When writing, I just came across something I didn't know how to do. It's easy enough to work around but I'd be interested to know the opinions of punctuationists.
Take a church dedicated to St Andrew, ie St Andrew's.
Give the church its own graveyard.
I wanted to write that a body was buried in St Andrew's' graveyard, but that looks horrible and wrong and unpronounceable. What rules are there for double possessives?
AJ
When I run into conundrums such as this one, I rephrase. So "The body was buried in the graveyard at St. Andrew's."
I know it doesn't answer the specific question, but sometimes, even the right answer 'feels' wrong.
but sometimes, even the right answer 'feels' wrong.
That's what I felt about my 'livestock' issue :(
Thanks,
AJ
Take a church dedicated to St Andrew, ie St Andrew's.
The original church is called St Andrews cathedral.
The golf course is called St Andrews Links.
No apostrophe.
So it would be: Saint Andrews's graveyard (although some would write it as Saint Andrews').
ETA: Grammar Girl's take on "How to Make Names With Apostrophes Possessive" http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/how-make-names-apostrophes-possessive
Have you ever wondered how to make a possessive name such as McDonald's, Carl's, or St. Anthony's possessive?
The short answer is don't! Rewrite the sentence to avoid such a construction because technically, you're supposed to add another apostrophe or apostrophe and s on the end—which looks ridiculous.
- McDonald's's earnings were super-sized last quarter. (technically correct)
- McDonald's' earnings were super-sized last quarter. (technically correct)
- McDonald's reported super-sized earnings last quarter. (better)
The church is called St Andrews.
My local church styles itself as St Andrews. Technically I think that's a mistake but one which is becoming the norm in the UK. Although the bookselling chain has recently corrected its signage to "Waterstone's".
- McDonald's's earnings were super-sized last quarter. (technically correct)
- McDonald's' earnings were super-sized last quarter. (technically correct)
I prefer the former, if only because the apostrophe then represents only one elided character.
I'm in complete awe of your ability to find things on the Grammar Girl site. I'm not worthy...
Thanks,
AJ
EDIT TO ADD: THIS POST IS WRONG
I did not realise McDonald's spelt its name with an apostrophe. It's decades since I've been inside one.
- McDonald's's earnings were super-sized last quarter. (technically correct)
- McDonald's' earnings were super-sized last quarter. (technically correct)
I prefer the former, if only because the apostrophe then represents only one elided character.
TRIPLE PUKE and DOUBLE PUKE - BOTH ARE COMPLETE GARBAGE.
You CAN NEVER alter the spelling of a proper noun by inserting an apostrophe within it. The entire upper case letters are used to identify proper nouns is absolve you of any responsibility for the ironic meanings and/or grammar or punctuation errors in a name given to something by other(s).
EDIT TO ADD:
I agree with the assessment by Grammar Girl. When a proper noun already contains a possessive apostrophe, it may be technically correct to add a second apostrophe but the appearance is so awful it better leave the name unchanged. Readers are capable of figuring out from the context that you really mean the possessive form of that name.
I'm in complete awe of your ability to find things on the Grammar Girl site.
I use Google and put "grammar girl" in front of my question (e.g., "grammar girl lie vs lay"). If I wanted the Chicago Manual of Style's opinion, I'd put "chicago manual of style" in front of my question.
My lengthy post above appears to contain at least one error.
Both CMOS and New Hart's Rules appear to suggest everything I said applies to words ending in 's' also applies to words ending in 'z' and 'x'.
As you use BrE, you may be more interested in what New Hart's Rules than either CMOS or Grammar Girl. I can send you a copy if you don't have one.
That discusses possessives at length in Section 4.2.1. It's impractical to post a copy here because the end of lines and fonts don't transfer easily from a PDF to the SOL editor.
New Hart's Rules
Their solution to double possessives is to us 'of' ie the graveyard of St Andrew's.
I am subwhelmed :(
AJ
I am subwhelmed :(
Is that when you are underwhelmed in a submarine?
Edit: Sorry, I guess, that would be "submarwhelmed".
Their solution to double possessives is to us 'of' ie the graveyard of St Andrew's.
Okay. I didn't read it all the way through.
In that case I definitely go with Grammar Girl's advice: if the proper noun already includes a possessive then don't add anything more when you need to use it as a possessive.
