Ken Stevens, Campbell Scientific, Inc., wrote:
Q: I hope you can provide the rule for this possessive. I have the following paragraph in a WORD document (*.doc):
/ *Based on all these considerations, it is _Campbell Scientific's _ position that the logger is functioning as designed and that the problems you are experiencing are related to improperly powering off of the logger. *
/Note: A logger is a specialized piece of data acquisition equipment. Campbell Scientific is the company that markets the loggers.
The question has to do which Campbell Scientific possession above. I wrote the possessive as shown but WORD suggests that the correct way is Campbell Scientifics'. I can find no rule that suggest this is correct. To my written eye my way looks correct. Can you help me understand this dilemma? I am using Microsoft Word 2002.
A: You are correct. In this situation, the two words /Campbell Scientific/ may be regarded as a single name and the possession rule applied in the same way as /Fred Blogg's hat/.
You don't specify whether it is the spelling (red) or grammar checker (green) in Word which gave you your problem. The grammar checker is useless and I have it turned off. A spell checker, or any computer program for that matter, can never hope to 'understand' all the varied structures that may occur in an English sentence. The word /scientific/ is normally an adjective and would therefore not normally be expected to show possession. But in this case it is used as a noun, the name of the company, and so Word is fooled.
R: Thank-you for your quick response. Have a great weekend.
===
Linda Miatt, UK, wrote:
Q: I am a Year 3 teacher. Please help clarify an amiable dispute between myself and a colleague. How would you HAND write contractions such as:
don't; couldn't.
I think you would join the don, leave a gap, then write the t, then put the apostrophe in the gap. My colleague insists that you would write the do, leave a small gap, then the nt written together, with the apostrophe just between them.
Your advice would be much appreciated.
A: Well, this is a handwriting issue more than a grammatical one, especially as you both agree where the apostrophe should be.
I'm on your side here, although I can see your colleague's reasoning. Although /don't/ is a contraction of /do not/ it is established as a single 'word' and if it is never printed with a gap, why would one want to make a difference when writing it? Does your colleague type it with a gap? If not, why is he or she inconsistent in this respect? How does he or she actually say it? With a small gap? :-)
I have never tried my method with Yr 3, but it does work with Yr 5 and especially Yr 6.
===
Tim Martin, Surrey UK, wrote:
Q: I would be extremely grateful if you would settle an argument that is raging in the office amongst people who really should know better (they are experts in intellectual property!).
The argument refers to the period that must be given before a change can
be introduced. Is it:
a) X will give at least 3 months notice .............
b) X will give at least 3 month's notice ............
c) X will give at least 3 months' notice ...........
I hate to think how much the time wasted over arguments about this has cost the office and I now fear my sanity is at risk over the squabbling of these prima donnas! An early reply will be very much appreciated.
A: The question is really whether /months/ in this case is a noun 'possessing' the notice or an adjective describing the notice.
If one regards it as a possessing noun, then the answer lies on the page of the website concerning possessives. The word /months/ here is a plural (more than one month) so it follows the same track as /boys coats/ on that page.
Pretend Chaucer = 3 monthses notice
Modern correct form = 3 months' notice
The /es/ is replaced by the apostrophe.
One could argue that /months/ here is used to describe the length of notice required and although a noun, is in this context de facto an adjective, and therefore requires no apostrophe as nothing is missing, case /a/ above.
As we derive this from the Germanic roots of English, it seems sensible to have some regard to the German. It is clear from that usage that months (Monate) is used as a descriptor and is not a genitive case. It also seems to more logical as a month cannot 'own' the notice.
I would therefore opt for
a) X will give at least 3 months notice .............
Who wins? :-)
R: Very many thanks for your prompt reply. Modesty prevents me from saying who had the right answer! The office is now a quieter place.
===
Eddie Murphy, USA, wrote:
Q: The gun that belongs to Raines would be Raines's gun, right? Not Raines' gun. I had my screenplay proofread and the reader told me it would be the latter. Raines is one person and he has a gun. I looked up writing samples online and found several professional screenplays where the rule isn't being used properly. Is Raines's gun correct? It does look kind of funny...
