Note from a cranky editor

[Harvey]

I don't follow. Its is the possessive. The only time an apostrophe is introduced is when the word is a contraction of it is.

 

[Broccoli]

its' - DOESN'T EXIST

Yes it does. It's a stylistic choice, not a hard and fast rule. I'm always fully aware that I'm not adding an 's' when writing things like: Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. It just looks too weird to me to have the extra letter there.

No. I-T-S-apostrophe does not exist in the English language.

 

[Triskelion]

Ahem:
Instrumentation Technology Systems' employees are generally satisfied with their company.
ITS' employees are generally satisfied with their company.

Just being a contrarian.

I've got one:

Wala!

<cringe>

Voila! It's French.

 

[Lonemagpie]

I've got one:

Wala!

<cringe>

Voila! It's French.

I've never seen or heard that one before!

Poring and pouring is another favourite...

 

[Christopher]

Ahem:
Instrumentation Technology Systems' employees are generally satisfied with their company.
ITS' employees are generally satisfied with their company.

Just being a contrarian.

Actually that would be "ITS's employees." The s' formation only occurs when the word in question is a plural. You would say "Our parents' house" or "The Johnsons' daughter," but "Mary Richards's hat" or "John Williams's baton."

(And yes, "Systems" is plural, but in that sentence the subject was the company whose name is Instrumentation Technology Systems, and that company is singular.)

 

[Klaus]

The s' formation only occurs when the word in question is a plural. You would say "Our parents' house" or "The Johnsons' daughter," but "Mary Richards's hat" or "John Williams's baton."

I've never seen that distinction before... is that a newer usage?

 

[Timby]

The s' formation only occurs when the word in question is a plural. You would say "Our parents' house" or "The Johnsons' daughter," but "Mary Richards's hat" or "John Williams's baton."

I've never seen that distinction before... is that a newer usage?

Depends on the style you're using. Associated Press style is to omit the second "s," even when it's a singular form.

 

[Trekker4747]

The s' formation only occurs when the word in question is a plural. You would say "Our parents' house" or "The Johnsons' daughter," but "Mary Richards's hat" or "John Williams's baton."

I've never seen that distinction before... is that a newer usage?

It has always been like that -as far as I know.

But I, personally, don't like it so often I won't put an apostrophe-s at the end of a word that singuarly ends in s. It just looks odd to me.

 

[Level 2 Diagnostic]

The one I see a lot is "finally" instead of "finale". As in "the season finally of <insert show>"

Also, "here, here" instead of "hear, hear".

 

[Broccoli]

The s' formation only occurs when the word in question is a plural. You would say "Our parents' house" or "The Johnsons' daughter," but "Mary Richards's hat" or "John Williams's baton."

I've never seen that distinction before... is that a newer usage?

It has always been like that. Anything that is possessive, regardless if it ends in "-s" gets an "-'s".

The only exception that I have seen is where there have are multiple "s" sounds in a word, the forgo the "-'s" and just have the apostrophe. For example: Moses' or Jesus'.

However, that is simply a case of writing styles overlapping. Writing Moses' and Jesus' that way is Chicago style, whereas writing Moses's and Jesus's would likely be MLA style (and possibly APA, although my experience with APA is limited, but growing).

 

[Professor Zoom]

UM.....why is this in SciFi and not in Misc. ?

Because this is where people tend to talk about casting new movies.

"Whom would you cast in the [roll] of Lobo?" Etc.

Just trying to vent where it would do the most good!

I'm just catching up with this thread, so I don't know if anyone else has mentioned but this post made me think of a peeve.

Cast. Not Casted. Cast. As in He was cast in the role of Lobo.

I see "casted" all the time on this board and it drives me nuts.

 

[S. Gomez]

The Chicago Manual of Style Online Q&A says to use no extra 's' in regards to plurals:

Q. A friend and I were looking at a poster that read “guys apartment.” I believe it should read “guys’ apartment.” She claims that it should read “guys’s apartment” and that the CMOS specifically gives the example of “guys’s” to make “guys” possessive. I looked through every section on possessives and did not find the word “guys’s” or any rule that would make this correct. Some people say “you guys’s apartment”—did I overlook the word “guys’s” as used in the attributive position? (I don’t think I did.)

A. “Guys’s” is acceptable in the way that “youse guys” is acceptable; that is, neither is yet recognized as standard prose, and if your friend can find it in CMOS, I’ll eat my hat. Plural nouns that end in s (like “guys”) don’t add another s to form the possessive, e.g., the students’ lounge. “Guys’ apartment” is the standard spelling. If you want to make “guys” attributive, you can get away without the apostrophe, but you might test the idea with a plural noun that doesn’t end in s to see whether the attributive actually works: I doubt you’d write “the women apartment,” so you shouldn’t write “the guys apartment” either. And shame on your friend. It must make you wonder what else she’s capable of.

