Plurals and possessives of names

[8letters]

Please let me know if I've got all the Emily's right in this bit. It's the FMC who goes by "Z" telling other characters what her first name is:

“Okay. It’s Emily. I’m Emily Annette Zajaczkowski. When I was in kindergarten, there were two other Emilys. The school policy was when there are multiple kids with the same first name to call each student by their first and last name. But no one could pronounce my last name, so I was Emily Z. My classmates eventually dropped the ‘Emily’ and called me just ‘Z’. I liked Z because there are so many Emilys, but there wasn’t any girl who used their last initial as their name. I’ve gone by ‘Z’ ever since. That’s my story. Pretty silly, huh?”

The MMC goes over to a house owned by the Harringtons. Is this correct?

At nine, I went over to the Harringtons’.

Also:

Z told me Giselle stories until we arrived at the Harringtons’ house.

 

[SimonDoom]

Please let me know if I've got all the Emily's right in this bit. It's the FMC who goes by "Z" telling other characters what her first name is:


The MMC goes over to a house owned by the Harringtons. Is this correct?


Also:

I think you've got it right, except in the question, where you ask "Please let me know if I've got all the Emily's right" when it should be "Emilys." There's no cause to use an apostrophe s.

Since "Emily" is a proper noun I think it's right to say "Emilys" rather than "Emilies" or "Emily's."
Chicago Manual of Style 7.9 (17th ed.).

I think "there wasn't any girl who used their last initial" should be "there wasn't any girl who used her last initial." "Her" is the correct pronoun to use when the corresponding noun is "girl."

 

[SouthernCrossfire]

I agree with Simon on all points.

Regarding her/their, if the sex of a singular individual is known, use the singular pronoun her (or his). If the sex is unknown or otherwise ambiguous, their is now commonly used instead of "his or her."

 

[jaF0]

I would use Emilies in some of those places.

 

[KeithD]

Since "Emily" is a proper noun I think it's right to say "Emilys" rather than "Emilies" or "Emily's."
Chicago Manual of Style 7.9 (17th ed.).

Agree with this (although there are other sources that do it otherwise).

 

[SimonDoom]

Chicago Manual of Style gives this example:

Toms, Dicks, and Harrys. (Section 7.9).

You don't write

Toms, Dicks, and Harries

or

Toms, Dicks, and Harry's.

 

[jaF0]

I'm not in Chicago.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I'm not in Chicago.

Milly is one way to spell my name, it isn't the way I spell my name, and I wouldn't want to be called one of the Millys' but likewise, I wouldn't want a Milly lumped in with another person named Millie. Therefore, it depends on the spelling of name when it has an alternate spelling for the name. You must understand, Emily and Emilie aren't the same person.

 

[jaF0]

Emily + Emily = Emilies.

And it could be a fun story if they both date Emils.

Which Emily and Emil trade emails?

 

[Haulover]

I think you've got it right, except in the question, where you ask "Please let me know if I've got all the Emily's right" when it should be "Emilys." There's no cause to use an apostrophe s.

Since "Emily" is a proper noun I think it's right to say "Emilys" rather than "Emilies" or "Emily's."
Chicago Manual of Style 7.9 (17th ed.).

I think "there wasn't any girl who used their last initial" should be "there wasn't any girl who used her last initial." "Her" is the correct pronoun to use when the corresponding noun is "girl."

I would use Emilies in some of those places.

Emily + Emily = Emilies.

The rule is simple:

Words ending with a vowel then a "y" - simply add an "s"
Therefore:
Trolley + trolley = trolleys - not trollies
Journey + journey = journeys - not journies

Words ending with a consonant then a "y" change to "...ies"
Therefore:
Baby + baby = babies
Bunny + bunny = bunnies

BUT - the above rule does NOT apply to proper names.
Therefore :
Emily + Emily = Emilys - not Emilies
Harry + Harry = Harrys - not Harries
​

 

[MillieDynamite]

One doesn't change the spelling of names to show plurality and possessiveness, "Lucas’s day was long and somewhat confusing. There were three men named Lucas at the event. The Lucas’s had a laugh about the coincidence."

You can change the name to Milly, Millie, Emily, or Emilie and its done the same way.

 

[ishtat]

Re Zajaczkowski in the first post, shouldn't that be Zajaczkoska or is there a transgender issue here?

 

[JaxRhapsody]

One doesn't change the spelling of names to show plurality and possessiveness, "Lucas’s day was long and somewhat confusing. There were three men named Lucas at the event. The Lucas’s had a laugh about the coincidence."