Thank you,
Eddie
A: Well, it does look funny, but it prevents ambiguity. If you use /Raines'/ gun there might be a family called Raine who all share a gun. (Unlikely, especially in the USA, I know, but we are talking grammar here.)
By using /Raines's gun/ it makes it clear in the written form that it is one person called Raines who has a gun. Of course, context may establish this anyway, and the line when spoken would obviously be in a context. Spoken and written forms of English can vary. As this is a screenplay designed to be spoken, just say it the way it sounds right and the meaning is clear. But to keep the meaning clear to a reader of the written word, use the correct grammatical format.
===
Anne Clarke, "HeadsUpScotland", the National Project for Children and Young People's Mental Health, wrote:
Q: Here at the Glasgow Centre for Population Health (where the three of us discussing this have 7 degrees between us!) we are having a heated debate about the correct place for the apostrophe in a title of research. The research which is considering 720 unconnected individual's response to external effects of stress, including psychological, biological and social. We want to know how to phrase the title of the research, please?
Is it:
===
Sue (name withheld), UK, Wrote:
Q: I work as a teaching assistant in a primary school. Today, the teacher taught the children (year 4) about using apostrophes to indicate the informal contraction of certain words.
On the board she wrote the following heading for the work the children would be doing in their literacy books:
"Using Apostrophe's to Shorten Words". It might even have read "Using apostrophie's to shorten words", or even "Using apostrophies's to shorten words".
At any rate, before the children arrived, I mentioned to her that I didn't think there was a need for an apostrophe in the heading.
She disagreed. In fact she insisted that she was correct.
Perhaps you'd like to comment?
A: Point out to her that actually she has lengthened the word by inserting an unnecessary apostrophe. Ask her what letters are missing to require the apostrophe.
Had I seen that when I was a head teacher, I would have called for some urgent in-service training! I am afraid that many of today's teachers are those who were in school themselves in the period when to teach grammar was frowned upon as getting in the way of understanding etc. Those people are now teaching the new generation the same errors. As ye sow, so shall ye reap! :-)
Maybe you should point her to the website!
R: Thanks for your prompt reply. I'm afraid my relationship with this particular teacher would take a nosedive if I were to point her to your website! This particular teacher cannot admit that she is wrong.
===
John Chisholm, UK, wrote:
Q: Dear Sir:
In correspondence a chap referred to me as "a working mans' Lenin.
In a fit of pique I chided him for his misuse of the apostrophe and said it should be "working man's Lenin."
The academic help he sought agrees with him but following your simple rule I cannot see how this can be.
If I'm wrong I'll have to apologize. Do I need to?
Sincerely John Chisholm UK
A: In short, no. I believe you were correct. But the whole concept is odd. Are there other Lenins? Was there an aristocrats' Lenin? A bourgeois Lenin even? If not, why describe someone as a working man's Lenin?
Not very clear thinkers...
===
Stefanie D'Avanzo, USA wrote:
Q: Please settle an office dispute.. which is correct way to spell the possessive singular usage for propertys (one property) as property's or propertys'
A: If it is one property one is talking about, then /property's/ is correct. e.g. 'The property's lease has been renewed.' For more than one property, the plural is /properties/. In that case it would be 'The properties' leases have all expired.'
Who wins the bet? :-)
R: Thanks for your help...
David A Barrett, Canada, wrote:
Q: I was wondering about the use of "nor" in the following phrase:
"No reservation desired nor required"
Should it be "or"? Would it make more sense with a comma in front of "nor"?
A: I think either is acceptable, perhaps with a slight bias towards /nor/ as it's a negative phrase. The comma is not necessary in either case.
The meaning is clear either way, and that is what language is about, after all!
===
Jeffrey Jones, Widnes UK, wrote:
Q: Is it true words ending in x or z do not require a possessive apostrophe?
A: No. For example fox. One fox in his lair would be the fox's lair. A family of foxes in their lair would be foxes' lair. See the section on 'Parents children' to explain why it's not foxes's lair.
At this time on a Good Friday morning I am unable to think of a word ending in z, but the rule would still apply.
