gnomi's Grammar Grrr

[gnomi]

Dear media:

A usage note -- names that end with s *can* be made possessive, but both of these examples are incorrect:

Elizabeth Edward’s reasons are her own, and she’s justified to make them. Who are we to sit in judgment?

(from here)

On Aug. 14, 2007, Nathans was struck in the head attempting to stop a bat-wielding Jose Offerman, the former Red Sox second baseman, who charged the mound after being hit by a pitch in a game between the Bridgeport Blues and the Long Island Ducks in the independent Atlantic League. Bridgeport pitcher John Beech suffered a broken middle finger on his non-pitching hand but was spared further injury thanks to Nathan's actions.

(from here)

Both Mr. Nathans and Mrs. Edwards deserve their names' final s-es. If you feel like making their names possessive, you can use "Mr. Nathans's" or "Mrs. Edwards's"; some style guides will allow you to use "Mr. Nathans'" and "Mrs. Edwards'" if you don't like multiple uses of s. But removing the s from the end of their names is unacceptable.

Please make a note of this for the future. Thank you.

Comments

[ayoub.livejournal.com]

I hate it when they do that...

[gnomi.livejournal.com]

It drives me buggy. And I found it *twice* today.

[chaiya.livejournal.com]

I thought it was supposed to be Mrs. Edwards' ...?

[gnomi.livejournal.com]

Many style guides will tell you that unless Edwards is plural you need an additional s on there. Some style guides will let you leave it as s'.

[shsilver.livejournal.com]

Yes. Words and names ending in an s take an apostrophe s unless they are of greek origin (or plural) in which case it is just an apostrophe.

But how you you denote possession for a word that is already a possessive: i.e. McDonald's?

[cafemusique.livejournal.com]

Re-word the sentence. ;-)

[gnomi.livejournal.com]

Yup. Exactly. Instead of "McDonald's's employees," use "employees of McDonald's" (for example).

[fynixsoul.livejournal.com]

I would think for this example, "McDonald's employees" would be acceptable, because McDonald's refers to the store and all of its holdings, which would include the employees. Am I wrong?

[thespisgeoff.livejournal.com]

I'd agree with that - just as you say you're a "Wal-Mart employee" instead of "Wal-Mart's employee." In this case, the company name is serving as an adjective, rather than as a possessive.

[gnomi.livejournal.com]

What cafemusique said.

[shsilver.livejournal.com]

Seems the lazy way out.

[530nm330hz.livejournal.com]

But "McDonald's's"'s "'s"es could get confusing.

[dpolicar]

It's better than dropping the first letter, I suppose.

[vettecat.livejournal.com]

Hisssss...

[eal.livejournal.com]

Oh, I could make you cry with apostrophe abuse that I've seen. I swear that students think that if you add an "s" to any word at all, you should use an apostrophe "just to be safe."

Please just shoot me now.

[shimshonit.livejournal.com]

Excellent English rant. My sentiments exactly...

[zsero.livejournal.com]

I would just have assumed that the writer had temporarily forgotten that the subjects' names weren't Edward and Nathan. It's not as though they couldn't be; there's no logic to names. Though the second one's harder to swallow, because the correct name is used earlier in the same graf.