0
Usenet Posted 20 years ago
Usage
A curious finding about the plural form of some names
While researching the genitive as used in given and family names for a post to fr.lettres.langue.anglaise , I came across a curious situation involving the plural form of family names.
A Google search for "the Jenkins were" and "the Jenkinses were" shows that both are used, with a preference for "Jenkins." Of the hits made by Google, I found only one example of "the Jenkins' were" and one of "the Jenkins's were."
A Google search for "the Thomas were" and "the Thomases were" showed for the first many examples of two nonstandard forms, "the Thomas' were" and "the Thomas's were."
I came up with a hypothesis to explain these last curious forms, and want to put it forward, to see if you agree, but also to see if I'm missing some other, better explanation.I figure that most people say (' T A m @ s @ z) for the plural of the family name "Thomas." To explain "the Thomas's were," I'd say the greengrocer's apostrophe is being used (and it's doing double-duty for the apostrophe marking the genitive). But in the case of "the Thomas' were," I think we're seeing the influence of the relatively modern preference to take names ending in "s" and put an apostrophe after them to show the genitive without another "s" being considered necessary, even though such an "s" is often pronounced.
Thus, for those people who say "(' T A m @ s @ z b U k)" for "Thomas's book" (referring to an individual names "Thomas"), "Thomas' book" is a widely accepted form, and "the Thomas' were" (speaking now of a family) is an adaptation of that.
The reason that no such nonstandard forms are used with "Jenkins" - or are very rarely used - is that most people say (' d Z E N k @ n z) (or (' d Z E N k I n z)) for the plural form of the name.
What do you think? Am I missing something here?
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
A Google search for "the Jenkins were" and "the Jenkinses were" shows that both are used, with a preference for "Jenkins." Of the hits made by Google, I found only one example of "the Jenkins' were" and one of "the Jenkins's were."
A Google search for "the Thomas were" and "the Thomases were" showed for the first many examples of two nonstandard forms, "the Thomas' were" and "the Thomas's were."
I came up with a hypothesis to explain these last curious forms, and want to put it forward, to see if you agree, but also to see if I'm missing some other, better explanation.I figure that most people say (' T A m @ s @ z) for the plural of the family name "Thomas." To explain "the Thomas's were," I'd say the greengrocer's apostrophe is being used (and it's doing double-duty for the apostrophe marking the genitive). But in the case of "the Thomas' were," I think we're seeing the influence of the relatively modern preference to take names ending in "s" and put an apostrophe after them to show the genitive without another "s" being considered necessary, even though such an "s" is often pronounced.
Thus, for those people who say "(' T A m @ s @ z b U k)" for "Thomas's book" (referring to an individual names "Thomas"), "Thomas' book" is a widely accepted form, and "the Thomas' were" (speaking now of a family) is an adaptation of that.
The reason that no such nonstandard forms are used with "Jenkins" - or are very rarely used - is that most people say (' d Z E N k @ n z) (or (' d Z E N k I n z)) for the plural form of the name.
What do you think? Am I missing something here?
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Top answer
anglaise , I came across ... k I n z)) for the plural form of the name. What do you think?
- anglaise , I came across ...
- k I n z)) for the plural form of the name.
- What do you think?
- [/nq] Do you mean that it's because "Jenkins" in the singular already ends with a plural-sounding (z), while "Thomas" doesn't?
- Or am I missing a point?
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
84 Answers
0
[nq:1]While researching the genitive as used in given and family names for a post to fr.lettres.langue.anglaise , I came across ... k I n z)) for the plural form of the name. What do you think? Am I missing something here?[/nq]
Do you mean that it's because "Jenkins" in the singular already ends with a plural-sounding (z), while "Thomas" doesn't? Or am I missing a point?
(How this connects
Do you mean that it's because "Jenkins" in the singular already ends with a plural-sounding (z), while "Thomas" doesn't? Or am I missing a point?
(How this connects
00
[nq:2]While researching the genitive as used in given and family ... name. What do you think? Am I missing something here?[/nq]
[nq:1]Do you mean that it's because "Jenkins" in the singular already ends with a plural-sounding (z), while "Thomas" doesn't? Or am I missing a point? (How this connects with the now widespread American devoicing of plural "s", I don't know.)[/nq]
I didn't have t
[nq:1]Do you mean that it's because "Jenkins" in the singular already ends with a plural-sounding (z), while "Thomas" doesn't? Or am I missing a point? (How this connects with the now widespread American devoicing of plural "s", I don't know.)[/nq]
I didn't have t
00
[nq:1]I figure that most people say (' T A m @ s @ z) for the plural of the family ... k I n z)) for the plural form of the name. What do you think? Am I missing something here?[/nq]
I'd certainly use the terminal "z" in all cases to refer colloquially to all the Jenkins family members as outlined.