===
Kristin Stewart, USA, wrote:
Q: I have an apostrophe question. You say use an apostrophe when something is missing. What about its use with acronyms? Clearly many letters are missing. On the Dr. Grammar website he said you would not use an apostrophe for the plural form of an acronym. This makes sense with your rule.
We sell Coded Wire Tags (CWTs). Something is Coded Wired Tagged. Is this
thing CWTed or CWT'ed? I guess it's the former.
A: Let's first establish a difference between an acronym and a set of initials. Your CWT example is not an acronym but initials. Purists would no doubt argue that it should be C.W.T. anyway. But the usage of full stops after initials as in U.S.A. or U.K. has reduced in recent years leading to USA and UK and in your case CWT. Initials are not words and to say CWTed is really a jargon, attempting to apply standard rules to a jargon expression. Nothing wrong with that per se, it's a useful a shorthand for people who understand what they mean by it. Written down I would prefer CWTed to CWT'ed.
Acronyms are an attempt to create a new word from initials. Sometimes the initials lend themselves to it easily, e.g. UNESCO. Sometimes, especially in German, the first part of each word is used to abbreviate a long term into a shorter one, the most infamous example being the Secret State Police, Geheime Staats Polizei. Take the first letters of each word and you have Gestapo. It can be argued that an acronym such as Gestapo is a new word in itself, especially when imported into English, and should therefore be subject to normal grammatical rules. So "The Gestapo's headquarters were in Prinz Albrecht Straße" requires the apostrophe because it's a possessive. Had there been several Gestapos - well, that's a plural.
R: Thank you for your rapid response. I was not expecting a reply at all. Your input will help me as I am updating a portion of our company website.
===
Andrea Fine, USA, wrote:
Q: "..socially prominent friends of the Guggenheims'...." Is this correct?
A: No, because the proper noun Guggenheims is not a possessive, just a plural. It should be
"..socially prominent friends of the Guggenheims...."
However, if you said "the Guggenheims' friends" that would require the apostrophe because the noun Guggenheim is now a possessive. So applying the 'Chaucer' rule one would have had
"the Guggenheimses friends" and in modern terms the /es/ is replaced by the apostrophe leaving "the Guggenheims' friends".
But in your example "..socially prominent friends of the Guggenheims'...." the noun Guggenheims is simply a plural meaning more than one Guggenheim with prominent friends. The word /of/ takes care of the possession.
R: Thanks so much. I think I get it. You saved the day! Andrea
===
Jim Ballantyne, UK, Wrote:
Q: I enjoyed reading your article on the apostrophe. How about 'the Joneses' house'? There is more than one Jones living at, or owning the house, so in this case it is plural
A: So you have it correct. In my opinion, the rule applies successfully. Much depends on what you regard as the plural of Jones. Proper names often do not follow rules. People *say* /Joneses/ as in "I'm going round to see the Joneses" but one could equally well say "I'm going to see the Jones" which implies plurality, as if Fred Jones lived alone, one would say "I'm going to see Fred Jones". Horses for courses. :-)
===
David Reid, Canada, wrote:
Q: I read your article on the use of apostrophes, and wondered if I could get your opinion on the use/placement of an apostrophe in the following situation:
"The borrower(s) rights must be observed."
With the possible plural of the word borrower in play, it's not clear to me whether the apostrophe should appear before or after the bracketed s. The easy way out, of course, would be to re-write the sentence as:
"The rights of the borrower(s) must be observed"
This is likely the approach that I'll recommend, but I did still wonder about the appropriate placement of the apostrophe in the first example. If you have insights or comments, I'd be interested in reading them.
A: It's an interesting one, and you are the first to raise it. It shows how language is dynamic and ever changing. Having the /s/ in brackets shows that the writer intends to cover both singular and plural possibilities, but of course, there would be an /s/ there anyway. Perhaps a more pedantically accurate rendition (but an absurd one) would be
"The borrower(')s(') rights must be observed."
indicating that the apostrophe could be either before are after the /s/ depending on whether the instance was singular or plural.
Your second version is not just the easy way out, it is also sensible and I would argue, better grammatically.