In the many genealogical records I've gone through I've seen churches named after St Andrew done in two ways on official documents:
1. Saint Andrew's Church
2. The Church of Saint Andrew
Naturally, both get shortened in speech to Saint Andrew's but the official name has always been one of the two above. Thus the possessive for the graveyard of them would be:
1. Saint Andrew's Church's graveyard
2. The Church of Saint Andrew's graveyard.
BTW when a name ends in a s the grammar rule for the possessive form is to just put an apostrophe after the s so there is no double s. Thus, when you write of the car belonging to mR Smithers, you write Mr Smithers' car.
BTW when a name ends in a s the grammar rule for the possessive form is to just put an apostrophe after the s so there is no double s.
Except when it's singular. So it is:
My boss's car.
Smithers is plural so it would be Smithers' car.
Smithers is plural so it would be Smithers' car.
Actual, Smithers is singular, it's an old English surname that ends in an s, like Jones does.
Actual, Smithers is singular, it's an old English surname that ends in an s, like Jones does.
I thought last names ending in an "s" (like Jones) is considered plural. So it would be "the Jones' cat."
I thought last names ending in an "s" (like Jones) is considered plural. So it would be "the Jones' cat."
That was always my understanding too. Ross's use is different, as it's conditional (based on the sound of the name, rather than general principal). It's not that Jones is plural, rather names ending in s are treated the same the same as plural words, regardless (I can never imagine more than ONE Ross!).
I can never imagine more than ONE Ross!
I'd HATE him!
Those who knew their grammar and punctuation would certainly start posting comments like, "The Rosses' squabbling is out of control!"
Those who knew their grammar and punctuation would certainly start posting comments like, "The Rosses' squabbling is out of control!"
Then we'd have The War of the Rosses!
Then we'd have The War of the Rosses!
LOL ... with battles between the caveatiers and the hardheads.
Then we'd have The War of the Rosses!
Sounds like the little-known 'Doppelganger' episode of "Friends".
names ending in s are treated the same the same as plural words, regardless (I can never imagine more than ONE Ross!)
It would be Ross's.
Switch,
The rule I was taught at school was You never add and extra 's' to the end of a word or name that already ends with an 's.' Thus a name like Jones, Smithers, or Ramses gets the apostrophe in the possessive without an extra 's.' If it's a common noun that ends with an 's' you can pluralise it by adding 'es' - but I can't remember how you do the possessive of such a pluralised noun (and I'm not sure you'd want to).
edit to add: I forgot to mention the rules on a word ending in 's' also apply to a word sounding like it ends with an 's' such as a word ending in 'z.'
The rule I was taught at school was You never add and extra 's' to the end of a word or name that already ends with an 's.' Thus a name like Jones, Smithers, or Ramses gets the apostrophe in the possessive without an extra 's.' If it's a common noun that ends with an 's' you can pluralise it by adding 'es' - but I can't remember how you do the possessive of such a pluralised noun (and I'm not sure you'd want to).
edit to add: I forgot to mention the rules on a word ending in 's' also apply to a word sounding like it ends with an 's' such as a word ending in 'z.'
Certainly that is ONE of the styles used. I think it is most common, for BrE at least. As far as I know, the only change (my bold font) needed to your statement of that style is:
ends with an 's' such as a word ending in 'x' or 'z.'
The rule I was taught at school was You never add and extra 's' to the end of a word or name that already ends with an 's.
So was I. Then I read for singular words ending in s (like boss) you have a 's at the end. I wonder if it was in CMoS.
Grammar Girl says:
So our first tough issue—how to make words that end with s possessive—doesn't actually have an answer; it's a style issue and you can do it either way.
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/apostrophe-catastrophe-part-two
Funny piece from that article:
a funny article describing U.S. Supreme Court squabbles over making the word Kansas possessive. Words such as Kansas that end with an s can be stumpers when it comes to apostrophes.
Is it Kansas's statute with an apostrophe s or Kansas' statute with just an apostrophe at the end? Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion and prefers to leave off the extra s, referring to Kansas' statute with just an apostrophe at the end, whereas Justice David Souter wrote the dissenting opinion and prefers the double s of Kansas's statute with an apostrophe before the final s.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion and prefers to leave off the extra s, referring to Kansas' statute with just an apostrophe at the end, whereas Justice David Souter wrote the dissenting opinion and prefers the double s of Kansas's statute with an apostrophe before the final s.
Screw 'em both: The Kansas statute. :-)
I'm sticking to 'if it sounds/feels weird', rephrase.
That said, I simply (in the PMoS), add apostrophe to names ending in 's'. Hence: Steve Adams' car.