You can change the name to Milly, Millie, Emily, or Emilie and its done the same way.

You don't add another "s" if jt's one person, just the apostrophe. "Yeah that's Lucas' car." Phonetically it would be Lucas's, practically anybody would go; "yeah that's Lucasis car." The "s'" is possessive, like "it's"

 

[KeithD]

You don't add another "s" if jt's one person, just the apostrophe. "Yeah that's Lucas' car." Phonetically it would be Lucas's, practically anybody would go; "yeah that's Lucasis car." The "s'" is possessive, like "it's"

That too is open to debate, with existing authorities doing it differently. The Chicago Manual of Style hasn't helped by flip-flopping their call on that from one edition to the next. For Literotica, just be internally consistent with the choice you made.

 

[KeithD]

The rule is simple:

Words ending with a vowel then a "y" - simply add an "s"
Therefore:
Trolley + trolley = trolleys - not trollies
Journey + journey = journeys - not journies

Words ending with a consonant then a "y" change to "...ies"
Therefore:
Baby + baby = babies
Bunny + bunny = bunnies

BUT - the above rule does NOT apply to proper names.
Therefore :
Emily + Emily = Emilys - not Emilies
Harry + Harry = Harrys - not Harries
​

I guess this means you must be from Chicago in the eyes of at least one here. D)

 

[PennameWombat]

You don't add another "s" if jt's one person, just the apostrophe. "Yeah that's Lucas' car." Phonetically it would be Lucas's, practically anybody would go; "yeah that's Lucasis car." The "s'" is possessive, like "it's"

I did a recent refresher workshop on editing, mainly to get more familiar with Australian usage. But American English gets used here in docs regularly to save time modifying them.

The rule given there was:
- if it’s a singular or notable person being referred to, then only the apostrophe: Jesus -> Jesus’, if referring to the biblical figure; Jesus’s if referring to the dude named Jesus who lives in Apt. 3D.
- thus, for non-notable people, add the ‘s: Lucas -> Lucas’s.

I tend to follow these rules in my Lit stories.

YMMV

 

[PennameWombat]

The rule is simple:

Words ending with a vowel then a "y" - simply add an "s"

Words ending with a consonant then a "y" change to "...ies"

Thus, it’s Scotch Whiskies but Bourbon Whiskeys

 

[SimonDoom]

I did a recent refresher workshop on editing, mainly to get more familiar with Australian usage. But American English gets used here in docs regularly to save time modifying them.

The rule given there was:
- if it’s a singular or notable person being referred to, then only the apostrophe: Jesus -> Jesus’, if referring to the biblical figure; Jesus’s if referring to the dude named Jesus who lives in Apt. 3D.
- thus, for non-notable people, add the ‘s: Lucas -> Lucas’s.

I tend to follow these rules in my Lit stories.

YMMV

Growing up, I learned always to add apostrophe s to a singular noun regardless whether the noun ended in s, and I still do that. The current version of the Chicago Manual of Style endorses that usage. So does Strunk & White (in fact, that's rule number 1 in the book). So does Margaret Shertzers Elements of Grammar.

So I would write

Lucas's car

Jesus's shoe

Grammarly seems to recognize that people go both ways on this issue. The AP Guide drops the s after the apostrophe for proper nouns ending in s, but according to its Twitter page it's been reconsidering its position on this.

I add the s because it's easier for me to remember, it's the way I learned it, and the writing matches the way I say it. I don't say "Lucas car." I say "Lucasez car."

 

[PBAnnie]

The MMC goes over to a house owned by the Harringtons. Is this correct?

Quote: At nine, I went over to the Harringtons’.

Also:

Quote: Z told me Giselle stories until we arrived at the Harringtons’ house

Is the surname "Harrington" or "Harringtons?"

If the former, then drop the apostrophe in the first example and the second example is correct.

If the latter, then you need another "s" following the apostrophe in both of your examples.

 

[SimonDoom]

Is the surname "Harrington" or "Harringtons?"

If the former, then drop the apostrophe in the first example and the second example is correct.

If the latter, then you need another "s" following the apostrophe in both of your examples.

I think it's clear in the example that the surname is "Harrington." "Harringtons" is the plural of "Harrington."

If the surname were "Harringtons" then the plural would be "Harringtonses" and the plural possessive would be "Harringtonses.'"

The house is owned by the Harringtonses.

I visited the Harringtonses.

I went to the Harringtonses' house.