R: Thanks very much for your quick response.
===
Madeleine Bruce (aged 10) wrote:
Q: Please can you tell me which is correct
James' rabbit is called Floppy or James's rabbit is called Floppy? Is
there any difference between the American English rule and the English English rule?
A: Hi Madeleine
If you read the section on the page about Possessives there is a section called The Book of Cassius. I might have called it the Rabbit of James, but I wrote it before you wrote to me.
I suggest that James's rabbit is better. This follows the rule and makes it clear that there is one James who has a rabbit. If there were two boys called James who shared a rabbit, we could show that by saying James' rabbit, which again follows the rule.
There are many differences between British and American English, some of them in American are leftovers that have fallen out of use in Britain, others were purposely adopted by the Americans to make their English different at a time when some were very keen to be separate from Britain. But the rules for apostrophes are normally the same. Some try to make them different, especially a group from Chicago, but Americans argue about that among themselves.
Any language which is in daily use is constantly changing and evolving, so there are no absolute rights and wrongs. Even Shakespeare used to spell the same word differently on different days! So one goes with what is accepted usage at any one time and what makes the meaning of the language the most clear to the reader or listener.
Good Luck.
===
Lorraine Graves wrote:
Q: Thank you for a clear rule about apostrophes and their use. My son's teacher, who suggested your web site, has offered a prize for anyone who can actually understand page three. I work as a plain language specialist in another field. Perhaps running page three past such a person in your area of expertise would make an important idea even clearer. Also, as I understand it, your translation of the German phrase /The man's coat/ may, at best, not be common usage. Well done in your efforts to teach the care and feeding of punctuation marks.
A: Thank you for your email.
I am sorry if you are having problems with page 3. It is of course the area of apostrophe usage that causes the most confusion. As I say on the website, it is based on many years of teaching this system successfully to primary children. I have done my best to translate what happened in the classroom with its interactive nature to the static written page.
Perhaps if you could cite more detailed examples of which part you are finding difficult I could look at rewording it.
Der Mantel des Mannes is to illustrate the concept of genitive suffixes and is not intended to reflect modern, colloquial German usage.
I am please that the teacher concerned has found the site and finds it useful enough to suggest. I hope your son wins the prize!
===
Loreli Wright (Sheridan Oregon) wrote:
Q: I've ordered a metal outdoor sign for my husband for his
birthday. The proprietor asked, if I wanted The Wright's or The Wrights' on it? I asked which is correct? He said he didn't know, but he would make it anyway I wanted. Great - now I'm confused! Our last name is Wright - I'd really like for it to be correct - which one would you say is correct?
A: Interesting. It all depends how one interprets it. The problem arises in part because the words are not in the context of a sentence but a stand alone sign.
If you put /The Wrights/ simply as a plural, it shows that this is where the Wrights live. Go in here and you will find the Wrights, more than one person called Wright.
If you put /The Wrights'/ it implies possession and is perhaps short for The Wrights' House, with the word House missed off. One might say, "I'm calling round to the Wrights' " meaning I am calling at their house. One could also say, "I am calling round to see the Wrights" meaning I am going to see more than one person called Wright.
If you which to have only the two words on the sign, which ever one you use you run the risk of people who interpret it the other way telling you it's wrong!
An easier way might be to use a different form of wording, for example to include the word House, if appropriate. This may increase the cost of the sign though. You would then have / The Wrights' House / which shows it is possession and should stop any argument. another option might be to evade the issue entirely by having a sign that simply says /Wright/ showing that a family called Wright live there.
I am sorry I cannot give you a more definitive answer, names often cause the most problems with grammar generally because they frequently don't the usual rules. See my reply to Eddie Murphy!
I would be interested to know what you decide to do. I hope he likes it whatever.
===
Renee Burgard wrote:
Q: Is it correct to write:
Patients that get Athena/Genetic Testing will most likely not be covered by their insurance companies.
or should I write:
Patient's that get Athena/Genetic Testing will most likely not be covered by their insurance companies.
Please let me know right away please. It is really bothering me to not know the correct way to write this. Thank you so much for your help.
