Possessive Esses

Question

I reckon this is becoming a pondian thing, where it seems to me that Leftpondia have adopted the convention that any word ending in s must take the possessive form s-apostrophe, whereas Rightpondia still adhere to the (IMO correct) view that the only time you can use s-apostrophe is when the possessive is of a PLURAL form ending in s.
E.g.:
Leftpondia Rightpondia
Charles' Charles's
James' James's
Boy's Boy's (singular boy)
Boys' Boys' (plural boys)
I'm not convinced that Leftpondia actually pronounce the possessive of Charles' and James' (for example) the way they write it.
I reckon (in their minds ear, as it were) they actually say Charles's and James's (as I do, and as I write it). But it may be otherwise. They may be adjusting their pronunciation to match their misconceived convention.

Mike Connally Reading, England Had to take action 'against spam'. Remove those words to reply.

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]I reckon this is becoming a pondian thing, where it seems to me that Leftpondia have adopted the convention that any word ending in s must take the possessive form s-apostrophe,[/nq]
Not this LP'er! (does that make you an RP'er? no offense)
[nq:1]whereas Rightpondia still adhere to the (IMO correct) view that the only time you can use s-apostrophe is when the ... as I write it). But it may be otherwise. They may be adjusting their pronunciation to match their misconceived convention.[/nq]
You guessed right, that's what they do, increasingly. And stupid does it sound.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I reckon this is becoming a pondian thing, where it seems to me that Leftpondia have adopted the convention that ... that the only time you can use s-apostrophe is when the possessive is of a PLURAL form ending in s.[/nq]
I'm in Leftpondia, and always add 's to make the possessive. I believe I am not alone. Perhaps it would be better to say that it is an issue which is settled in Rightpondia, but still up in the air in Leftpondia.
What about Jesus and Moses? I have always understood those two to be exceptions (along with any other biblical names ending in "s").

Bill.

William R Ward (Email Removed) http://bill.wards.net Help save the San Jose Earthquakes - http://www.soccersiliconvalley.com/

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I reckon this is becoming a pondian thing, where it seems to me that Leftpondia have adopted the convention that ... as I write it). But it may be otherwise. They may be adjusting their pronunciation to match their misconceived convention.[/nq]
This phenomenon has been much discussed in this newsgroup and in alt.english.usage. For example, on September 18, 2004, I posted the following to both newsgroups:
(quote from Usenet post)
From the "Letters from readers" section of the Minneapolis *Star Tribune,* on page A20 of the Friday, September 17 edition.
(quote, the title in boldface (represented by bracketing asterisks) followed by the beginning of a reader's letter)
CBS' black eye
CBS's refusal to investigate and punish, if warranted
(end quote from Usenet post)
There are two possible pronunciations for that "CBS' black eye." Either "CBS'" is pronounced as three syllables or it's pronounced as four. There are posters in both newsgroups, I think, who have made it clear that they don't care for a superfluous sibilant (from their point of view) in such words as "CBS' black eye" and "Charles' book." As I have also pointed out in the past, here in the US, people doing closed captioning of TV shows and movies tend to prefer to use the "s"-apostrophe possessive form for a singular word whether the person being captioned pronounced the "superfluous sibilant" or not, so that someone could very well say "Charles's book" in a closed captioned TV show or movie and the captioning would represent it by "Charles' book."
As far as my own usage is concerned, I prefer the apostrophe-"s" possessive form of singular nouns, with the traditional exception of such names from ancient times as "Jesus" and "Aristophanes," as in "Jesus' teachings" and "Aristophanes' comedies," and certain fixed forms such as "for goodness' sake."