I'm sticking to 'if it sounds/feels weird', rephrase.
That said, I simply (in the PMoS), add apostrophe to names ending in 's'. Hence: Steve Adams' car.
SURE!
But what we're discussing here is more what would be required to punctuate something in a way readers will understand correctly.
You need to know that to get to the point of noticing something sounds or feels weird. THEN, it's best to ...
I'd be interested to know the opinions of punctuationists.
You wish is my command ...
Firstly, it's extremely rare for proper nouns for anything religious to retain the apostrophe for the possessive form they originally were.
So you need to use the possessive form of "St Andrews", not of "St Andrew's".
Two styles exist for the possessive forms of singular or uncountable words ending wit 's'.
(A) One style, I guess the most commonly used style, is never add an additional 's' to form the possessive of any word ending in 's'. [But I'm not 100% certain I understand what that style specifies.]
(B) The other styles requires to consider what happens if you remove the 's' (sometimes 'es') from the word you need to add your apostrophe to creating its possessive form.
Note you look at that as a distinct word without regard to its meaning in a noun phrases, for example, what happens when you remove the 's' from the word 'states' used in the noun phrases 'United States'?
If removing the 's' produces the singular form of what is a plural word, then add another 's' after the apostrophe.
If removing the 's' does produce the singular form of the word you want, then add just the apostrophe.
For example:
* belonging to United States ... removing 's' from 'states' changes a valid plural word to its singular form, so just add the apostrophe, giving the "United States' ".
* belong to me ... removing one 's' from 'Ross' makes me sound like a girl, add an apostrophe and an 's', giving "Ross's"
Both styles have some advantages.
Style A allows you to be consistent without having to think too hard.
I recently decided to change from a lifelong preference for style A to style B. I had what seemed like a valid reason at that time. Trust me, I want to be VERY SPECIFIC when writing about anything that belongs to me. :-)
I cannot even think of an example now, the situation where is happens is very rare, but I concluded style B would sometimes allow a writer to distinguish between when they wanted to show the singular sense of an uncountable word ending in 's' from the plural sense.
I have not been satisfied with what sometimes happens when using my newly adopted style, and have sometimes rejected it.
Aesthetically I dislike both rules when it comes to people's names. At least where I come from, people will add an extra 's' when saying the possessive form of a name ending with an 's' sound, but not for names ending with a 'z' sound. For example, I have certainly heard people say, "Ross's monstrous ego," but those same people would say, "Prince Charles' monstrous ears (or wife)."
So my new personal practice for personal names ending in the letter 's' is to add an extra 's' when the name ends in an 's' sound, but not when it ends in an 'z' sound. Otherwise I add an extra 's' when it's required for the style B listed above.
To AJ, there are a variety of styles of may choose from, as always I suggest just be consistent. One commonly style would require an extra 's' after the apostrophe, but as that is not how people would pronounce it, I suggest you adopt a style that allows you to use "St Andrews' graveyard".
Thus endeth today's sermon from Ross's Gospels.
Possessive of biblical names like Moses and Jesus used to be written as Moses' and Jesus'. I think it had more to do with the "es" and "us" sound than biblical. Hercules also followed that rule, yet it's not biblical.
But times they are a changing. This is from the Grammarphobia site:
The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.), which is widely used in the publishing industry, now recommends that biblical and classical names form the possessive with both an apostrophe and "s," even if they already end in "s," "x," or "z."
I can't site any references (unlike Switch and his Grammar Girl Reference), but generally in these circumstances, the original name doesn't carry the possessive, while the organization does (i.e. St. Andrew) isn't treated as an individual, but as a place name). Thus it would be "Let's build St Andrews' new graveyard."
However, Penquintopia's suggestion is always the best fallback.
As in "the twenty-three sex's obsessions"?
I know of two, and some may prefer others us to think of more rather than variations within, but what are the other twenty-one sexes?
I know of two, and some may prefer others us to think of more rather than variations within, but what are the other twenty-one sexes?
The current PC crowd has been trying to catalogue the various permutations of sexual self-definitions (ex: straight, gay, lesbian, bi, gender fluid, transgender, transgender straight, transgender lesbian, transgender gay, transgender bi, etc.)
Put together, you end up with quite a few, though I may be off a little on the actual figure.
Put together, you end up with quite a few, though I may be off a little on the actual figure.
I do recall something here about some agency, of a Labour-controlled council in Britain perhaps, that designed a form listing about that many choices.
I really don't care what anybody does ... but can they just spare the details?