A: The first is correct.
Patients that get Athena/Genetic Testing will most likely not be covered by their insurance companies.
It is simply a plural noun, not possessive.
===
Kristie Fehr (Ontario, Canada) wrote:
Q: Hello, just wondering if you can clear up a dispute at the office:
Which of the below would be a proper use of the apostrophe:
1. I have both my client's authority.
2. I have both my clients' authority.
A: There is a more at issue here than the apostrophe. Given that one is talking about two clients, each of whom can give authority, then we have more than one client and more than one authority. So strictly speaking it should be
I have both my clients' authorities.
But that may seem over pedantic so one could rephrase the whole thing and use /authority/ in a generic sense as in
I have authority from both my clients.
If you don't wish to go as far as that, I suggest you use your version 2 above.
===
Bryan Hiestand wrote:
Q: I liked your site. I was just looking for a reference to send to
someone, and I had never thought the "es" from the chauncer days came from german, even though I spoke it for quite a while. You also prompted one question. Although I'm sure it doesn't change, what do you do with odd names with odd endings? Karie is a great example. Karie's books? How would that be written in middle english? I don't know, I guess I just don't like it. I prefer german and tagalog. The only thing nice about english is the slight nuances in the use of different adjectives.
Do you have anything that would help me teach people to pronounce and spell my name correctly? I'm tempted to use a large wooden stick, but that's not always readily available. People tend to ignore the "I before e except after c" rule.
A: /Karie's books/ looks OK to me. As for how it would be written in Middle English, fortunately that's not a problem, nobody speaks it anymore.
The use of the German roots of English for the genitive case was simply a teaching aid, and as I say, a simplification to give people a structure for correct use of the apostrophe.
Proper nouns (names of things, people etc.) rarely follow the rules in any language and one has to take them on a case by case basis.
On the pronunciation of your name, I suggest the large stick. Given that you say you are German speaker, I assume you prefer /Heestant/ but you could always pretend you thought they were talking to someone else. I have a friend called Steinberg, and I always say it in the German way, but he usually says Steenberg. :-(
===
Christine Michael, (UK) wrote:
Q: Thanks for your website! Could you help with this query please?
'Members are encouraged to accept each others' weaknesses as well as to celebrate each others' strengths.'
Are the apostrophes in the right place in this sentence or should it read:
each other's?
Clarification would be gratefully received.
A: The issue revolves around whether we are dealing with a singular or a plural. Because of the nature of the situation it would at first appear it is a plural, but on examination it is in fact singular. Try expressing it this way, "Members are encouraged to accept the weaknesses of each other as well as to celebrate the strengths of each other."
Now it can be seen that /each other/ is singular and therefore the rule should be applied in that way.
other otheres other's.
Members are encouraged to accept each other's weaknesses as well as to celebrate each other's strengths.
R: Thank you for your very prompt and helpful reply; it saved me a sleepless
night!
===
Tricia Swope wrote::
Q: Is it Police Officers Association or Police Officer's Association? It is plural, but the association does not belong to them.
A: Doesn't it? Perhaps not in the sense of owning land, buildings etc. but it's for them surely? (I'm an ex cop remember, among other things!)
So, is it an association for one officer, or all of them? You see where this is going? :-)
Police Officers' Association
===
Joan Marie Poholarz, Legal Assistant, Dyer, Indiana, USA, wrote:
Q: How would you write your client, John Doe's claim - I have been told to write it your client's, John Doe's, claim - this cannot be right please help!!!
A: Looks and sounds horrible, I agree. Both sentence structure and the comma are to blame. According to rule it is correct however, so we need to find a way of avoiding it.
If you were to remove the comma so it reads /your client John Doe's claim/ this could be said to correct because now the words /client John Doe/ form a single unit, like President George W Bush or Queen Elizabeth II. In other words because the comma is removed, /client/ becomes a sort of title attached to John Doe.
Another way would be to rephrase the sentence entirely, e.g. /I refer to the claim submitted by your client John Doe/ or similar.
I hope this helps.
