[Grammar] apostrophe s optional - That's Mr Chris' laundry

[HeartShape]

Hi,

I just realized that the apostrophe with or without the "s" is optional, and hence remains grammatically correct.

The following:

1. That’s Chris's shoes. = That's Chris' shoes.

2. That's Mr Chris's laundry. = That's Mr Chris' laundry.

Anyone disagree with the above two sentences? If yes, why yes?

 

[bubbha]

I disagree, mainly because my real name is Chris and I've always uses "Chris's" as the possessive.

 

[HeartShape]

I disagree, mainly because my real name is Chris and I've always uses "Chris's" as the possessive.

That answer would seem to be a personal style of writing.

 

[TheParser]

NOT A TEACHER

Hello, Heartshape:

1. Personally, I would always write "I like James's ideas."

2. I think it is accurate to say, however, that most Americans nowadays would not.

3. There is a tendency here in the States to consider the second "s" in "James's" as unnecessary clutter.

4. Remember, however, that one should pronounce it as "Jameses ideas," not "James ideas."

 

[HeartShape]

The s following the apostrophe is generally used and pronounced. Some people omi it after biblical and classical names such as Jesus and Socrates. I recommend that learners always use it.

NOT A TEACHER

Hello, Heartshape:

1. Personally, I would always write "I like James's ideas."

2. I think it is accurate to say, however, that most Americans nowadays would not.

3. There is a tendency here in the States to consider the second "s" in "James's" as unnecessary clutter.

4. Remember, however, that one should pronounce it as "Jameses ideas," not "James ideas."

I notice over the years I seem to have naturally lost the "es" or /z/ when pronouncing the apostrophe "s", but strangely it has never sound right. Now I know.

And I also come to realised apostrophe "s" is actually the default alternative.

Thanks.

 

[Rover_KE]

The apostrophe is not optional: it's mandatory.

What is optional is the final s of Chris's.

 

[HeartShape]

The apostrophe is not optional: it's mandatory.

What is optional is the final s of Chris's.

I don't think there is any ambiguity here. When I say apostrophe "s" I mean s after the apostrophe. If I said "s is optional" I don't think it would mean what I wrote.

Actually, "apostrophe" is being used as an adjective. :-D

 

[HeartShape]

"Apostrophe s" means 's.

Actually, come to think, the subject line of the post is actually in elliptical form because there is only so much letters I can fit into the subject heading to avoid exceeding the limit. The content of the original explains it clearly. It's redundant to explain it again.

 

[HeartShape]

Examining the apostrophe again, I think we could think of the apostrophe as a contraction. When it contracts in sentences like:

1. It is = It's (“i” omitted)
2. Chris's = Chris' (“s” omitted)

In the above sentence it signifies something is missing. In this case the “s” is missing. Would anyone agree with that? I think this is a better way of remembering the many functions of the apostrophe.

 

[jutfrank]

No, nobody would agree with that.

In 2., the apostrophe marks possession only, not a missing letter.

Don't confuse contraction with possession marking. They are quite distinct uses.

 

[HeartShape]

No, nobody would agree with that.

In 2., the apostrophe marks possession only, not a missing letter.

Don't confuse contraction with possession marking. They are quite distinct uses.

But it is sort of like a contraction. To distinguish the possession we just have to look at the position of apostrophe to determine its distinct function. And to spot a possession it's always at the end.

 

[HeartShape]

The apostrophe denoting possession is not like a contraction.

It has characteristics of contraction because we can choose whether to omit a letter or not in the same way as a contraction.

The results: possession + optional/omitted s = word + contraction/omitted letter + word

 

[emsr2d2]

No. When we use an apostrophe to denote possession, we have not omitted a letter. We have used a completely different construction from the alternative which is "noun of noun" or similar.

This is the car of John.
This is John's car.

Feel free to tell me what letter you think has been omitted in "John's".

 

[HeartShape]

No. When we use an apostrophe to denote possession, we have not omitted a letter. We have used a completely different construction from the alternative which is "noun of noun" or similar.

This is the car of John.
This is John's car.

Feel free to tell me what letter you think has been omitted in "John's".

You can't use contractions for just any words/construction just as you can't use possession for the same reasons.

1. You are happy = You're happy = same characteristics as apostrophe and likewise below:

2. It is = It's

3. Chris's = Chris'

3. You are = You're

And you can write: This is John' car.

 

[emsr2d2]

And you can write: This is John' car.

I have no idea where you got the idea that you can write that. I can assure you that you can't. You can omit the "s" after the apostrophe when using a name that already ends with the letter "s" - hence "Chris' car" rather than "Chris's car". You see it with things like "I love all of Dickens' novels". It simply looks messy as "Dickens's novels".

 

[HeartShape]

I have no idea where you got the idea that you can write that. I can assure you that you can't. You can omit the "s" after the apostrophe when using a name that already ends with the letter "s" - hence "Chris' car" rather than "Chris's car". You see it with things like "I love all of Dickens' novels". It simply looks messy as "Dickens's novels".

I seem to have misinterpreted that rule. So now the rules are much more restricted than I thought. Still, put that aside, it still have similar characteristics.

Actually, this rules applies to any words that have a sibilant.

Note: "Dickens's novels" is still grammatically correct though.

 

[Raymott]

Examining the apostrophe again, I think we could think of the apostrophe as a contraction. When it contracts in sentences like:

1. It is = It's (“i” omitted)
2. Chris's = Chris' (“s” omitted)

No, if you want to assert that the apostrophe is for contraction here, it would have to be Chris'' - one apostrophe for the possessive, and another for the missing letter.

I think that when you have so many intelligent, knowledgeable people disagreeing with you, it's time to re-examine your beliefs.

 

[bubbha]

Tradition, however, dictates that the names Jesus and Moses only take an apostrophe in the possessive, not an apostrophe-s.

Jesus' teachings
Moses' wanderings

 

[TheParser]

But it is sort of like a contraction.

NOT A TEACHER


Hello, HeartShape:

I have found some information that may fascinate you.

1. In oldest English, the s-genitive [possessive] was always es (and the "e" was always pronounced).

a. For example: "whales bone."

b. Today, the pronounced "e" sound survives only after sibilants, such as Jones's.

2. In older English, the apostrophe was NOT usually used with the genitive.

a. Even today, there is no apostrophe in these genitive forms: his, hers, ours, yours, theirs.

3. In about the year 1680, the 's started to appear.

a. At that time, there was another genitive used by the English people: John his book.

b. Many people felt (they were not necessarily correct) that "John's book" was a contraction (my emphasis) of "John his book."

c. My source points out, however, that such a theory does NOT explain the use of 's after a feminine or a plural noun.


Source: George O. Curme, A Grammar of the English Language (1931), Volume II, pp. 70 - 71.

 

[HeartShape]

"For convenience' sake..."

If we can write the above can we write the following:

For John' sake....