jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (09/12/85)
Our local newspaper uses anomalous punctuation of plural possessives attached to people's last names. Thus: "The students' possessions were destroyed in a fire." But: "The Johnson's possessions...." where there are multiple students and Johnsons. I'd treat last names as though they were nouns in this case. ie, "The Johnsons' possessions..." What do others think?
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (09/16/85)
-- > Our local newspaper uses anomalous punctuation of plural possessives > attached to people's last names... > > Thus: "The students' possessions were destroyed in a fire." > But: "The Johnson's possessions...." > > What do others think? Bad example. The possessive of a plural noun is supposed to be <noun>s'--I know of no alternative rule. For nouns whose singular ends in "s", including proper names, Strunk and White suggest no special exception to the 's rule. Thus: Carliss's snot-nosed kid, Thomas's hideous deformity, etc., which are no different from the usual "'s" possessive, viz: Ken's bizarre mood. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 16 Sep 85 [30 Fructidor An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
randy@peora.UUCP (Randy Hendry) (09/16/85)
In respect to Johnson's vs Johnsons', I agree with Johnsons'.
The title of the article reminded me of a word(?) I keep seeing
on restrooms: MENS. Is there a shortage of apostrophes, or
do the people who label doors think this is a word?
--
Randy Hendry (305) 850-1027
Perkin-Elmer Corporation
MS 795, Southern Development Center
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!randycjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich) (09/18/85)
[] In article <1645@peora.UUCP> randy@peora.UUCP (Randy Hendry) writes: >In respect to Johnson's vs Johnsons', I agree with Johnsons'. > >The title of the article reminded me of a word(?) I keep seeing >on restrooms: MENS. Is there a shortage of apostrophes, or >do the people who label doors think this is a word? Sign-painters can, and will, do anything. I actually once saw the word DELICIOU'S on a sign in a small town. Regards, Chris -- Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich UUCP: ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh US Mail: MS 313; Perkin-Elmer; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Phone: (201) 758-7288
warack@aero.ARPA (Chris Warack) (09/19/85)
proper name plurals anyways. Aren't there a lot of people with signs that say "the Johnson's" on their door? or am I hallucinating? Chris -- _______ |/-----\| Chris Warack (213) 648-6616 ||hello|| || || warack@aerospace.ARPA |-------| warack@aero.UUCP |@ ___ | {seismo!hao | tektronix}!hplabs \ |_______| !sdcsvax - !sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!aero!warack || || \ Aerospace Corporation, PO Box 92957, LA, 90009, Station M1-117 ^^^ ^^^ `---------(|=
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (09/19/85)
> Our local newspaper uses anomalous punctuation of plural possessives > attached to people's last names... > > Thus: "The students' possessions were destroyed in a fire." > But: "The Johnson's possessions...." > > What do others think? I always use a phonetic rule. For example "Thomas's", since it is pronounced "thomases", but "students'", not "students's", since one does not say "studentses", but "students". I have no "official" references around, but it is my understanding that this is "officially" condoned, and besides, I couldn't care less. Language usage evolves, so there's no harm it giving it a bit of a shove towards some reasonable rule. Ken Arnold
andyb@dartvax.UUCP (Andy Behrens) (09/19/85)
In article <1645@peora.UUCP> randy@peora.UUCP (Randy Hendry) writes: > The title of the article reminded me of a word(?) I keep seeing > on restrooms: MENS. Is there a shortage of apostrophes, or > do the people who label doors think this is a word? There is in fact an apostrophe shortage. The people who make signs have used up all their apostrophes in messages like EMPLOYEE'S ONLY and WE DO NOT CASH CHECK'S. :-} Andy Behrens {astrovax,decvax,cornell,ihnp4,linus}!dartvax!andyb.UUCP andyb@dartmouth.CSNET andyb%dartmouth@csnet-relay.ARPA
davidl@teklds.UUCP (David Levine) (09/19/85)
In article <1645@peora.UUCP> randy@peora.UUCP (Randy Hendry) writes: >The title of the article reminded me of a word(?) I keep seeing >on restrooms: MENS. Is there a shortage of apostrophes, or >do the people who label doors think this is a word? I've found the missing apostrophe, right nearby. Just this weekend, I saw a sign on another restroom: LADIE'S *Sigh*. David D. Levine (...decvax!tektronix!teklds!davidl) [UUCP] (teklds!davidl.tektronix@csnet-relay.csnet) [ARPA]
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (09/22/85)
> -- > > Our local newspaper uses anomalous punctuation of plural possessives > > attached to people's last names... > > > > Thus: "The students' possessions were destroyed in a fire." > > But: "The Johnson's possessions...." > > > > What do others think? > > The possessive of a plural noun is supposed to be > <noun>s'--I know of no alternative rule. For nouns whose singular > ends in "s", including proper names, Strunk and White suggest > no special exception to the 's rule. Thus: Carliss's snot-nosed > kid, Thomas's hideous deformity, etc., which are no different from > the usual "'s" possessive, viz: Ken's bizarre mood. > -- > ken perlow ***** ***** The original example used a plural noun. "The Johnsons" means a group of people named "Johnson". A single person with that name would simply be called "Johnson". Since it is a plural noun, the apostrophe should come after the "s", not before it. On reflection, using "the" when naming a group of people but not when naming a single person seems peculiar. Comments? seems -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (09/24/85)
I entirely agree with John Purbrick that family names form the possessive
plural just like any other noun. I think the source of the odd forms
you often see lies in uncertainty about how to form the plurals of names
in the first place. Personally, I prefer to handle them just like
other nouns, so for example the five Jones brothers are the five Joneses
(but in Spanish, los cinco Jones :-)). There's room for variation in this,
but the one form that just messes things up is to throw in an apostrophe
for a non-possessive plural.