Do you know why Americans always refer to an unknown person as John Doe? :-)
===
Maria, British Red Cross, National Headquarters, wrote:
Q: I have read your site and need you to still confirm something for me, please?
Where, in the following sentence, does the apostrophe go?
A persons Will can help the Society is all of its work
The word "Will" in this case is as in Last Will and Testament.
I say there isn't one - but a colleague says there is one in "persons" and my boss agrees.
I have had them both insist and my boss explain how and why - but I still feel my English teacher smacking my wrist for putting apostrophes in places they shouldn't belong!!! That was 25 years ago now!!!!
Help me please!!!!!
(and forgive my excessive exclamation mark usage)
A: I think your English teacher must have been a fearsome person! I am afraid that your colleague and Boss are correct on this one. It is a possessive and therefore should be in the genitive (possessive) case.
Using the system on the website:
/person/ using 'Pretend Chaucer' becomes /persones/ which we abbreviate to /person's/.
A person's Will can help the Society in all of its work.
R: She was!
Got me the sad accreditation of being the first 11 year old to ever get detention at my school :-)
Thank you....
Best Wishes
Maria
===
Nancy Marsillo wrote:
Q: Kid's Karnival or Kids' Karnival? (we are spelling carnival with a K because it takes place during a 10K run) Thanks! Nancy
A: /Kid's/ would be correct if it were a carnival for just one kid! Unlikely.
So you start with the plural /Kids/ because you have lots of them.
"Pretend Chaucer" = Kidses
Modern usage = Kids'
===
Libbie Willard, Carolina, USA, wrote:
Q: My friend's name is Adams. Somewhere in grade school, I was told the rule for possessive nouns varied depending on whether the noun was one syllable of more than one syllable. Would you write "Adams' life" or "Adams's life"?
Would the rule be the same for a one syllable proper noun ending with "s"?
My nickname is Sis, so I think one would write "Sis's car...".
Thank you so much for your help.
Libbie
A: Whoever told you that should have been sacked. The number of syllables is not a factor. Just apply the rule!
Good luck
===
Dee Dee Strombeck, Linn-Benton Community College, USA, wrote:
Q: Thank you so much for participating in this year's fair.
Do I need an apostrophe?
My boss thinks I do.
A: Your boss is correct. :-)
It's /the fair of this year/ and as such is in the genitive case. In old English "Pretend Chaucer" this would therefore have had the /es/ case ending, now shortened to /year's/.
Hope this helps.
===
Dempsey, USA, wrote:
Q: Should an apostrophe be used in any part of the title of an organization, such as,
The River Forest Ladies Golf Association
A: Yes.
The River Forest Ladies' Golf Association
Q: Then why not "The River Forsest's Ladies' Golf Association"?
A: I assumed River Forest was a place. It therefore describes the ladies, not possess them. The Golf Association on the other hand is the association of the ladies.
===
Richard Gregg, Stockport, UK wrote:
Q: I am a trophy engraver and somewhere in my distant past I understood that the apostrophe was not used when using capitals e.g:
MANAGERS PLAYER OF THE YEAR
as opposed to
Manager's Player of the Year
Your comments would be appreciated
A: I think you should use apostrophe. In that way you know it's one Manager you are referring to, and not several. Is /MANAGERS/ a plural or possessive? It's not clear until you insert the apostrophe in the correct place.
I am not a great fan of using all capitals anyway - I think a larger size or emboldened looks better, and avoids these problems. Most newspapers have given up headlines in capitals, thank goodness. Is using capitals the only way to provide emphasis when engraving?
R: Thank you for this. In truth using Capitals is easier than changing from upper to lower case and is "bolder" than it as well
===
"Der Keeper", USA, wrote:
Q: Thank you for all your help, but I am a little confused about Veterans Day. I have seen the government spell it three ways.. Veterans, Veteran's, and Veterans' Day. Which one is correct? Thank you again. David.
A: Is it a day for one Veteran, or many. If the whole day is to celebrate one Veteran - lucky guy - then it will be Veteran's Day.
