I'm thinking specifically of characters with a last name ending in something tricky like 's'. I remember a writing guide advising beginners never to do that because so many get it wrong when they try to form the plural or possessive.
AJ
I'm thinking specifically of characters with a last name ending in something tricky like 's'. I remember a writing guide advising beginners never to do that because so many get it wrong when they try to form the plural or possessive.
AJ
No, but I have had debates with proofreaders over how I handle possessives and plurals with names ending in 's'.
the Loucks (not the Louckses)
the Loucks' house (not the Loucks's)
Of course, I was at the courthouse the other day, and saw a sign that stated "No attorney's beyond this point." Sigh.
the Loucks (not the Louckses)
the Loucks' house (not the Loucks's)
I personally would go with the versions in parentheses - there's good precedent from old English (both the plural and possessive were formed by adding 'es' but the 'e' in the possessive evolved into the the apostrophe even though the two are pronounced the same). And they used to be the standard forms, although nowadays they're seen as somewhat archaic.
Your preferred form of the possessive seems to be accepted by many (most?) authorities but I'm not comfortable with your preferred form of the plural - it could cause ambiguities for the reader.
How would you pronounce your preferred options? In British English, people seem to pronounce them as though the 'es' is still there.
AJ
How would you pronounce your preferred options? In British English, people seem to pronounce them as though the 'es' is still there.
I'd pronounce it 'Loucks' or (to use AWLL) 'Adams', the same as the singular. My real surname ends in 's' and that's how I handle it. No additional 's' or 'es' and pronounced the same as the singular.
I'd never use (and never have used) the equivalent of 'Louckses' or 'Adamses'. That sounds wrong and always has. Maybe blame my dad, as I simply followed his practice (similar to Ray in AWLL, he was born in New York City and grew up on Long Island and in New Hampshire).
FWIW, I watched an episode of Magnum on TV tonight. The subtitles said "Higgins'", the character said "Higginses".
AJ
I'd never use (and never have used) the equivalent of 'Louckses' or 'Adamses'. That sounds wrong and always has.
Have you ever encountered the Brit expression 'To keep up with the Joneses'?
Has the trailing 'es' survived to your corner of America?
AJ
Have you ever encountered the Brit expression 'To keep up with the Joneses'?
Has the trailing 'es' survived to your corner of America?
Yes, and most people I know do make the plural by adding 'es'. As noted, it sounds wrong to me, and given my RL name ends in an 's', I strongly prefer not having the added 'es'.
My actual preference would be 'the Adams family' or 'the Loucks family'.
the Loucks (not the Louckses)
The plural for Loucks is actually Louckses (as in "the Louckses live in that house."
If the name ends in s, z, ch, or sh, you need to add es. That means the Davis family becomes the Davises, the French family becomes the Frenches, the Hernandez family becomes the Hernandezes, and the Glaves family becomes the Glaveses.
If the name ends in x, also add es—unless the x is silent. In that case, simply add an s. So the Felix family becomes the Felixes, and the Bordeaux family becomes the Bordeauxs.
The plural for Loucks is actually Louckses (as in "the Louckses live in that house."
Both are accepted. And, of course, the preference of the individual as how they are referred to does have some import, at least in my book. I'm OK with certain versions of my name, but not others. 'Mike' or 'Michael' would be OK, but not 'Mikey'. Ditto for my MC in AWLL, Steve or Stephen, but never Stevie.
In the end, though, both are acceptable (and I can provide references if you wish).
Plural: "The Louckses live in that house."
Possessive: "That is the Loucks' house."
As the possessor of the name, I use:
"The Loucks live in that house." (eliding 'family' after 'Loucks' to avoid the plural I find jarring)
"That is the Loucks' house."
Ditto 'Adams' in AWLL. 'Adamses' and 'Louckses' appear zero times in he roughly 11,000,000 words of the two stories. The other protagonist has a name ending in 'e'. 🤪
Plural: "The Louckses live in that house."
Possessive: "That is the Loucks' house."
If you're going to use the best option for the plural, why not use its counterpart for the possessive, "Louckses'"?
Or you could cheat, employ a noun as an adjective, and say "The Loucks house". It gives less information about how many Louckses live there but it is technically acceptable.
AJ
Of course, I was at the courthouse the other day, and saw a sign that stated "No attorney's beyond this point." Sigh.
Would the attorneys understand the sign if it was written correctly ? Then again it is their job to find loopholes or ways around the written rules of law.
the Loucks' house (not the Loucks's)
Which is actually the origin of the old joke "Who is buried in Grants' Tomb?"
When spoken aloud, it sounds like the possessive, so most just assume "General Grant". However, when written properly it is the plural possessive, as both General and Mrs. Grant are in the tomb.
