's

[chrysanthemum]

... in front of the Wilson house
... gave to the Wilson children
Why don't we have 's or s' in these two examples?
Why don't we have the Wilson's house or the Wilsons' children?
Thanks

 

[Tdol]

Why don't we have the [strike]Wilson's[/strike] Wilsons' house or the Wilsons' children?

You could.

 

[TheParser]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


Hello,

What a fascinating question!

1. We are going to a party at the Wilsons' house.

2. The city plans to raze (demolish) the Wilson house.

a. In No. 1 (I think) it means that we are going to the house currently occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Wilson.

b. In No. 2, I cannot put my finger on it (I am not able to give a clear explanation), but it does not seem to be a

matter of possession.

i. Please study these two examples that I got on the Web:

(a) "In 1899 Henrietta Fricht Wilson and her husband Frederick Wilson built the Wilson House on Swiss Avenue for their

family." (Source: www. preservationdallas.com.)

(b) "The Bachman Wilson house, in Millstone, New Jersey was originally designed by Frank Lloyd Wright in 1954 for Abraham Wilson and his first wife, Gloria." (source: en.wikipedia.org.)

3. As you can see, there is a difference. Sadly, I am not able to articulate (explain) it. Hopefully, another member will do so.



James

P.S. In any case, please remember: In No. 1, it is Wilsons'-- not Wilson's. (On the Web, there was an article claiming that 50% of the teachers in country X did not know the difference. Surely, that cannot be true!)

 

[Barb_D]

For me, it works for house, but not for children.

The children of Mr. and Mrs. Wilson are themselves Wilsons. So they are the "the Wilson children" and part of "the Wilson family."

The Wilsons' dogs, yes. The Wilsons' flowers, yes. But the Wilsons' children? I wouldn't use it.

 

[anhnha]

Hello,

In any case, please remember: In No. 1, it is Wilsons'-- not Wilson's. (On the Web, there was an article claiming that 50% of the teachers in country X did not know the difference. Surely, that cannot be true!)

Could you tell me about the difference between them?

 

[5jj]

Wilson's - of Wilson
Wilsons' - of Wilson's.

Mr Wilson's Children.
Mr and Mrs Wilson's children.
The Wilsons' children.

 

[charliedeut]

P.S. In any case, please remember: In No. 1, it is Wilsons'-- not Wilson's. (On the Web, there was an article claiming that 50% of the teachers in country X did not know the difference. Surely, that cannot be true!)

I think that it could also be "Wilson's" if, for instance, only one Wilson actually managed to live there before it was (again, for instance) demolished due to technical defects in its building.

And stop calling me Shirley! :lol:

 

[TheParser]

I think that it could also be "Wilson's" if, for instance, only one Wilson actually managed to live there before it was (again, for instance) demolished due to technical defects in its building.

And stop calling me Shirley! :lol:

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Hello, Surely (oops!), I misread your post (I am a poor reader).

You are not saying that the following sentence is "correct," are you?

"The city plans to raze the Wilson's house."

If only one Wilson owned the house, wouldn't you say:

"The city plans to raze [Mr. / Mrs./ Ms.] Wilson's house."


Thank you

 

[emsr2d2]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Hello, Surely (oops!), I misread your post (I am a poor reader).

You are not saying that the following sentence is "correct," are you?

"The city plans to raze the Wilson's house."

If only one Wilson owned the house, wouldn't you say:

"The city plans to raze [Mr. / Mrs./ Ms.] Wilson's house."


Thank you

Absolutely. If there is only one person with that surname associated with that building, then you would call them "Mr Wilson" or "Ms/Miss/Mrs Wilson" (or use their first name too).

We need to remember, going back to the original point, that "the Wilson children are the Wilson's children". That means "the children we are talking about, whose surname is Wilson, are the offspring of Mr and Mrs Wilson".

 

[charliedeut]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Hello, Surely (oops!), I misread your post (I am a poor reader).

You are not saying that the following sentence is "correct," are you?

"The city plans to raze the Wilson's house."

If only one Wilson owned the house, wouldn't you say:

"The city plans to raze [Mr. / Mrs./ Ms.] Wilson's house."


Thank you

No. I meant "The city plans to raze Wilson's house."

Surely lol that's correct? (I'm a poor writer sometimes, which is a problem for poor readers! ;-))

 

[emsr2d2]

No. I meant "The city plans to raze Wilson's house."

Surely lol that's correct? (I'm a poor writer sometimes, which is a problem for poor readers! ;-))

In the same way that we might have said "The city plans to raze Hitler's house", yes. If the Mr/Ms/Miss/Mrs Wilson involved was commonly referred to as "Wilson" then I'm sure one might simply say "Wilson's house".

 

[TheParser]

No. I meant "The city plans to raze Wilson's house."

Surely lol that's correct? (I'm a poor writer sometimes, which is a problem for poor readers! ;-))

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Yes, without the "the," it is correct:

The city plans to raze Shirley's house.

James

P.S. I hope that it doesn't raze James'/ James's house!

 

[charliedeut]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Yes, without the "the," it is correct:

The city plans to raze Shirley's house.

James

P.S. I hope that it doesn't raze James'/ James's house!

Surely not! I heard its construction is really sound!

 

[TheParser]

Hello,

Could you tell me about the difference between them?

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


Hello,

No need to be embarrassed. I have been speaking only English for three-quarters of a century, and I still understand only a
fraction of this magnificent language.

In England, there is a newspaper called the Daily Mail. Millions of people love it, and millions, well, do not love it. In a recent

article, it claimed that 50% of teachers could not punctuate this sentence correctly:

"The Smiths' house is a disused windmill."

(It did not tell us what the teachers "accidently" wrote. I guess they wrote Smith's.)

*****

If you are going to visit the house of Mr. and Mrs. Smith and their 3 children, you are, then, going to the house of the

Smiths. Therefore, you are going to the Smiths' house.

If you are going to visit the house of [Tom] Smith, you are, then, going to the house of [Tom] Smith. Therefore, you

are going to [Tom] Smith's house.


James

P.S. The article is on Google. Just type "Half of teachers make simple apostrophe mistakes."

 

[anhnha]

Thank you TheParser,
I like the way you explain grammar rules by using examples that are very easy to understand.:-D

 

[Tdol]

The Wilsons' dogs, yes. The Wilsons' flowers, yes. But the Wilsons' children? I wouldn't use it.

Maybe it is a BrE thing, but I could use both for the children- I'd more likely use it without the apostrophe if focusing on the children and with if focusing on the parents.