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

[GoesStation]

"For convenience' sake..."

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

For John' sake....

I'm coming out of retirement (from usingenglish.com) to respond to this. No, you can never omit the s except, according to some style guides, after a noun that ends in s.

I much prefer to keep the s in that case, too, because it matches the way I say it: John's book, Chris's piano, etc. If you do that then you won't have to worry about the question at all.

 

[emsr2d2]

"For convenience' sake..."

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

For John' sake....

I haven't got time to go back through three pages of responses (again) but where did you get the idea that "for convenience' sake" is correct? It's not. In fact, we say "for the sake of convenience" more often than not but if we didn't, we'd have to use "convenience's".

It will be a lot easier for you to remember that it is never wrong to use apostrophe + s after any name (even if the name ends in an "s") and after any singular noun. We don't add it after a plural noun.

This is John's book.
This is my teacher's book.
These are my teachers' books. (Not "teachers's")

My advice is that you simply accept what we have been telling you throughout this thread, use the apostrophe + s construction as described above and then just notice and learn the exceptions when you stumble across them.

It doesn't matter how many times you ask us, "for John' sake", "it's John' book" etc will never be correct.

 

[GoesStation]

The only exception I've been able to think of is for goodness' sake, which is pronounced with one or two /s/ sounds and therefore doesn't need an apostrophe s.

 

[emsr2d2]

I agree with that exception for the written version. I hear people say what sounds like "For goodness sake!" but I say what sounds like "For goodnesses sake!"

 

[HeartShape]

I'm coming out of retirement (from usingenglish.com) to respond to this. No, you can never omit the s except, according to some style guides, after a noun that ends in s.

I much prefer to keep the s in that case, too, because it matches the way I say it: John's book, Chris's piano, etc. If you do that then you won't have to worry about the question at all.

Welcome back. Thought you left for paradise.

 

[HeartShape]

I haven't got time to go back through three pages of responses (again) but where did you get the idea that "for convenience' sake" is correct? It's not. In fact, we say "for the sake of convenience" more often than not but if we didn't, we'd have to use "convenience's".

It will be a lot easier for you to remember that it is never wrong to use apostrophe + s after any name (even if the name ends in an "s") and after any singular noun. We don't add it after a plural noun.

This is John's book.
This is my teacher's book.
These are my teachers' books. (Not "teachers's")

My advice is that you simply accept what we have been telling you throughout this thread, use the apostrophe + s construction as described above and then just notice and learn the exceptions when you stumble across them.

It doesn't matter how many times you ask us, "for John' sake", "it's John' book" etc will never be correct.

The only exception I've been able to think of is for goodness' sake, which is pronounced with one or two /s/ sounds and therefore doesn't need an apostrophe s.

It's not incorrect. See below:

Rodney Huddleston, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, ch. 18, 4.2, p. 1596

"The bare genitive is likewise the only possibility in more or less fixed phrases with sake: for goodness' /convenience' sake (the latter having spoken /s/ but not written s)."

Do you still think it's incorrect now?

To add: if the above is a fix phrase then I guess the following is not permissible as a fix phrase am I right?

"For John' sake.... "

 

[HeartShape]

NO. How many times do we have to say this?

I just wanted to be reassured. :-D I was actually a little confused with the fix phrase hence the question. The quoted text regarding Rodney's explanation is correct though, isn't it?

 

[GoesStation]

The quoted text regarding Rodney's explanation is correct though, isn't it?

I think most or even all style guides would say yes. You should refer to the author by last name, though: Huddleston's explanation.

 

[HeartShape]

I'd say this was a very grey area. This Ngram shows the lack of agreement among writers.

It doesn't surprise me. It's from old English, and it's probably because people have forgotten this form or are told it's incorrect just like in this thread. (That would explain a lot).

Curme favours the usage since he uses it in his writing. p.123

 

[HeartShape]

For complete accuracy, Huddleston was not alone. The authors of that chapter were Palmer, Huddleston and Pullum.

Yep. I should have added them in.

 

[HeartShape]

NOT A TEACHER

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

a. For example: "whales bone."

By the way, in Early Modern English, the apostrophe was intended to be a contraction as shown in TheParser's quote. The -es says it all. :-D

Usage:

Chrises car = Chris's car

(Notice how it is showing contraction of -es. This confirms I was right all along. It is only later that apostrophe evolved and became what it is today, much more restricted).

And thus, that is why convenience' sake is correct. No grey area at all.

 

[emsr2d2]

Well, I'm glad that after four pages of responses, you have come to the conclusion that you were right all along. However, that still doesn't make "It is John' car" right.

 

[HeartShape]

Well, I'm glad that after four pages of responses, you have come to the conclusion that you were right all along. However, that still doesn't make "It is John' car" right.

