anonimnystefy wrote:

Oh,no you don't,phro! I still do not agree. Firsg,I would like to ask you why there is the counter-example of Jesus'.

Second,please show me the pronunciation of Davis's.

Ok...I'll give you a very tiny concession. I told stefy very quietly simply by using the correct spelling in my post #10 (I didn't want to upset the Grammar Nazi!!)

Okay, I understand now. I stand corrected.

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/PossessivesandAttributives/PossessivesandAttributives22.html

I see no reason for rules to be applied differently to proper nouns.

hi

If you want to appear to have mastered the English language, then you should probably do as the English do and get it wrong for much of the time.

I think the possessive apostrophe also indicates something has been left out.

The phrase "The cat's whiskers" is a contraction of "The whiskers of the cat"; the underlined being contracted to ' and the word order changed too.

That makes sense of the practice of not putting a ' on "whose" because that word is already a possessive so nothing is being omitted.

The only exception that I am aware of is for the word(s) its.

"Its" could be a contraction of "it is".  It could also be a possessive as in "The dog was sleeping, its tail in the air"

To eliminate confusion a special rule applies here.  No ' is used for the latter.  That's amazingly rare in English!  Actually having a rule to eliminate confusion.  The English are so pleased with this that they try hard to get it right on this occasion.

Bob

Uploaded Images

Hi Bob,

Sorry I didn't answer your post #20 earlier. Nice answer!

You're correct, of course - with both placements of the apostrophe.

Nice sign, btw...the sign-writers obviously spent hour's learning his trade from greengrocer's. I wonder how he sign's his name, and what the signs font's are?

As there is only one instance of the error, no pattern that I can follow accurately is established. The sign-writer erred - this we know - but we don't know if the error is consistent, erratic or otherwise. I opted for erratic, which just so happens to then allow me to add some extra flavour to my post.

"sign-writers" is the contraction of "sign-writer has", but is missing the apostrophe. In that sentence I omitted apostrophes that should have been included, and those that are there are in the wrong place.

My comment linking the sign-writer to greengrocers, who are notorious for their misuse of the apostrophe in their advertising - hence the term 'greengrocer's apostrophe' - is only supposition.

Last edited by phrontister (2012-05-22 19:42:52)

Bayes' ... definitely.

I realise that I decide by what 'sounds' right rather than trying to follow a set of rules.  I think the rules are buried deep in my head and seem to work by listening to what I'm saying to myself.

So, for example, Davis's sounds right but not Bayes's.  Weird isn't it?

Bob

anonimnystefy wrote:

I don't think you got what I meNt,but it doesn't matter.

I think my second paragraph - which I should have put first - catches your meaning, and the rest explains my previous post.

Btw,what would you write "Bayes' theorem" or "Bayes's theorem"?

The former, pronounced as a single-syllabled word...because, as Bob said, it sounds right.

The 'sounds right' 'rule' isn't terribly helpful for many people, of course: eg, those for whom English isn't their first language, those who had a hopeless English teacher and Gen Xers.

The start of all this was my use of 's in "Preposterous's". If you said (verbally), "Preposterous' Conclusions", with only four syllables for "Preposterous' " instead of five, that phrase would be heard as "preposterous conclusions". You'll have changed the proper noun into an adjective and then have further explaining to do to get your intended meaning across...because you'll want to extricate yourself from the awkward position you've put yourself into, particularly if you were talking to the great Preposterous himself!

The way I wrote it sounds right in present-day lingo, and that is my governing rule. If I'm in doubt I turn to style guides and other sources.

There is no governing body that lays down the law in these matters, and opinions on many aspects of grammar differ.

Here is an informative blog discussing the different treatment of the apostrophe by The Associated Press Stylebook and The Chicago Manual of Style.

Also, from CMOS:

7.17   Most nouns
The possessive of most singular nouns is formed by adding an apostrophe and an s, and the possessive of plural nouns (except for a few irregular plurals that do not end in s) by adding an apostrophe only. This practice, used in conjunction with the exceptions and options outlined in 7.19–22, reflects the way possessive forms are generally pronounced and is largely faithful to Strunk and White’s famous rule 1 (“Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding ’s”). Since feelings on these matters sometimes run high, users of this manual may wish to modify or add to the exceptions.

7.18   Proper nouns, letters, and numbers 
The general rule covers most proper nouns, including names ending in s, x, or z, in both their singular and plural forms, as well as letters and numbers.

Note the sheer volume of open-ended terms, such as: "most", "except for a few", "practice", "exceptions", "options", "reflects", "generally", "largely faithful"...and especially "Since feelings on these matters sometimes run high, users of this manual may wish to modify or add to the exceptions."

Back to Thomas Bayes. "Bayes' Theorem" sounds right (to me) but not "James' Theorem". "James's Theorem", with the extra 'es' syllable, does.

Maybe it's to do with the soft 'y' vs the hard 'm'. Just a thought...I've seen nothing about that.

Last edited by phrontister (2012-05-22 09:18:15)