I've been fully supportive of the PC push it shouldn't make a skerrick of difference to anyone about how others are treated because of their preferences.
But why does it seem so important to them that others recognise what their particular preference is? Isn't 'Absolutely Irrelevant' recognition enough of their right to have whatever their preference may be?
I totally agree with a change the Australian Federal Government mandated for all its agencies. They no longer allow only two options on any government forms. There must always be a third "Not Stated" option.
If pushed beyond a point I consider reasonable I'm likely to respond with cynicism and derogatory terms. I do not care what 'Q' stands for, and if any suggest I should know I'm likely to respond with expressions like the Alphabet Soup Brigade or the worst collection of letters you could pick up at the start of a game of Scrabble.
A good friend of mine in Australia, a very down-to-earth guy, has a joke he's fond of telling. "I don't care what they do as long as they donlt try to make it mandatory."
I really don't care what anybody does ... but can they just spare the details?
I've been fully supportive of the PC push it shouldn't make a skerrick of difference to anyone about how others are treated because of their preferences.
It isn't so much the "PC crowd", though they're the ones making the changes. But the requests are coming from those who've never had a voice before, and now want a name with which they can refer to themselves when explaining what they face. It's hard to communicate if you're not allowed a name/pronoun. Identity, as they say, is politics.
You don't have to watch them doing anything, gays and lesbians are fairly good about not making out in public (straight porn movies about lesbians notwithstanding), but they demand the option to demand their rights, just as everyone else has. You can't say "Sorry, we've had all the equal rights I can stand. We're pulling up the drawbridge and no one else is allowed equal rights."
Then again, Australia is still a ways behind the US in 'sexual identity rights'. You still haven't given the Aborigini (Aborigini or Aboriginie?) their full treaty rights, if I'm not mistaken. The US is doing fair with sexual politics, but terribly with racial politics. And now, we've effectively erased the little advances we've made over the last 50+ years.
You don't have to watch them doing anything, gays and lesbians are fairly good about not making out in public (straight porn movies about lesbians notwithstanding), but they demand the option to demand their rights, just as everyone else has.
Tell that to the male gay activists that have deliberately disrupted Catholic church services dressed as caricatures of nuns.
Tell that to the male gay activists that have deliberately disrupted Catholic church services dressed as caricatures of nuns.
That's probably ACT UP, which is a political organization. I was talking about actually making out in public, not staged demonstrations to protest the church's anti-gay stance while they've been hiding child sex abuse (often with young boys) for years. As such, I consider them fair game. You target those who most directly threaten you, and the church determines how much of Africa and Latin America treat gays, as well as helping promote anti-gay legislation in the States.
That's probably ACT UP, which is a political organization.
They are what most people see as the gay right movement. They win no friends and do their cause no favors with such tactics.
You still haven't given the Aborigini (Aborigini or Aboriginie?) their full treaty rights, if I'm not mistaken.
A few problems with what you say here, CW.
1. There is no actual treaty for all the Aboriginals as a group, and never has been.
2. They have all the same rights as anyone else, and have so for over 50 years.
3. Almost all the problems you see and hear about are by mixed race people who are less than 50% Aboriginal, but claim to be Aboriginal to get access to the extra funds and special services available to Aboriginals.
4. Technically, Australia was taken by right of conquest in battle, much the same way as earlier waves of what we now call Aboriginals took the land off those before them, and they've been taking the land off each other for tens of thousands of years.
You can't say "Sorry, we've had all the equal rights I can stand.
I have vowed to avoid arguments here about things not directly to writing. I'm sure all here can see that as a good thing.
So my point when you mentioned twenty plus groups was probably they should on equal rights rather than labels. I've held left views on most subjects all my adult life but even I have reached a point where I feel the urge to push back.
I have strongly supported most demands in the past from the LBGT community, but I have resistance to anyone wanting me to remember more than that. When that happens I become likely to use expressions like Alphabet Soup Brigade instead, and intentionally become somewhat offensive.
I suggest these groups should consider being more selective about what they ask for when a natural supporter begings using an offensive term to refer to them.
* * *
Your comments about the treatment of Aboriginals in Australia are ill-informed.
Yes, the history includes shameful episodes, up there, but nowhere near things in Southern Africa and some in America.
The driving cause of many problems was often misplaced paternalism, rather than violent subjugation.
Only 8 out of 44 attempts to change Australia's Constitution by referendum has have been passed. One of those 50 years ago, belatedly, granted aboriginals full rights as citizens.