I'm a learner. Making mistakes is expected of me, and its part of the learning process. I have admitted it was a mistake unlike for some.

 

[HeartShape]

Except for the majority of native speakers of British English whose versions are in the corpora used by Ngrams.

The possessive is actually a minority case. Citing ngram doesn't mean anything.

 

[HeartShape]

Except for the majority of native speakers of British English whose versions are in the corpora used by Ngrams.

When about 23% of the citations are for for convenience's sake, about 33% for for convenience' sake and about 43% for for convenience sake, I don't think it unreasonable to say that this is a grey area for the majority of native speakers.

Well, Ngrams have to be treated with caution, but they can be a fairly reliable source of evidence for how writers have actually used forms.

Just out of interest, I looked at what a couple of influential British style guides have to say (my underlining added):

... when the enclosed word is both a common noun & one whose possessive form is a syllable longer that its subjective, the s of the possessive is not used; an apostrophe is often, but not always, written; for conscience s[ake], for goodness' s[ake] ... .

Fowler, H, W, Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1st edn, 1926.51). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

For appearances' sake, for Christ's sake, [...] for old times' sake illustrate the obligatory use of the possessive apostrophe in such phrases. Practice varies widely in for conscience' sake and for goodness' sake, and the use of the apostrophe in them must be regarded as optional.

Burchfield, R W, Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd edn,1996.686),Oxford: OUP

How did you conclude "for convenience sake" is BrE?

 

[HeartShape]

I didn't. I just happened to present an Ngram based on citations from the BrE corpora.

So are you in the agreement it's grammatically correct?

 

[HeartShape]

In agreement that what is grammatically correct? If you are asking about the three forms of for convenience(')(s) sake that we have been talking about, I'd say that it's a matter of convention/style rather than of grammar.

This one "for convenience sake" not the other two.

 

[Phaedrus]

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has something interesting to say about this:

II. Phr. for the sake of (also †for sake of); for (one's, a thing's) sake. In the latter of these forms, the word which precedes sake is a possessive (noun or pronoun); but down to the middle of the 19th c. the 's of the possessive of common or abstract nouns was very commonly omitted (doubtless owing to the difficulty of pronouncing the two sibilants in succession), and from the 17th to the early 19th c. the two nouns were often connected by a hyphen, as if forming an attributive compound. The omission of the 's is now obsolete, but it is still not uncommon to write for conscience sake, for goodness sake, for righteousness sake, etc., without the apostrophe which is ordinarily used to mark the possessive of words ending in a sibilant.

A few months ago I sent an e-mail to an author of a famous grammar series to thank her for something. In the e-mail, I began a sentence with "For convenience sake" and then added, parenthetically, "(Oh dear, I'm glad no one's asked me about that construction!)."

Of course, I had deliberated about whether to use an apostrophe or an apostrophe s, refusing to run away and use "for the sake of convenience" instead. I'd like to think that "for convenience sake" can be justified as an attributive-noun construction - cf.:

the car door = the door of the car

That, at any rate, was the justification (rationalization?) I had in mind. I tend to doubt that it really holds water; however, I did take comfort in the fact that, as Piscean points out, "for convenience sake" has been used by many a writer. And that passage in Fowler is a gem.

 

[HeartShape]

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has something interesting to say about this:



A few months ago I sent an e-mail to an author of a famous grammar series to thank her for something. In the e-mail, I began a sentence with "For convenience sake" and then added, parenthetically, "(Oh dear, I'm glad no one's asked me about that construction!)."

Of course, I had deliberated about whether to use an apostrophe or an apostrophe s, refusing to run away and use "for the sake of convenience" instead. I'd like to think that "for convenience sake" can be justified as an attributive-noun construction - cf.:

the car door = the door of the car

That, at any rate, was the justification (rationalization?) I had in mind. I tend to doubt that it really holds water; however, I did take comfort in the fact that, as Piscean points out, "for convenience sake" has been used by many a writer. And that passage in Fowler is a gem.

Thanks for the post. I still like to hear what Piscean's view is though regarding his views, since he has felt so strongly on this. :-D

Also to note: I am aware of the of-phrase as the safer alternative if one is in doubt.

Oh, and by the way, I have not come across any text that says it's an attributive-noun construction. I could be wrong but I won't be holding my breath though.

I just noticed on Ngram, it doesn't matter whether it's British corpus, or American, or simply English there is no actual change in rank.

 

[HeartShape]

When about 23% of the citations are for for convenience's sake, about 33% for for convenience' sake and about 43% for for convenience sake, I don't think it unreasonable to say that this is a grey area for the majority of native speakers.

Interestingly, how did you get the percentages of the words from Ngram?