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

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]I reckon this is becoming a pondian thing, where it seems to me that Leftpondia have adopted the convention that ... as I write it). But it may be otherwise. They may be adjusting their pronunciation to match their misconceived convention.[/nq]
Here on the left side we use both or either. According to my old college handbook, copyright 1994, Charles's and Charles' can both refer to a single Charles owning something. It notes that "custom calls for (s') with Zeus, Moses, and Jesus." It is usually pronounced according to the speaker's/speakers' preference, respective to their position on or for singular possessives. It would bother me to find out that somebody was writing and saying or vice versa. I prefer to write and say Charles' for the singular sense because it looks more efficient and is easier to say. IMO is just bulky and awkward and contains excessive sibilance. or esp. would simply cause too much lisping in children in church and English class.

Mike

Usenet · Answer

In our last episode,
(Email Removed), the lovely and talented Mike Connally
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
[nq:1]I'm not convinced that Leftpondia actually pronounce the possessive of Charles' and James' (for example) the way they write it.[/nq]
I am uncertain that American usage is so one-sided as you suggest. I know many of us were taught that the singular noun always takes apostrophe and ess (with the exception of some Clasical and Biblical names). I am somewhat more certain that few people on either side of the issue think that the way the words are spoken has or ought to have anything to do with it. In contrast to the a/an issue, which has only a few disputed or irregular cases, spelling possessives by ear seems a fertile field for endless editorial disputes.
I have, for example, no trouble saying or writing "Charles's boyhood experiences." But "Dickens's novel David Copperfield " is more problematic. I don't believe I say "Dickens's," but I do believe any editor who finds both "Charles's" and "Dickens'" in the same essay is very likely to want something done about it.

Lars Eighner (Email Removed) http://www.io.com/~eighner/ There is creative reading as well as creative writing. Ralph Waldo Emerson

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]As far as my own usage is concerned, I prefer the apostrophe-"s" possessive form of singular nouns, with the traditional ... as "Jesus" and "Aristophanes," as in "Jesus' teachings" and "Aristophanes' comedies," and certain fixed forms such as "for goodness' sake."[/nq]
In my experience, "for goodness' sake" is usually pronounced "for goodness sakes". Yet the singular sake outGoogles the plural by almost five to one, so I conclude that people are more careful about their spelling than their pronunciation.

Ray Heindl
(remove the Xs to reply to: (Email Removed))

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]As far as my own usage is concerned, I prefer ... comedies," and certain fixed forms such as "for goodness' sake."[/nq]
[nq:1]In my experience, "for goodness' sake" is usually pronounced "for goodness sakes". Yet the singular sake outGoogles the plural by almost five to one, so I conclude that people are more careful about their spelling than their pronunciation.[/nq]
Interesting observation. I wonder whether the -s on 'sakes' in speech (where my experience echoes yours, Ray) is a displacement of the possessive clitic from 'goodness' to the end of the noun phrase. It's happened before, as in "the Attorney General's resignation". Even those who insist on the plural as "attorneys general" would hesitate to say "the Attorney's General resignation". Of course that one is understood as possessive, while the idiom with 'sake' doesn't appear to be possessive. But lots of times we use -'s without understanding possessive, like the way it gets added to store names.
Also note that "goodness sakes alive" gets 344 Google hits, while "goodness sake alive" (which sounds very odd to me) gets only 20 (most of which refer to a Pomeranian dog named "Janesa's (For) Goodness Sake's Alive"; some citations have 'for' and some don't, but all use an apostrophe-S). So 'sakes' in one form or another seems to be required preceding 'alive'.

By comparison, "heaven sakes" gets 14,300, of which 8400 (59%) are "heaven's sakes", while "heaven sake" gets 256,000, of which 227,000 (88%) are "heaven's sake". But that preponderance is reversed with 'alive': "heaven sake alive" gets only 4, of which 2 are "heaven's sake alive", while "heaven sakes alive" gets 33, of which only 2 are "heaven's sakes alive". Those are interesting numbers, and might be used to argue for displacement.

-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler U Michigan Linguistics Dept "'Meaning' is one of the words of which one may say that they have odd jobs in our language...What causes most trouble in philosophy is that we are tempted to describe the use of important 'odd-job' words as though they were words with regular functions." -Ludwig Wittgenstein

Possessive Esses

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions