Home » Discussion Forum

Discussion Forum—A Way with Words, a fun radio show and podcast about language

Discussion Forum (Archived)

Please consider registering
Guest
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Min search length: 3 characters / Max search length: 84 characters
The forums are currently locked and only available for read only access
sp_TopicIcon
Jones' vs. Jones's
Raffee
Iran
238 Posts
(Offline)
1
2013/03/06 - 3:43am

Until a while ago, I would think that both forms were OK, and meant the same thing. But someone said that just one was right, think they meant Jones's.

Now, which is really true?

Guest
2
2013/03/06 - 5:59am

Jones' is not right, but it is very, very common.

Let me refer you to this very old discussion topic:
Last Names and Plurals

In it I say:

I've also seen the plural and possessive spelled incorrectly nearly as often as I've seen it spelled correctly. When the name in the singular already ends in an S, it is better than even odds that it will be wrong.
Jones
Pl. Joneses
Sing. Poss. Jones's
Plur. Poss. Joneses'

Guest
3
2013/03/06 - 7:55am

And (for the sake of someone who's obviously putting a lot of effort into mastering the language) we should also note that names ending in "Z" follow the same rules. My sister is now a "Schultz" and even her family gets it wrong on occasion.

What I have heard and read (I forget where) is that the pronunciation of the second syllable is "optional," in which case all three sound like the original "Jones." But that's a recent trend, and I doubt it's officially sanctioned. I always pronounce the second syllable.

 

Guest
4
2013/03/06 - 12:47pm

I also pronounce the second syllable. I don't find it clumsy at all, as some claim. (Jesus's. Moses's. Xerxes's.)

Here is a link to Strunk's Elements of Style where Strunk discusses the 's. Just so you know it isn't just my opinion.

Strunk, Rules of Usage, ELEMENTARY RULE 1 Since it is Strunk's Elementary Rule 1, reinforced by his citation of the United States Government Printing Office and of the Oxford University Press, it is a wonder why so many pundits are confident it isn't so.

Maybe I need an update.

Guest
5
2013/03/06 - 2:59pm

Glenn said: Maybe I need an update.

I think not. I trust what I read here more than I do most forums. That second syllable does get "clumsy" at times, but I would no more omit it when speaking than I would when writing.

Found an interesting thread on the topic here: http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1438256

Also learned in that thread that I often tend to do what they called elision (the intentional slurring of that second syllable ... had to look that up). The consensus seems to be that some English dialects, and many English-speaking pundits, do not pronounce the second syllable. So it seems to be a matter of style. Nonetheless, I'm quite confident we are pronouncing the words as they should be.

Guest
6
2013/03/07 - 9:08am

It may be style. But if somebody sasses or obsesses, declaring there are too many sibilant sounds too close together, don't fret. If he reassesses, he will see the light. Every speaker of English possesses the ability to string lots of sibilant sounds together.

So, if this kind of objection prepossesses you, free your mind. Several common words have three sibilant sounds in close proximity, and are quite similar to
Jesus's (Jesus's recesses were short and few.)
Moses's (Moses's processes were veiled.)
Xerxes's (Xerxes's lieutenant reseizes control of his region.)

Maybe you can think of a few. Let me get you started:
abscesses
princesses
excesses

Guest
7
2013/03/07 - 11:58am

Oh, that's too easy ...

1. absences

2. SS's   (not a snake sound, rather, property of the Schutzstaffel)

3. fizzes

So there's your few.

Guest
8
2013/03/07 - 12:10pm

All of those are successes of varying sizes. More?

Guest
9
2013/03/07 - 1:14pm

Many many more ... but why waste bandwidth?   🙂

I was trying to show that different sibilants, as well as acronyms, can force elision. I liked your "Xerxes's" example, and tried to expand on it. Have we missed any sibilants? I suspect S, X, and Z pretty much exhaust the possibilities. The challenge is now yours to find any (if any) we've missed. And a "soft C" doesn't really count, because it's still the S sound, but here's one anyway: services'   (that which belongs to the armed forces).

 

EmmettRedd
859 Posts
(Offline)
10
2013/03/07 - 1:32pm

Since there are three species, one could grow multiple sassafrasses. One could feed the leaves to their asses.

I own controlling interest in three businesses.

Many schools have several buses to transport their students. (BTW, my faded memory of Deutsche translates students into studentenen.) A computer can have multiple busses.

Guest
11
2013/03/07 - 2:03pm

These are among my favorite things, just above girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes.

EmmettRedd
859 Posts
(Offline)
12
2013/03/07 - 3:25pm

Glenn said

These are among my favorite things, just above girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes.

If they were in an international beauty pagent, their sasheses' texts would be their countries' names. (I hope I got that right :-).

Guest
13
2013/03/07 - 6:15pm

If I didn't know you were being facetious, I might consider your comment vexatious.

AnMa
67 Posts
(Offline)
14
2013/05/10 - 6:52am

I prefer Jones's, but as a regular listener to public radio, it seems that the trend is toward Jones' in speech (meaning, there's no extra -iz at the end).

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles
Show Stats
Administrators:
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Moderators:
Grant Barrett
Top Posters:
Newest Members:
Mike Brock
Forum Stats:
Groups: 1
Forums: 1
Topics: 3647
Posts: 18912

 

Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 618
Members: 1266
Moderators: 1
Admins: 2
Most Users Ever Online: 1147
Currently Online:
Guest(s) 39
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)