...but for singular (especially names) they say this:

Q. How does one make the following names possessive (and all first names that end in “s”)? James, Iris.

A. Chicago style adds an apostrophe and an s: James’s, Iris’s. But please see CMOS 7.17–23 for more examples and exceptions to the rule.

The OWL at Purdue (and admittedly I don't know which authority they use for this) offers the non-'s' form as an alternative:

add 's to the singular form of the word (even if it ends in -s):
-the owner's car
-James's hat (James' hat is also acceptable. For plural, proper nouns that are possessive, use an apostrophe after the 's': "The Eggles' presentation was good." The Eggles are a husband and wife consultant team.)

I've been trying to find a third rulebook, but can't seem to find one online; the only MLA Handbook I own is technically out of date (and lost, at the moment). And remember, this is all American usage. I have no idea what British or Canadian usages would be.

 

[Christopher]

It has always been like that. Anything that is possessive, regardless if it ends in "-s" gets an "-'s".

Unless it's a plural. Like I said, and like S Gomez's examples show -- a singular word ending in s gets an 's added (James's house, the Prius's steering wheel), but a plural ending in s gets only the apostrophe (the boys' treehouse, the ladies' auxiliary).

It seems to me that the tendency to ignore the distinction between singular and plural and apply the same rule to both is the same kind of overcorrection that leads people to say "between he and I" when it should be "between him and me." It's "he and I" if it's the subject of the sentence, "him and me" if it's the object, just as it is when the pronouns are used individually. But so, so many people get corrected for using "him and me" as the subject that they end up believing it's always "he and I" even when it's the object. A rule that's meant to apply in one case but not another is mistakenly applied to both.

 

[Canadave]

I've been trying to find a third rulebook, but can't seem to find one online; the only MLA Handbook I own is technically out of date (and lost, at the moment). And remember, this is all American usage. I have no idea what British or Canadian usages would be.

Canadian Press style ads the extra s for the singular (James's) and omits it for the plural.

 

[Middle Earther]

I use the OWL at Purdue - It has both Chicago and MLA. I use it for MLA, though.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

People that use "roll" instead of "role" are total loosers!

(Sorry, I HAD to... you have your pet peeve, and I have mine!)

 

[Mistral]

It has always been like that. Anything that is possessive, regardless if it ends in "-s" gets an "-'s".

Unless it's a plural. Like I said, and like S Gomez's examples show -- a singular word ending in s gets an 's added (James's house, the Prius's steering wheel), but a plural ending in s gets only the apostrophe (the boys' treehouse, the ladies' auxiliary).

It seems to me that the tendency to ignore the distinction between singular and plural and apply the same rule to both is the same kind of overcorrection that leads people to say "between he and I" when it should be "between him and me." It's "he and I" if it's the subject of the sentence, "him and me" if it's the object, just as it is when the pronouns are used individually. But so, so many people get corrected for using "him and me" as the subject that they end up believing it's always "he and I" even when it's the object. A rule that's meant to apply in one case but not another is mistakenly applied to both.

Wow, more than I ever wanted to know about the humble apostrophe. Seriously, this discussion is making my head hurt. I'm just glad you are all out there policing the language-I have never cared for sloppy usage and in the last decade (American) society has gotten terribly sloppy about its writing skills.

 

[JustKate]

The s' formation only occurs when the word in question is a plural. You would say "Our parents' house" or "The Johnsons' daughter," but "Mary Richards's hat" or "John Williams's baton."

I've never seen that distinction before... is that a newer usage?

Depends on the style you're using. Associated Press style is to omit the second "s," even when it's a singular form.

When a word ends in "s," as in Adams, you can write the singular possessive as Adams' or Adams's. Which one you chose is a matter of style, not correctness.

But there are people who differentiate based on pronunciation. That is, when the possessive is pronounced (as it would be in Adams's), they use s's, but when it isn't (as it often isn't in Jesus' and as it usually isn't in Richards', at least not in my lexicon), they use s'.

Personally, I think differentiating between s' and s's is a recipe for editing madness, but hey, maybe that's just me. In this situation, all that's really important is consistency because there is actually more than one correct answer.

 

[S. Gomez]

I've never seen that distinction before... is that a newer usage?

Depends on the style you're using. Associated Press style is to omit the second "s," even when it's a singular form.

When a word ends in "s," as in Adams, you can write the singular possessive as Adams' or Adams's. Which one you chose is a matter of style, not correctness.

But there are people who differentiate based on pronunciation. That is, when the possessive is pronounced (as it would be in Adams's), they use s's, but when it isn't (as it often isn't in Jesus' and as it usually isn't in Richards', at least not in my lexicon), they use s'.

Personally, I think differentiating between s' and s's is a recipe for editing madness, but hey, maybe that's just me. In this situation, all that's really important is consistency because there is actually more than one correct answer.

QFT

Now, who wants to argue about split infinitives?

 

[Mysterion]

One that always gets me: when "ordinance" is used when it should be "ordnance".