I have no excuse for not knowing this

[carsonshepherd]

But how do you make a possessive of someone's name ending in an S again?

'cause I think I've been doing it wrong for, like, ever.

 

[cloudy]

But how do you make a possessive of someone's name ending in an S again?

Abs'

Curtis'

etc.....

(don't be ashamed. )

 

[carsonshepherd]

Abs'

Curtis'

etc.....

(don't be ashamed. )

That's what I thought.... that's how I've always done it. But I saw it like this:

Curtis's

and started to doubt myself....

 

[OhMissScarlett]

Don't feel bad, I was uncertain until I decided to name characters Hans and Francois.

 

[cloudy]

That's what I thought.... that's how I've always done it. But I saw it like this:

Curtis's

and started to doubt myself....

I do the same thing sometimes with a word. The longer I look at it, the more wrong it looks.

 

[carsonshepherd]

I do the same thing sometimes with a word. The longer I look at it, the more wrong it looks.

Ahem. Considering I'm very familiar with a name ending in S I should know.

 

[carsonshepherd]

Don't feel bad, I was uncertain until I decided to name characters Hans and Francois.

I shall never doubt myself again. *nods*

 

[Weird Harold]

That's what I thought.... that's how I've always done it. But I saw it like this:

Curtis's

and started to doubt myself....

That's because, depending on what source you go to, either is now considered correct.

Curtis' is the traditional method of making a possessive, but more recent style manuals have Curtis's as an "acceptible alternative" so you're going to see that form more and more often.

As long as you're consistent either method is going to go basically unremarked, but you're going to get an occasional complaint that you're doing it wrong from people who subscribe to the opposite method.

 

[champagne1982]

Possessive nouns in their singular, plural and proper forms

 

[BlackShanglan]

That's what I thought.... that's how I've always done it. But I saw it like this:

Curtis's

and started to doubt myself....

Both are correct.

ETA - Sorry, missed Weird Harold's post. What he said.

 

[TheEarl]

I would've said Curtis's. Maybe it's an English thing.

However, as a rule, I try to stay away from character names that end in 's'. The possessive is difficult to say out loud, which means that your brain can find it hard to read. It's like a mental stumbling block every time you read it.

The Earl

 

[carsonshepherd]

I would've said Curtis's. Maybe it's an English thing.

However, as a rule, I try to stay away from character names that end in 's'. The possessive is difficult to say out loud, which means that your brain can find it hard to read. It's like a mental stumbling block every time you read it.

The Earl

I'm used to it I guess.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm used to it I guess.

what are you talking about?

Reminds me of a story by H. Munro (Saki) ;
someone says that a maid's name is unsuitable, and her lady should simply call her "Anne"
The lady in question answers icily; "That happens to be my name"

 

[kendo1]

The same goes for plurals of singular nouns ending in 'S'.

The princess's gown.

The duchess's carriage.

 

[glynndah]

I tutor sixth graders in grammar. What they are taught is that all singular possessives need an apostrophe and an s. Chris's toys, Otis's balls, etc. Plural possessives that already end in S need only the apostrophe: boys' toys, birds' nests. Singulars need the extra S; plurals don't.

 

[Liar]

How about posessive names in plural, ending in 's'?

"There were five Hans in the german tourist group. All the Hans's's lastnames were Shultz. It was all very confusing."

 

[zeb1094]

How about posessive names in plural, ending in 's'?

"There were five Hans in the german tourist group. All the Hans's's lastnames were Shultz. It was all very confusing."

Find a different way to express the name deliema.

 

[champagne1982]

Possessive nouns in their singular, plural and proper forms

Am I on some kind of mass ignore here? I could swear the link in this quoted post explains the American usages. Oh, well. Discuss away.

 

[Weird Harold]

Am I on some kind of mass ignore here? I could swear the link in this quoted post explains the American usages. Oh, well. Discuss away.

No, you're not on mass ignore -- at least I read the UO link; I just didn't comment on it because it is the "new rules" rather thanthe "traditional rules" and just illustrates my original comment that there are guides, manuals, etc that advocate both methods.

Language and grammar change and this is something that has changed/is changing since I learned how to form possessives in the late fifties.

 

[carsonshepherd]

Am I on some kind of mass ignore here? I could swear the link in this quoted post explains the American usages. Oh, well. Discuss away.

No, you're not on ignore. This answered my question quite nicely and it's not my fault nobody else looked at it. It's all about me anyway.

 

[Liar]

Find a different way to express the name deliema.

But, I don't wanna.

ps. Carrie, I didn't see my particular, exteme case being adressed there.

 

[carsonshepherd]

How about posessive names in plural, ending in 's'?

"There were five Hans in the german tourist group. All the Hans's's lastnames were Shultz. It was all very confusing."

Five Hanses.

All the Hanses' last names were Shultz.

Plurals are -es, not -'s.

 

[MissBri]