Which is actually the origin of the old joke "Who is buried in Grants' Tomb?"
When spoken aloud, it sounds like the possessive, so most just assume "General Grant". However, when written properly it is the plural possessive, as both General and Mrs. Grant are in the tomb.
Actually that originates with an early quiz game show question. My understanding is that it's a trick question, because no one is buried in Grant's tomb. General and Mrs Grant are entombed above ground.
Actually that originates with an early quiz game show question. My understanding is that it's a trick question, because no one is buried in Grant's tomb. General and Mrs Grant are entombed above ground.
And that is true, as I have been there.
But for some reason, we almost never say "entombed". In fact, I have heard the term "buried" used for both Lenin and Mao, and they also are entombed and not buried.
But even if one uses "entombed", it is still both of them because it is "Grants' Tomb", and not "Grant's Tomb". Even though a great many still spell it "Grant's". Hell, I have even seen some spell it "Grant's' Tomb" for some strange reason. As if they can not figure out where to put the apostrophe so use two of them.
But for some reason, we almost never say "entombed". In fact, I have heard the term "buried" used for both Lenin and Mao, and they also are entombed and not buried.
QEII is in a vault with her ancestors. I'm not sure whether it's above ground level or not but the media commonly referred to her as being buried or interred.
If someone is embalmed in a lead-lined coffin, presumably indefinitely, is that a good thing because it's a case of carbon capture and storage, or a bad thing because the person doesn't get recycled so is effectively single-use? ;-)
AJ
QEII is in a vault with her ancestors. I'm not sure whether it's above ground level
It's below ground. On a news program they were standing over King Henry VIII's and QEII's will be near it.
the person doesn't get recycled
I just saw California is allowing for composting of corpses now, so you can become fertilizer.
I just saw California is allowing for composting of corpses now, so you can become fertilizer.
Well, a few years ago Luke Perry was buried in Tennessee in a mushroom suit.
So when I die, my family can save money by just putting my body in the green bin?
When spoken aloud, it sounds like the possessive,
In my neck of the woods, "Grants'" would likely be pronounced "Grantses" so there wouldn't be any ambiguity.
AJ
Yes, but it had nothing to do with the name ending on an "S".
He had a situation going where Father and Son shared the same name, like "Ben Sr." and "Ben Jr.". But as the story progressed, he felt it was unnatural for people to actually call a person "Ben Sr." when having a conversation with them. So, everyone called both, father and son, just "Ben". It got extremely confusing very quickly.
He had a situation going where Father and Son shared the same name
That was real life in my family. My dad and brother were Charles Sr. and Junior - and the same with my grandfather and uncle. So, Dad was Chuck, and my brother was Chuckie. Grandpa was Everett, and my uncle was called 'Junior'.
ETA: When Grandpa passed away, Uncle Junior became Uncle Everett.
So, everyone called both, father and son, just "Ben"
That's odd. Typically, one has a nickname, or a middle name is used to differentiate them.
Typically, one has a nickname, or a middle name is used to differentiate them.
My understanding has always been that to be Jr (what Sarkasmus specified), the full name, not just first name had to be the same.
Now, by that rule, different nicknames could be used or one could be first name and one middle name, but for a genuine Jr/Sr situation using the middle name for both wouldn't solve anything.
but for a genuine Jr/Sr situation using the middle name for both wouldn't solve anything.
If they were Benjamin, Sr. and Benjamin, Jr., one could be called Ben and the child Benny. Or if they were Ben Jack, Sr. and Ben Jack, Jr., they could be called Ben and Jack. Or simply Ben and Junior.
I find it hard for them both to be called by the same name (Benjamin or Ben). That would be too confusing (as it is to the reader).
Yes, but it had nothing to do with the name ending on an "S".
A beta reader/proofreader once advised me to change a character name because the historic antagonist and his historic nemesis both had names starting with the same letter and they found it confusing. (The protagonist was modern day and having to fight the resurrected historic antagonist).
Perhaps it's 'author blindness' but I couldn't see the problem. The anthology my story was supposed to appear in got overcome by circumstances, so in the end it was moot.
On the other hand, I found the two Helens in GreyWolf's do-over very confusing at first.
AJ
two Helens
There is always Hel and Saint Helens. Particularly if one of the characters want to mount St. Helens.
Great discussion. As another American with a surname ending in S, I want to mention that using the ES suffix to pluralize a surname sounds extremely British to my ears. In fact, when I read a surname with that affectation, my inner narrator instantly switches to a David Attenborough-esque delivery.
And, sidenote, hearing the ES surname suffix also causes me to hear Gollum saying "hobbitses," and that is the best thing about the exercise.