Not long after the High Court ruled that groups held ownership rights over land formerly considered "Crown land", on the grounds of traditional and continuous possession. A range of laws have been passed by passed by Parliaments, with bipartisan support, to implement that ruling.
It is true that measures of life expectancy and health, education, imprisonment rates,and unemployment remain at levels that would be considered shameful in most Third World countries. There are reasons for that, mostly for problems that are self-perpetuating and effectively close to intractable. Those reasons DO NOT include long-standing, generous allocations of funds and other efforts by governments. There is widespread support by the community for those efforts, with objections raised being almost entirely limited to instances where spending is viewed as being misdirected.
* * *
You will upset most Australians if you suggest anything that the real and severe problems which remain have resulted from a lack of effort and spending by a society that is generally among the most compassionate in the world towards the least fortunate of its citizens.
I gave you Grammar Girl's opinion, here's CMoS's:
Q. When indicating possession of a word that ends in s, is it correct to repeat the s after using an apostrophe? For example, which is correct: "Dickens' novel" or "Dickens's novel"?
A. Either is correct, though we prefer the latter. Please consult 7.15–18 for a full discussion of the rules for forming the possessive of proper nouns. For a discussion of the alternative practice of simply adding an apostrophe to form the possessive of proper nouns ending in s, see paragraph 7.21.
So both say either is correct.
So both say either is correct.
Which suggests you can simply write these the way they would be pronounced. :-)
The only caution is to check whether proper noun originally including a possessive 's' are still spelt "correctly" with an apostrophe. Many are not!
The only caution is to check whether proper noun originally including a possessive 's' are still spelt "correctly" with an apostrophe.
I wasn't talking about McDonald's's. I was talking about s' vs s's.
I agree wholeheartedly with Grammar Girl. I would change the sentence around to avoid writing McDonald's's or McDonald's'.
I agree wholeheartedly with Grammar Girl. I would change the sentence around to avoid writing McDonald's's or McDonald's'.
I may change some sentence but I'm totally comfortable with any of these sentences:
A McDonald's burger tastes like shit to me.
I think McDonald's level of service is really shitty.
I think the level of service at McDonald's is really shitty.
I would not alter a proper noun that was already a possessive to show my meaning was using the possessive of the proper noun.
Grammar Girl stated she that was "better" than using two apostrophes. I agree with her that using two apostrophes just looks too weird.
but isn't the actual name of the Corporation McDonalds?
I went to the McDonald's home page. I had to click on "history" to find the answer, but the sign said "McDonald's" and in the text about the history they refer it as "McDonald's" with the apostrophe.
From their company profile on their corporate site:
McDonald's is the world's leading global food service retailer with over 36,000 locations in over 100 countries. More than 80% of McDonald's restaurants worldwide are owned and operated by independent local business men and women.
I had to click on "history" to find the answer, but the sign said "McDonald's" and in the text about the history they refer it as "McDonald's" with the apostrophe.
Yep, the original McDonald's restaurant (complete with a pair of yellow arches built into the building, was originally built owned and operated by a Scottish immigrant to the US by the name of McDonald. McDonald eventually sold out to the founders of the current McDonald's corporation.
McDonald got paid what at the time was a ridiculously high price for a single restaurant, but the buyers had the vision to turn it into a national franchise operation.
McDonald got paid what at the time was a ridiculously high price for a single restaurant, but the buyers had the vision to turn it into a national franchise operation.
Not according to the movie "The Founder."
Ray Kroc was impressed with the original McDonald's and got into an agreement with the owners to franchise it. The contract sucked and he wasn't making money, had to take a mortgage out to fund it and almost lost his house. The McDonald brothers were also hard to work with, not allowing him to make improvements (like not having milk in the milkshakes).
It wasn't until Kroc bumped into a stranger at a bank who told him he was in the wrong business that things turned around. The man told him he was in the real estate business. That was when Kroc made his fortune. He owned the land the restaurants were built on and made money off the rent. And he didn't have to share that income with the McDonald brothers.
At the end, the movie made it look like Kroc screwed the McDonald brothers. When he bought out their restaurant, part of the deal was they would receive a percentage of the entire earnings. But that was a verbal agreement that was never honored (so from that perspective he did screw them). That income would be worth $100 million a year today.
Not according to the movie "The Founder."
And you believe everything you see in Hollywood movies? Hollywood has even less familiarity with the concept of truth then the politicians in Washington DC.