The latter is a widespread oddity, not confined to names. I've seen
a sign:
EMPLOYEE'S ONLY
And recently on one of these newsgroups someone `corrected' himself
into an oddity: `` but rabbis -- I mean rabbi's --''. You can see
this sort of thing all over.
I have a theory (no evidence) about how this oddity became so popular.
One fairly legitimate use for an apostrophe in non-possessive plurals
is with (self-quoting) symbols:
How many p's in `Mississippi'? How many 5's in 555-1212?
I think the widespread use spread out from this fairly legitimate use. One
direction of spreading was through acronyms: How many MIRV's do they
have? There are two NP's in this S. (I would write both without the
apostrophe.) Another direction of spreading, for which I can't make
a good description, is this: In the 1960's many people...
These uses are not really bad. I wouldn't object to them, except that
I take them as sources of infection. It leads to employee's and rabbi's.
--
-- Mitch Marks @ UChicago
...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
P.S. My host has been down for over a week, so please forgive some
belated-looking replies to older articles. Thanks.mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) (09/24/85)
> > Our local newspaper uses anomalous punctuation of plural possessives > > attached to people's last names... > > > > Thus: "The students' possessions were destroyed in a fire." > > But: "The Johnson's possessions...." > > > > What do others think? > > I always use a phonetic rule. For example "Thomas's", since it is > pronounced "thomases", but "students'", not "students's", since one > does not say "studentses", but "students". I have no "official" > references around, but it is my understanding that this is "officially" > condoned, and besides, I couldn't care less. Language usage evolves, > so there's no harm it giving it a bit of a shove towards some > reasonable rule. > Ken Arnold > > Ken, I think you may have read the original question too quickly -- your analogy doesn't really match the case. In fact I agree with you on the (different) question you raise, but his question didnt really suggest the alternative you object to. I take it he was urging the Johnsons' possessions in place of the odd the Johnson's possessions So nobody has been urging anything analogous to students's -- -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar P.S. My host has been down for over a week, so please forgive some belated-looking replies to older articles. Thanks.
mjn@teddy.UUCP (09/24/85)
In article <1645@peora.UUCP> randy@peora.UUCP (Randy Hendry) writes: >The title of the article reminded me of a word(?) I keep seeing >on restrooms: MENS. Is there a shortage of apostrophes, or >do the people who label doors think this is a word? Of course its a word, it means mind (latin). This implies that the bathroom is a place to think. -- Mark J. Norton {decvax,linus,wjh12,mit-eddie,cbosgd,masscomp}!genrad!panda!mjn mjn@sunspot
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (09/25/85)
In article <1337@teddy.UUCP> mjn@teddy.UUCP (Mark J. Norton) writes: >>The title of the article reminded me of a word(?) I keep seeing >>on restrooms: MENS. Is there a shortage of apostrophes, or >>do the people who label doors think this is a word? >Of course its a word, it means mind (latin). This implies that the >bathroom is a place to think. Right -- It is short for the famous phrase MENS SANA IN CORPORE SANO (hope I got those ending vowels right!) meaning "A clean mind in a clean body", thus showing the use of the bathroom for brainwashing... Next?
suze@terak.UUCP (Suzanne Barnett) (09/30/85)
(1) "There are five Johnsons."
(2) "Mr. Johnson's coat is lost."
(3) "The Johnsons' house burned."
However,
(1) "There are five Jones."
(2) "Mr Jones' coat is lost." If it is pronounced with one syllable
or
"Mr Jones's coat is lost." If it is pronounced with two syllables
(3) "The Jones' house burned." If it is pronounced with one syllable
or
"The Jones's house burned." If it is pronounced with two syllables
--
Suzanne Barnett-Scott
uucp: ...{decvax,ihnp4,noao,savax,seismo}!terak!suze
phone: (602) 998-4800
us mail: CalComp/Sanders Display Products Division
(Formerly Terak Corporation)
14151 N 76th street, Scottsdale, AZ 85260