Let’s start the joy of apostrophication by forming the possessives of singular nouns! (Of course, the exclamation point is spurious — there is nothing exciting about forming possessives.) First off, there’re three cases that are uncontroversial:
singular nouns not ending in an /s/- or /z/-sound: add ‘s
one fish’s lair – the box’s contents – everybody else’s indignation
plural nouns ending in an /s/- or /z/-sound: add ‘
The Smiths’ misery – the proposals’ results – some boxes’ lids
plural nouns not ending in an /s/- or /z/- sound: add ‘s
laymen’s opinions – geese’s eggs – two fish’s habitats
Snorefest! Let’s get our hands dirty with some controversial possessives! Is it the princess’s diadem or the princess’ diadem? Is Oliver Twist Dickens’s character or Dickens’ character? Was President McKinley Leon Czolgosz’s victim or Leon Czolgosz’ victim? And, lastly, are the Israelites Moses’s or Moses’ people? Let’s check in with some grammarians:
(1) princess’ – Dickens’ – Czolgosz’ – Moses’: a commonly-held belief
(2) princess’s – Dickens’ – Czolgosz’ – Moses’: On the Mark Writing
(3) princess’s – Dickens’s – Czolgosz’ – Moses’: Harold Kolb, James Cochrane, et al
(4) princess’s – Dickens’s – Czolgosz’s – Moses’: Strunk (& White)
(5) princess’s – Dickens’s – Czolgosz’s – Moses’s: Patricia O’Conner
These choices can be translated into the following possible rules for singular possessives:
(1) use ‘s except for nouns ending in s/z
(2) use ‘s except for names ending in s/z
(3) use ‘s except for names where “adding ‘s would make pronunciation difficult” [Brief English Handbook, 292]
(4) use ‘s except for ancient names ending in s/z
(5) use ‘s for all singular nouns
To me, all of these rules are relatively reasonable, though I lean toward (3) and (5) as the best choices. (1) is weird because one pronounces the possessive of princess with the extra -iz sound, so why not write it? (2) is weird for a similar reason; you say Dickens-iz, not just Dickens. (4) requires one to include the time-period of a name, which seems sort of a silly criterion (so you’d have Jesus’ miracles but Jesús’s car), and this probably wouldn’t accurately reflect the phonology of the word. As a result, I think you’re best served to choose between (3) and (5). (3) has the difficulty of being subject to a subjective condition, but generally reflects pronunciation. (5) has the advantage of combining two rules into one. I learned rule (5) when I was a kid, and it’s the one I personally use. However, if you’re worried about how your writing will be perceived by grammar snobs, go with (3). Most of the grammar books I read through pick it. But don’t, unless you pride yourself on being unreasonable, correct someone who handles possessives of singular nouns ending in -s differently from you.
Next up on the apostrophe parade: Possessives for abbreviations!
Summary: The possessive of singular nouns ending in -s is contested. I advise adding ‘s to all of them or at least to those where the suffix doesn’t make it too hard to pronounce. But importantly, there’s some prescriptivist who’ll back up almost any choice of ‘s or ‘, so don’t complain too much about other people’s choices.
***
The Preposterous Apostrophes series as it stands:
- I: Possessives (08/29/2007)
- II: Pluralization (09/03/2007)
- III: The Kings of England’s (09/07/2007)
- IV: History Lesson (09/10/2007)
- V: Contractions (09/11/2007)
- VI: A Wrinkle (09/27/2007)
- VII: Why Won’t Willn’t Work? (04/03/2008)
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 30, 2007 at 5:59 am
renaissanceguy
I once got a lower grade for writing Dickens’. The professor informed me that everybody knows it should be Dickens’s because that is how we say it.
Don’t you hate the “everybody knows that” schtick?
August 30, 2007 at 10:00 am
onthemarkwriting
Okay, so you dissed me and my placement of the apostrophe. That’s cool, you just don’t know any better. : – )
The AP Stylebook, that’s THE ASSOCIATED PRESS STYLEBOOK AND LIBEL MANUAL, says very clearly on page 255 under the apostrophe (‘) that with “SINGULAR PROPER NAMES ENDING IN S: use only an apostrophe: Achilles’ heel, Agnes’ book, Ceres’ rites, Descartes’ theories, Dickens’ novels, Euripides’ dramas, Hercules’ labors, Jesus’ life, Jules’ seat, Kansas’ schools, Moses’ law, Socrates’ life, Tennessee Williams’ plays, Xerxes’ armies.
I understand that the English language will always be butchered, and that the AP Stylebook isn’t the end-all be-all for correct pronunciation, but it’s what the majority of American papers use as a guide for their publications, so it’s good enough for me!
I’m always up for good a grammar volley!
-Mark
onthemarkwirting.wordpress.com
August 31, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Gabe
I figured from your post that you were basing your apostrophe opinions on the AP guide. My point was that while I use ‘s with all proper names, I have no beef with other people using just an apostrophe. Using just an apostrophe because the AP says so is totally reasonable. But other style guides, such as Strunk & White, have different opinions, so there isn’t one right way that’s so heads-and-tails above the rest that everyone should be told to use it. It’s all a matter of who you want to agree with.
February 24, 2009 at 9:33 am
Daniel
Not sure if anyone’s going to see this since I’m posting a comment nearly 17 months after the post, but I noticed that I don’t follow any of the five rules. For me it would be
princess’s – Dickens’ – Czolgolsz’s – Moses’
This is basically rule 2, but with ‘s instead of ‘ for Czolgosz. The reason for that, I suspect, is that Czolgosz may end with the *letter* s or z, but it does not end with the *sound* s or z (it ends with an sh sound). Therefore, I seem to be following the rule “use ‘s except for names ending in an s or z sound”.
As a sideline, I apply a similar rule for pluralizing. The plural of Smith is Smiths, but the plural of Dickens is Dickens, not Dickenses. Predictably, the plural possessive for Dickens would be Dickens’ — whereas the house the Smith family lives in would be referred to as the Smiths’ house, the house the Dickens family lives in would be referred to as the Dickens’ house. My own name ends in a z sound, and I always find it odd when someone refers to my family as “the Rhodeses” instead of “the Rhodes”.
Also, on a totally unrelated note: the name of McKinley’s assassin was not Czolgosz, but Czogolsz. Not that it really affects the discussion.
February 26, 2009 at 6:27 am
onthemarkwriting
Thanks, Daniel, for commenting on my post. Although I disagree with you about referring to your family as Rhodeses since that family is made up of more than one member, I still appreciate your comment.
Thanks,
mk
February 26, 2009 at 9:16 pm
rhodent
I’m well aware that my family is made up of more than one member; that’s why I made reference to the *plural* of names ending in S. By your logic, it should be a “flock of sheeps” and a “herd of deers” since flocks and herds are made up of more than one member; last I checked, it was still “flock of sheep” and “herd of deer” because those words use a null morpheme to mark the plural rather than the -s morphene.
In other words, I’m not saying that I use a singular form to refer to my family; I’m saying that my family name, like the words “deer” and “sheep”, forms its plural with a null morpheme.
Of course, there may be other people out there with the same last name as me who choose to pluralize it “Rhodeses”. I’m fine with that: it’s their name; it’s their right. Everyone in my family pluralizes it “Rhodes”: it’s our name; it’s our right.
(And, to further complicate it, we don’t actually pronounce the plural quite the same as we pronounce the singular. The “o” is held slightly longer in the plural; in other words the singular is /rodz/ while the plural is /ro:dz/. Yes, I realize this doesn’t make the greatest amount of sense; yes, I also realize that we’re using vowel length in a constrastive way despite the fact that we speak English and English is a language that doesn’t use vowel length constrastively. Nonetheless, this is what we do. As I said in the last paragraph: it’s our name; it’s our right.)
March 24, 2009 at 4:12 pm
eliza
i love ur site
September 14, 2009 at 9:57 am
Zech
I’m with Daniel on the four above: princess’s – Dickens’ – Czolgolsz’s – Moses’
One thing I’ve noticed re ancient names (at least as they’re written/pronounced in England) is that where the name is a Greek one ending in -es, you virtually never see ‘s: it’s Euripides’ Medea, Aristophanes’ comedies. But Latin names have different conventions – Tacitus’s Annals, Augustus’s proscriptions. This seems likely to be down to the voiced/unvoiced pronunciation of the final s in English – so Odysseus’s and Leonidas’s are permissible even though they’re Greek.
The point is that there is no hard-and-fast rule on this – usually it depends on euphony. The real problem with Moses’s is that it’s three z sounds in a row. Jesus’s is not quite as hard to say, and you see it more often. Still, you’d virtually never hear it pronounced like that at the end of the sentence, e.g. “The decision was Jesus’ “. It just sounds bizarre. Personally in conversation I’d usually say Dickens’, but might use Dickens’s too, depending on the rhythm of the sentence.
It was probably ever thus. In St. Thomas’s Hospital in London you can find plaques of various ages, giving the name as St. Thomas’ and St. Thomas’s. The official written name is currently St. Thomas’, even though pretty much every member of the public calls it St. Thomas’s.
September 1, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Princess dickens | Halleyscarpet
[…] Preposterous Apostrophes I: Possessives « Motivated GrammarAug 29, 2007 … (1) princess’ – Dickens’ – Czolgosz’ – Moses’: a commonly-held belief (2) princess’s – Dickens’ – Czolgosz’ – Moses’: On the Mark Writing … […]
July 16, 2014 at 11:45 am
Phil Spencer
I’ve always used number 5, but I’m going to start using number 3. Thanks for the tip!
January 20, 2022 at 10:28 am
Jones's or Jones'? [duplicate] - English Vision
[…] while other sources (like Strunk & White) would say that he is Dickens’s character. See this page for a brief exploration of some of the rules different sources use in different […]