In the more likely case that it is to celebrate all Veterans, then applying 'Pretend Chaucer' we get
Veterans - Veteranses - Veterans'
So Veterans' Day is correct. Just because they work for the government doesn't mean they know English grammar! :-)
===
Katka Poznickova, UK, wrote:
Q: Can I ask you whether you write Paris's or Paris' when we say a sentence "Working in Paris'(s) famous hotel.." ?
Thank you in advance!
A: Paris's
It's also how one says it.
The section on the Possessives page about The Book of Cassius explains this.
===
Caroline M Taylor, Tesco, UK wrote:
Q: I have looked at your website and particularly the Cassius theory and so think that we are right in what we are saying as the store is actually called Morrissons.
If you could let me know if we are correct that would be great.
"Asda's, Sainsbury's and Morrissons's prices can be found on www.tesco.com/price check"
A: Ouch. The company was founded in 1899 by William Morrison so correctly it should be Morrison's. (You have too many /s/). But they have failed to use the apostrophe calling the store Morrisons. So technically you are correct, but as it's a double possessive in fact it looks a bit of a mess.
Probably too late now to rephrase it?
Prices at Asda, Sainsbury's and Morrisons can be found at www.tesco.com/price check
===
Nichola Hayton wrote:
Q: I think it should be 'dos' and 'don'ts' Or 'dos and don'ts'. Can you help me sort this out??
Also - do we say the 60s or the 60's?
A: The problem arises because you are trying to use a verb as a noun, and then ascribe a case ending to it, which verbs don't normally have. So in some ways it's a slang expression outside the rules of grammar. It's better when spoken than written. My own feeling is that you version is better than the student's.
60s - it's a simple plural. You need to use a possessive but the apostrophe would come after the /s/. "60s' music is better than today's."
===
Sharon Tong , Hong Kong, China, wrote:
Q: I wonder which one of the following is correct:
1. Gideon Ma's Supermarket
2. Gideon Ma Supermarket
A: On the assumption that /Gideon Ma/ is a person, then your first option would be correct.
R: Thank you very much!!
===
Sandy Edwards. Loughborough, UK wrote:
Q: At school I was taught that apostrophes should be used as you have stated but that if a word could not become a plural, e.g. England (as far as I am aware there is only one), then the apostrophe should be used in the case of a missing letter ("England is" becomes "England's"), but not for the possessive form ("the people of England" becoming "Englands people", not "England's people").
A: I have never heard of that. I think your teacher was just plain wrong.
R: Thanks for your prompt reply. It will help with the urgent proof reading I am doing - the author has a mixture of the two.
===
Paula, UK, wrote:
Q: Please tell me which is correct - The Maloneys' new address will be or The Maloney's new address will be ?
Many thanks.
A: The former if there is more than one Maloney, the latter if there is just one Maloney.
But I'd be inclined to reword it to avoid the problem.
The Maloney Family have moved and now live at ...
Names are always more difficult and often don't follow the 'rules'.
R: That was very helpful. Thank you very much.
===
David Sidley wrote:
Q: Please help me!
"Do's and Don'ts" I know there isn't supposed to be an apostrophe after DO. I just can't explain why. Can you give me an explanation?
Thanks.
A: There is nothing missing. The addition of the /s/ is to make a plural form of /do/. The problem is that grammatically speaking, only nouns can have plurals in this way, not verbs. The expression is a form of slang and is understood to mean /things that one should do and things that one should not do/. In this case /do/ and /don't/ are verbs being used as though they are nouns and then attempting to apply plural forms to them, so grammatical problems are inevitable. Also, simply adding /s/ to /do/ makes it look like an early Microsoft operating system, DOS, rather than the intended meaning.
How to express such ungrammatical vernacular forms poses problems for pedants!
===
Gillian Fearn wrote:
Q: I teach English as a foreign language in Bilbao, Spain. In my last class I found conflicting information about the use of apostrophes with numbers and dates in two standard reference books. I've taken a look at your Q & A section, but can't seem to find anything that clarifies the point in question.
