Singular Possessive

[nbs2]

A raging debate has developed at work today - does a word that ends with 's' in the singlar, when being being made possessive, get just an aposterphe or does it get get an aposterphe+s?

In other words, is it James's or James'?

 

[Oryan]

I might be a little biased since I have a short name that ends in "s". I would use James' simply because it looks better. I believe James's is proper, though.

 

[iSaint]

James' is proper.

 

[miniConvert]

Personally I'd write, and say, James's.

 

[kretzy]

I would write James'.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I've always said James's. Doesn't look very good though.

 

[Kernow]

I've always used James'

There may be regional/national differences though. I remember from a few of the grammar type threads that the UK and US do things differently in some cases.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Thinking back to 6th grade, there was a kid named Ross in my class, and we were learning ourselves some grammer. Ross's pencil is just as correct as Ross' pencil. Either one will do, but we all agreed that Ross' pencil looked cooler.

 

[savar]

James' is proper.

I always use Strunk and White as a grammar reference.

According to them, James' is proper.

However, they suggest that for some historical names you could add 's to the end: e.g. Jesus's followers. I can't remember the logic any more but I usually follow that rule.

 

[iGary]

I always use Strunk and White as a grammar reference.

According to them, James' is proper.

AP Style and Chicago agree.

 

[Applespider]

I was always taught that James' was correct but James's does now appear to becoming more visible in the wider world.

 

[thedude110]

I was always taught that James' was correct but James's does now appear to becoming more visible in the wider world.

Dead on. James' is right. But dying.

Restart this thread in 2015. Bet James's will win the poll.

Too bad, really. All that extra time being spent on all those extra esses (plural of s?).

Waste of alphabet.

 

[mkrishnan]

But there are also prominent style guides that say James's is correct -- MLA is one, I believe. I actually had traditionally used James' and switched because I saw this.... IIRC APA's style guide (which most affects me) echoed MLA on this.

 

[Brize]

But there are also prominent style guides that say James's is correct

Indeed. The Oxford Guide to Style indicates that James's would be correct.

 

[thedude110]

MLA is one, I believe.

True. But the Modern Language Association is as antiquated as can be -- might as well be flappers!

The question should be: do we understand that the word James' is a singular possessive, or do we need to use James's to understand the intended meaning?

No need to muddle up the language (and its appearance) if we don't have to. It's as aesthetic as it is functional, anyway ...

 

[mkrishnan]

Dead on. James' is right. But dying.

True. But the Modern Language Association is as antiquated as can be -- might as well be flappers!

You can't really have it both ways! 😀 First you said that James' is the older but more correct answer, which is dying off. Then you say that the style guides in support of the alternative are antiquated! 😉

 

[xsedrinam]

Dead on. James' is right. But dying.

Restart this thread in 2015. Bet James's will win the poll.

Too bad, really. All that extra time being spent on all those extra esses (plural of s?).

Waste of alphabet.

I'm with this one. No way I'll accommodate Oxford's interpretation of possessive. James's will be no more than James' and I doubt an added letter will make him any the more, owner.

 

[Brize]

True. But the Modern Language Association is as antiquated as can be -- might as well be flappers!

Using an apostrophe alone is somewhat antiquated in itself: it's modern usage that tends toward using the additional s for non-classical names.

Edit: In the UK, anyway.

 

[Brize]

The question should be: do we understand that the word James' is a singular possessive, or do we need to use James's to understand the intended meaning?.

The problem with omitting the possessive s is that it doesn't actually read that way, and can therefore be somewhat jarring. With this in mind, I defer to the Guardian style guide, which indicates that the additional s should be used where pronounced, and omitted otherwise.

 

[emw]

I voted for James' if for no other reason than that's how I was taught. I agree with others' comments that the additional s is coming into more widespread use, even though I think it's unnecessary and the single apostrophe serves its purpose nicely in this case.

 

[Cameront9]

English major here (Though certainly not a grammar expert). James' is what works for me, because that is what I was taught way back in elementary school..If it's a proper noun that ends in "s", it only gets an apostrophe to show possessive.

However, English is an evolving, living langauge, and both forms are accepted by most people as "correct." There is a trend in English to focus less on strict grammatical rules and more on simply expressing content. In other words, if the meaning is understood by the reader as the author intended, it's correct.

 

[twoodcc]

i thought you only put just ' when it's plural and ends with an "s". maybe i'm wrong

 

[Lau]

I find the whole thing annoying because I've always thought both look quite clumsy and wrong. But I was always taught James' is right, and I'm glad to see others say this, because I've been doubting myself lately as I've been seeing a lot of "s's" around.

 

[emw]

I'd say this whole issue is one big pain in the ess.

 

[imacintel]

james' is proper; i am a proper person so i write james'