If formal register were required, I'd just say "the family" at the necessary point. If there
I'd certainly use the terminal "z" in all cases to refer colloquially to all the Jenkins family members as outlined.
If formal register were required, I'd just say "the family" at the necessary point. If there
00
[nq:2]Do you mean that it's because "Jenkins" in the singular ... now widespread American devoicing of plural "s", I don't know.)[/nq]
[nq:1]I didn't have that specifically in mind, but it's a good point. Googling "the Lewis were" turns up a lot ... "Davies" is pronounced with a terminal (z)") turns up only three nonstandard uses of the apostrophe among the 38 hits.[/nq]
And you'll find si
[nq:1]I didn't have that specifically in mind, but it's a good point. Googling "the Lewis were" turns up a lot ... "Davies" is pronounced with a terminal (z)") turns up only three nonstandard uses of the apostrophe among the 38 hits.[/nq]
And you'll find si
00
[nq:1][/nq]
[nq:2]I figure that most people say (' T A m ... name. What do you think? Am I missing something here?[/nq]
[nq:1]I'd certainly use the terminal "z" in all cases to refer colloquially to all the Jenkins family members as outlined. ... point. If there were more than one I might say: "The Jenkins, Davies, Rodriguez and Fritz familes were all there".[/nq]
I'd include "Fritz" w
[nq:2]I figure that most people say (' T A m ... name. What do you think? Am I missing something here?[/nq]
[nq:1]I'd certainly use the terminal "z" in all cases to refer colloquially to all the Jenkins family members as outlined. ... point. If there were more than one I might say: "The Jenkins, Davies, Rodriguez and Fritz familes were all there".[/nq]
I'd include "Fritz" w
00
[nq:1]While researching the genitive as used in given and family names for a post to fr.lettres.langue.anglaise , I came across a curious situation involving the plural form of family names.[/nq]
[nq:1]The reason that no such nonstandard forms are used with "Jenkins" - or are very rarely used - is that ... k I n z)) for the plural form of the name. What do you think? Am I missing something her
[nq:1]The reason that no such nonstandard forms are used with "Jenkins" - or are very rarely used - is that ... k I n z)) for the plural form of the name. What do you think? Am I missing something her
00
[nq:1]A Google search for "the Jenkins were" and "the Jenkinses were" shows that both are used, with a preference for "Jenkins."[/nq]
There are people called "Jenkin", of course, but probably not enough to invalidate the statistics.
[nq:1]I figure that most people say (' T A m @ s @ z) for the plural of the family name "Thomas."[/nq]
Really? Has the "Anthony" effect extended to "Thomas
There are people called "Jenkin", of course, but probably not enough to invalidate the statistics.
[nq:1]I figure that most people say (' T A m @ s @ z) for the plural of the family name "Thomas."[/nq]
Really? Has the "Anthony" effect extended to "Thomas
00
When I Googled "The Yateses were" Google first asked me if, in fact, I meant "The Yates's were". Outlook Express suggested the same. I thought that was never correct (or is it?).
Richard Yates, of the Philadelphia Yateses, who grew up in the Yates' house
Richard Yates, of the Philadelphia Yateses, who grew up in the Yates' house
00
[nq:1]When I Googled "The Yateses were" Google first asked me if, in fact, I meant "The Yates's were". Outlook Express suggested the same. I thought that was never correct (or is it?). Richard Yates, of the Philadelphia Yateses, who grew up in the Yates' house[/nq]
Yours is the way I would write that sentence/those names.
Yours is the way I would write that sentence/those names.
00
[nq:1]While researching the genitive as used in given and family names for a post to fr.lettres.langue.anglaise , I came across ... the hits made by Google, I found only one example of "the Jenkins' were" and one of "the Jenkins's were."[/nq]
I have to inject a note of caution here. Another of my interests is genealogy, and I receive issues of many mailing lists involving various areas of inte
I have to inject a note of caution here. Another of my interests is genealogy, and I receive issues of many mailing lists involving various areas of inte
0
Related Questions