"I went over to the Harringtons'" is a bit ambiguous because there's an implied but missing possessive -- the word "house." The apostrophe there is correct.

You can think of it this way:

"I didn't go to the Smiths' house. I went to the Harringtons'".

 

[Haulover]

Thus, it’s Scotch Whiskies but Bourbon Whiskeys

That is a crucial distinction!!

(I speak as a lover of whiskies, but not of whiskeys )

 

[ElectricBlue]

I think it's clear in the example that the surname is "Harrington." "Harringtons" is the plural of "Harrington."

According to the OP, the surname was Harringtons.

This is one example where your construct (Harringtons's), to an English English reader in Australia, is clunky. I'd use Harringtons' mainly because, to my ear, it sounds better - because of the length of the word it's smoother off the tongue. I'd generally use Lucas's though (per your other example), unless that sounded odd in a sentence.

For me, use of s's or s' is an individual style thing. I'm always guided by the beat of a sentence, not by an absolute rule.

This is fiction after all, and there are several style guides and more than one convention in the English speaking world, despite what some people think. But at least I can spell. Using the OED, of course .

 

[SimonDoom]

According to the OP, the surname was Harringtons.

This is one example where your construct (Harringtons's), to an English English reader in Australia, is clunky. I'd use Harringtons' mainly because, to my ear, it sounds better - because of the length of the word it's smoother off the tongue. I'd generally use Lucas's though (per your other example), unless that sounded odd in a sentence.

For me, use of s's or s' is an individual style thing. I'm always guided by the beat of a sentence, not by an absolute rule.

This is fiction after all, and there are several style guides and more than one convention in the English speaking world, despite what some people think. But at least I can spell. Using the OED, of course .

I don't think you are correct. The OP did not say that the surname was "Harringtons." He never said that. From his sentence examples it appears that he is saying that the surname is "Harrington" and that "Harringtons" is the plural form of "Harrington."

Jacob Harrington.

The Harringtons.

No different from:

John Smith.

The Smiths.

8Letters can clarify what he meant, but I think that's what he meant.

I never recommended the use of "Harringtons's." I didn't say that, nor would I. That's obviously incorrect.

The only instance in which that would be correct would be if the person's name was "Jacob Harringtons." Then one would say, correctly, "Jacob Harringtons's house." Under some style guides, one might also say "Jacob Harringtons' house." That's fine too. I prefer the apostrophe s. But that's obviously wrong if the noun is plural.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I read from the question being asked by the OP, as to where to put the apostrophe, that the surname was Harringtons; that he was asking, should the possessive be Harringtons' or Harringtons's.

I'd say Lucas's cat rather than Lucas' cat. But I wouldn't say the Harringtons's cat because it doesn't sound right - to my ear it's the beat of the sentence that's important, not the strict grammatical construct.

Which is what you're saying here:

Then one would say, correctly, "Jacob Harringtons's house." Under some style guides, one might also say "Jacob Harringtons' house." That's fine too. I prefer the apostrophe s.

My comment is based on Harringtons being the surname (which I grant you, might be a bit odd, but not impossible). In my reading, plurals didn't even enter the equation, and I don't like apostrophe s, not with the Harringtons.

I wouldn't use it with the Butlers either. I'd say the Butlers' cat, not the Butlers's cat.

I think we've actually said the same thing, and established that you prefer Harringtons's and I don't, but either is allowed, depending which style guide you follow.

If we have more than one butler though, call Schrödinger.

 

[SimonDoom]

I wouldn't use it with the Butlers either. I'd say the Butlers' cat, not the Butlers's cat.

.

I wouldn't either, but you're missing something.

"The Butlers" is, necessarily, plural. It's the plural form of the surname "Butler."

Joseph Butler's cat

The Butlers' cat

The cat owned by the Butlers.

If his name is Joseph Butlers, then this would be correct:

Joseph Butlers's cat OR Joseph Butlers' cat (depending upon which style guide you choose)

The Butlerses' cat

The cat owned by the Butlerses.

There is no correct usage where you would use "The Butler's cat" if the surname was "Butler." You would convert it to Butlers, plural, and then add an apostrophe.

That's what I think 8Letters was doing in his original post. He wrote "house owned by the Harringtons." The term "Harringtons" MUST be plural, and therefore the surname must be "Harrington" and "Harringtons" is the plural form of the surname. If the surname is "Harringtons" then it would be exactly the same as "house owned by the Smith" if "Smith" were the surname, and we can tell that's wrong. So from that construction we can infer that the surname is "Harrington."