral (Edinburgh). Things are never that simple
I love the examples: St James' Park, the stadium (Newcastle) v St James's Park the, erm, park (London).
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2011
- Messages
- 156
- Reaction score
- 3
- Location
- Western North Carolina
- Website
- 46ascending.org
What about families and last names? We are the Cronins (not Cronin's ?) and we live in the Cronins' house.
Our neighbors are John and Mary Hess. They are the Hesses (not Hess's?) and they live in the Hesses' house? Or, if one prefers, in the Hesses's house? That looks awful.
I'm not trying to be silly ..... too many of my characters seems to send up with last names that end in "s" and I've rewritten sentences just to avoid this.
Our neighbors are John and Mary Hess. They are the Hesses (not Hess's?) and they live in the Hesses' house? Or, if one prefers, in the Hesses's house? That looks awful.
I'm not trying to be silly ..... too many of my characters seems to send up with last names that end in "s" and I've rewritten sentences just to avoid this.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2011
- Messages
- 156
- Reaction score
- 3
- Location
- Western North Carolina
- Website
- 46ascending.org
I must not have explained my question well. Please let me try again.
My family (for example) is known as the Cronins. (plural as we are a group of more than one Cronin) When we talk about our family's house, it is the Cronins' house. Or Cronins's house according to what I have read above (plural possessive, just like my two cats share a water bowl and it is the cats' or cats's water bowl.)
So what about the home owned by John and Mary Hess? Are they referred to as the Hesses? (plural, more than one Hess) They must be. And so is their home the plural possessive Hesses' or Hesses's house?
Thanks.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,249
- Reaction score
- 147
- Location
- Far North
- Website
- www.theragsoftime.com
That question is about how you make Hess into plural. Once you've pluralled it (no matter how you do it), the plural becomes s'. The s's is as far as I know only ever used for sing possessive not plur. So if the plural form is Hess, it's Hess'. If the plural form is Hesses, it's Hesses'. It's neither Hess's nor Hesses's.
At least that's how I do it but by now I'm completely confused. And I have no idea what the correct plural form of the name Hess is.
Anyway, my point about St James's Palace: the name isn't new so, obviously, the s's is not a new idea. On the other hand, a few hundred years ago people spelled any which way they wanted so it could be a remnant of that...
You're right. The additional S is actually old school, and dropping the S came into fusion back in the seventies, and now many are adding the S again.
Either use is correct, and it comes down to what the writer prefers. This generally isn't a house issue, either, at least with most publishers. Unless something is completely wrong, pretty much any publisher allows the writer to make such decisions.
I've never had any publisher add the S, and I've written for a bunch of publishers, if you count both book and magazine publishers.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2011
- Messages
- 156
- Reaction score
- 3
- Location
- Western North Carolina
- Website
- 46ascending.org
Okay got it on the plural. Cats' dish for more than one cat, cat's dish for one cat and the grass' or grass's fertilizer. You only get the options of that last "s" because grass is singular.
Treat a family name like a plural, however one does that and use just an apostrophe to turn that plural into a possessive. Makes sense. Thanks.
Now any thoughts on whether Jim and Ann Walters are the Walters or the Walterses? How about two people named Santos? Douglas? Peters? Holmes? Is there some sort of rule? I seem to run into this dilemma a lot but maybe I just need to chose my last names more carefully....
If the singular form of the word ends in "s," the plural is formed by adding "es."
Walters ---> Walterses
Santos ---> Santoses
Douglas ---> Douglases
It's no different from
glass ---> glasses
kiss ---> kisses
I'd always been taught at school to use only an apostrophe after s-ending nouns, although I was also told that s's is acceptable too.
Like goldmund, it really just comes down to my preference for St James' over St James's.
Like goldmund, it really just comes down to my preference for St James' over St James's.