Plurals with 's

Question

Hello,Is the " 's " necessary when forming the possesive of plurals noums or not?Should I write?: pingeons's foodor: pingeons' foodThank you.Carlos.

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]Hello, Is the " 's " necessary when forming the possesive of plurals noums or not? Should I write?: pingeons's food or: pingeons' food[/nq]
For a plural ending in -s, the general rule is to add an apostrophe but nothing else.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Is the " 's " necessary when forming the possesive of plurals noums or not? Should I write?: pingeons's food or: pingeons' food[/nq]
Food for pigeons is "pigeon food". Food for the pigeons is "the pigeons' food".
Adrian

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Is the " 's " necessary when forming the possesive of plurals noumsor not? Should I write?: pingeons's food or: pingeons' food[/nq]
[nq:1]Food for pigeons is "pigeon food". Food for the pigeons is "the pigeons' food".[/nq]
Not necessarily.
Food for one pigeon can be 'the pigeon's food'. Food for several pigeons can be 'pigeons' food, 'the pigeons' food', or pigeon food.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]or[/nq]
[nq:2]Food for pigeons is "pigeon food". Food for the pigeons is "the pigeons' food".[/nq]
[nq:1]Not necessarily. Food for one pigeon can be 'the pigeon's food'. Food for several pigeons can be 'pigeons' food, 'the pigeons' food', or pigeon food.[/nq]
I suppose the latter (food for several pigeons) could also be "pigeon's food" if we mean food for pigeons in general.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]Food for pigeons is "pigeon food". Food for the pigeons is "the pigeons' food".[/nq]
[nq:1]Not necessarily. Food for one pigeon can be 'the pigeon's food'. Food for several pigeonscan be 'pigeons' food, 'the pigeons' food', or pigeon food.[/nq]
Freddy, did you forget the topic of the question posed by Carlos? You did include it in your posting. It is in the first line of text preceded by the

Usenet · Answer

As usual, English has an exception here. Proper names, such as Yeats's (but not Moses'). Sigh.
AM

Usenet · Answer

Anathema Maranatha filted:
[nq:2]Freddy, did you forget the topic of the question posed ... is in the first line of text preceded by the[/nq]
[nq:1]As usual, English has an exception here. Proper names, such as Yeats's (but not Moses'). Sigh.[/nq]
Where exactly is that line drawn?
Carlos's - yes
Yeats's - yes
Moses' - no
Jesus' - no
Xerxes' - ?
And is my first example the reason Pat Durkin said "the question posed by Carlos" rather than "Carlos's question"?...r

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]can Freddy, did you forget the topic of the question ... It is in the first line of text preceded bythe[/nq]
[nq:1]As usual, English has an exception here. Proper names, such as Yeats's (but not Moses'). Sigh. AM[/nq]
That isn't an example of an exception to the rule in question, which involved plurals.
However, that brings up the interesting case of a plural word used as a singular name, such as Heathers and *Spaceballs,* which are movie titles. Ordinarily, I would say "Charles's book" and "Jones's address." pronouncing both letters in "s's," but I would say "*Heathers'* plot" and "Spaceballs'* screenwriter," pronouncing "s'" only, not adding an additional consonant.

I make that point about not adding an additional consonant because of the strange practice out there of spelling the possessive of some words ending in "s" with an apostrophe only but pronouncing an additional consonant. Seen especially in closed captioning, "Charles'" is written although the speaker uses two syllables (more or less "Charlzuz"). In such a case I would write it "Charles's," but not everyone does.

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Anathema Maranatha filted:[/nq]
[nq:2]As usual, English has an exception here. Proper names, such as Yeats's (but not Moses'). Sigh.[/nq]
[nq:1]Where exactly is that line drawn? Carlos's - yes Yeats's - yes Moses' - no Jesus' - no Xerxes' - ? And is my first example the reason Pat Durkin said "the question posed by Carlos" rather than "Carlos's question"?...r[/nq]
No, really, not so. I was all torn up about putting in "OP's question", or "Carlos Beltran's". And then I had to decide whether to put "3>s" or what I did put: "> > >". That last choice proved fatal, since the ">" of AM and your " >" plus my ">" have completely disguised that part of my response. Shoulda used "", I guess.
I would have put "s'" with all of those Proper Nouns. I learned it that way with "Jones' house", back in 6th grade.
My basic comment was made about Freddy's use of "pigeon's" singular noun.

(Not necessarily.
Food for one pigeon can be 'the pigeon's food'. Food for several pigeons can be 'pigeons' food, 'the pigeons' food', or pigeon food.)
The other answers he provides echo the solutions of the prior post. I think.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]noums pigeons' pigeons can did the[/nq]
[nq:2]As usual, English has an exception here. Proper names, such as Yeats's (but not Moses'). Sigh. AM[/nq]
[nq:1]That isn't an example of an exception to the rule in question, which involved plurals. However, that brings up the ... uses two syllables (more or less "Charlzuz"). In such a case I would write it "Charles's," but not everyone does.[/nq]
MLA decided that the possessive of any word ending in -s, including singulars, should not be written with 's, but with the apostrophe only. It used to be that 's was used most often, with some writers adding the s itself only when it was pronounced. But the MLA's weird idea is spreading, even being ordered by editors.
IMNSHO, the words should be written the way they are pronounced! James's, Jones's. For a long time, this is what style guides said to do. There were exceptions, of course ancient names, mostly (Achilles' heel), and phrases with a multiplicity of adjacent sibilants (conscience' sake).
Cece

Plurals with 's

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions