Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
Mosses'
This is a very thorny topic, since people with such names employ various practices, and often feel very strongly about what they do, claiming a kind of personal ownership.
But this problem is not unique to proper names. Consider:
Both fairy godmothers granted all of the princesses' wishes.
They polished all stemware, paying special attention to the wineglasses' rims.
The computer kept a log of millions of accesses, along with the accesses' time and duration.
Ichthyologists know that basses' mouths vary greatly in size.
Also:
class (sg.) / classes (pl.) / classes' (pl. poss.)
dress (sg.) / dresses (pl.) / dresses' (pl. poss.)
kiss (sg.)/ kisses (pl.) / kisses' (pl. poss.)
cross / crosses / crosses'
puss / pusses / pusses'
abyss / abysses / abysses'
When the s is for the plural , you create the possessive by adding only an apostrophe: the Mosses' gift.
(What if the s is just part of the proper name? Then the possessive is formed the usual way : Moss's gift.)
More stuffs:
https://www.waywordradio.org/discussion/topics/jones-vs-joness/
https://www.waywordradio.org/discussion/topics/last-names-ans-plurals/
Glenn, I checked your Oxford Dictionary link and found this statement:
With personal names that end in -s: add an apostrophe plus s when you would naturally pronounce an extra s if you said the word out loud:
He joined Charles’s army in 1642.
Dickens's novels provide a wonderful insight into Victorian England.
Thomas's brother was injured in the accident.
Note that there are some exceptions to this rule, especially in names of places or organizations, for example:
St Thomas’ Hospital
If you aren’t sure about how to spell a name, look it up in an official place such as the organization’s website.
With personal names that end in -s but are not spoken with an extra s: just add an apostrophe after the -s:
The court dismissed Bridges' appeal.
I understand that the "s" in "Thomas" is pronounced as an "s" but the "s" in "Bridges" is pronounced as a "z", hence the distinction? But to my ear, the "s" in "Dickens" and "Charles" is also pronounced as a "z". Please clarify, thanks.
And what happens when the name ends with a "z" that's pronounced as an "s"? For example "Schultz".
Also an observation ... I find it amusing that the OD recommends "checking an official place such as a website" since I often see typos and misspellings on websites, not to mention newspapers, billboards, and even TV ads. You'd think everyone would be using spell-check these days.
Heimhenge said
Also an observation ... I find it amusing that the OD recommends "checking an official place such as a website" since I often see typos and misspellings on websites, not to mention newspapers, billboards, and even TV ads. You'd think everyone would be using spell-check these days.
There weren't many HTML editors or CMSes with any spell-check at all, much less a good spell-check, last time I was evaluating them. When I've tried writing pages in a word processor and transferring the completed copy to a CMS, I found that there so many "false-positives" that it was counter-productive.
My surname for nearly a half century was Thomas, and even with a single "s" on the end, I always had to write out the plural possessive different ways before holding my nose and picking the one that seemed least unacceptable. After I retired, I moved hundreds of miles away and took a wife who was not yet retired, and whose professional reputation was valuable, so I adopted her surname,and considered the end of plural/possessive/plural possessive confusion a bonus. Not a good move, as it offended my family and confused her family.
Sometimes, being wrong is the right thing to do. Since 1959, this has been a country of 49 American states and 1 Polynesian one, but the "United States of America and Polynesia" just doesn't cut it.
Heimhenge,
I think the intent was to say that you use apostrophe s whenever the s would not be silent. I don't think they were making a distinction between allophones. These are some few and occasional exceptions to the rule.
For example, some people -- not me (I) -- pronounce the possessive of Jesus just like the subjective or objective singular and in that event they would write apostrophe without an s.
They nailed Jesus' hands and feet.
I would pronounce the possessive ending like I would a plural of Jesus, so I would write apostrophe s
They nailed Jesus's hands and feet.
It doesn't matter that the s is sounded as a z (zed).
Glenn said: I think the intent was to say that you use apostrophe s whenever the s would not be silent. I don't think they were making a distinction between allophones.
Then the OD really garbled that explanation. Still sounds like circular reasoning to me. It's like: Use "apostrophe s" when you would pronounce it with two "s" allophones, and pronounce the extra "s" when it's present (with the second "s" always pronounced as a "z").
Maybe my question should be: What determines if a possessive is pronounced with two allophones? Seems kinda arbitrary to me.
I mean, I could pronounce either "Charles'" or "Charles's" just fine, but WHY should I select one over the other? Maybe I'm just being dense, but I thought I understood this possessive construction until I read that OED explanation.
So, having a relative with the surname "Schultz" I find I often have the need to write plurals, possessives, and plural possessives. Here's how I've been doing it:
Plural: Schultzes
Possessive: Schultz'
Plural possessive: Schultzes'
So have I been doing this correctly? In all three of those cases, I've pronounced it "Schultz-ez".
I would agree with your pronunciation on all, and with your spelling on all but the singular possessive. For that I would use Schultz's.
e.g. Sergeant Schultz's helmet was often askew, adding to the comedy.
Consider the common nouns blitz or even waltz.
e.g.
A waltz's meter may be rigid, but its tempo certainly is not.
The team was powerless to stop their opponents, especially in the face of their blitz's flawless execution.
Glenn said: ...the singular possessive. For that I would use Schultz's.
Wow, then I've been doing it wrong all these years? My sister (a Schultz), who taught grade school English, never corrected me, or perhaps was unsure herself and figured since "I was the writer" I must know what I'm doing. I wish that were true. 
From my research, it appears the singular possessive of "Schultz" falls into one of those gray areas on which the style manuals disagree. See, for example:
http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/grammar/Apostro3.html
[excerpt] Jones in the possessive is harder. The AP Stylebook tells you to add only an apostrophe. Chicago tells you to add "'s." Chicago's more complicated rule 6.40 produces "Jones'" because Jones ends with a "z" sound. This latter rule is the only one truly based on pronunciation.
And I found this on WordReference.com:
The possessive of singular proper names ending in an "s" or "z" sound may be formed by adding either -'s or just an apostrophe. Adding -'s to all such names, without regard of the pronunciation of the resulting word, is more common than adding just the apostrophe. (Jones's car or Jones' car, Dickens's novels or Dickens' novels)
So in your humble opinion, is this one of those gray areas, where usage is evolving, and the "rules" may someday change?
Gray as grey can be (humble or not). And a thorny one, as I mention above. It is my opinion and my practice to treat proper names no differently from common nouns when it comes to these matters. So, in the absence of a reason to do otherwise, I would follow that guideline. That's why I said "I would use ..." It's just not entirely clear.
If there are exceptions, they are clearly only for names and never for common nouns. (This fact alone argues against any reason for the exceptions other than convention, since any such reason would apply to common nouns just as well and we would see some of them ending with just apostrophe in the singluar possessive.) And if there are conventional exceptions for some names, as your link discusses, are they only for polysyllabic names? Must they end with only a -z allophone? Does the stress have to be before the last syllable? Is Jones a further monosyllabic exception to the polysyllabic rule?
Grayer and greyer.
But it is also my opinion that a person does have certain sway in matters of their own name, convention notwithstanding. So if I knew, for example, that e e cummings avoided capital letters and punctuation, I would do so when addressing him. Conversely, I would expect mr cummings to be understanding if I were a stranger and in well-intentioned ignorance addressed a letter to him as Mr. Cummings.
If I were to guess the future, movement on this matter would be toward the regularization of this convention. So I would expect that people will observe fewer and fewer exceptions to the -'s as the rule. As evidence, consider how many times you see it's as the possessive form of it. Do you think that practice is growing more frequent?
"It's" can not be an indication of usage convention. If anything at all , it only indicates how more or less prone to error people have become. Using that purposely as possessive has never ever been an option.
If there is any trending up , it's probably due to auto-complete software, but never more than an error.
It's purely a style convention. Thus the "right" and "wrong" of it depends on what style sheet you follow. Different newspapers, magazines, book publishers, etc., adopt different stylebooks.
Some will tell you to use apostrophe only: The police published Ross' mugshot.
Some will tell you to use apostrophe s: The police published Ross's mugshot.
It is idle to ask which of those two is "right." They're conventions.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)