One book says that, for example, 1800s or the 60s don't need apostrophes as they are plurals. However, another book states that apostrophes in these cases are acceptable. I see the logic of the first, but I've seen examples of the second so many times I'm no longer sure! Moreover, the second book is practically the bible of EFL teaching. I hate not being able to give my students a clear answer! Being a child of the seventies (70s? 70's?) I'm sure you know that I never had any grammar drummed into me. How did they expect us to learn it? By osmosis?
Looking forward to your answer.
A: Hi Gillian
The use of apostrophes in plurals of dates and initials (see sidebar on the Possessives page of the website) is becoming more common. I maintain though that it is still incorrect. Wider incorrect usage makes it familiar so that it starts to look correct, which makes more people use it and so it goes on.
I would point out to your students that as in any language there is much incorrect usage by native speakers and they should be aware of this.
Wasn't it Henry Higgins who said you can tell a foreigner because their English is too good? :-)
===
Rob Andrew wrote:
Q: I recently received a wedding invitation which included the following line -
'Elizabeth and Guy's wedding'
Am I correct in thinking that the apostrophe should be after the 's'?
A: No, not unless Elizabeth is heading for polygamy and marrying two people called Guy!
This is the wedding of Elizabeth and Guy so the possessive applies to both. It really should be
'Elizabeth's and Guy's wedding'
Although grammatically correct, some people might think it sounds a bit strange, so they might consider rephrasing this to avoid the double possessive.
R: Thank you very much for prompt reply.
Interesting.
Jill Andrew
===
Jack and Jean Doswell wrote:
Q: Please help: which of the following is correct? She should try to show how religion affects people's lives OR peoples' lives. Many thanks.
A: This is similar to my answer to John Clifford above.
Here you are using /people/ as a plural noun, so the analogy would be with /children/ already a plural noun. So in this case /people's lives/ is correct (IMHO).
/People/ can sometimes be used as a singular noun and then made plural, e.g. /peoples of the world/ etc. If one wished to show possession in that case, applying the rule to a plural noun would render /peoples'/.
R: Thank you so much for such a prompt reply to my query. Indebted!
===
Jim wrote:
Q: I will be writing out invitations for a birthday party at a local club.The name of the birthday boy is Alan Cowan and the club is the Firemans club, so it will go something like this. Please join us for Alan Cowans 50th birthday to be held at York Firemans club. where would the apostrophe(s) go in that sentence? Thanks in anticipation. By the way, you have a very interesting site which I enjoyed reading. I think it should be apostrophe between the n and s in cowans and apostrophe after the s in firemans Jim.
A: You are right on the first one, /Alan Cowan's /.
But I am puzzled by the second. Is it the Firemans Club or the Firemens Club. The former would indicate it's a club for just one fireman! If it really is /Firemans/ then being singular the apostrophe should be /Fireman's/ and if it's /Firemens/ then following the example on the site of children, it should be /Firemen's/.
R: Thank you Patrick. Jim
===
Jenifer wrote:
Q: When a phrase has been printed in all capital letters that doesn't alleviate the need for an apostrophe does it? My husband recently had his HVAC service truck lettered and we had the phrase "Fixed Right Or It's Free!" put on it. The decal shop put it on the truck in all caps and alleviated the apostrophe, "FIXED RIGHT OR ITS FREE!". I have seen other phrases in all caps with the apostrophes alleviated and just wondered whether there was a grammatical rule I am missing or are people just plain lazy these days.
Thanks so much!
A: Go back to the sign writer and get your money back! There is no reason to omit the apostrophe simply because capital letters are involved. Perhaps there's room to squeeze one in?
===
Henry Casson (United States?) wrote:
Q: I have had occasion to write down the possessive of the English name Mudge, which I am sure is Mudge’s, but I have a trace of doubt . The complication is the final letter e. If he lived in Chaucer’s time, which he didn’t, what would have been used as the possessive ? Is it possible that this could be an exception because without the apostrophe the spoken pronunciation is clear?
A: I think you are right. Without the apostrophe there might be some contexts in which /Mudges/ might be either possessive or plural, more than one Mudge. Using the apostrophe ensures that the meaning and usage is clear.
R: Thanks.
===
Home | Contractions | Possessives | Self Test | Testimonials | Q & A | Links