Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Singular Possessive
- Thread starter nbs2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So, James's is correct if you referring to one person named James, but if you referring to more than one person named James, James' is correct. Or so says the Chicago Manual.
I'm a Norewegian, with somewhat limited formal English training but I would write James' and pronounce it 'Jameses'. Don't know anything about difference between ordinary nouns and proper names, though...
Geeky trivia: Funnily enough we don't use possessive apostrophes in Norwegian, except with words ending with an s-sound, like James or Xerox, then the possessive becomes James' and Xerox', also in Norwegian.
Geeky trivia: Funnily enough we don't use possessive apostrophes in Norwegian, except with words ending with an s-sound, like James or Xerox, then the possessive becomes James' and Xerox', also in Norwegian.
mkrishnan said: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!
Only sort of.
James' is right according to me and the rest of the "just go with your gut" grammar crowd. But we're ultimately losing the battle, because all my English teacher colleagues (and the freaking MLA -- sell-out hippies!) teach "James's." So the right way, which "real grammar people" say is the wrong way, is becoming the wrong way! It's not that it's older -- it's just instinctual.
Next thing you know the MLA is going to start throwing silenht h's into everhything. Freaking neo-antiquated punks.
I'm also for the destruction of the semi-colon -- I breathe horizontally, not vertically!
thedude110 said:Only sort of.
James' is right according to me and the rest of the "just go with your gut" grammar crowd. But we're ultimately losing the battle, because all my English teacher colleagues (and the freaking MLA -- sell-out hippies!) teach "James's." So the right way, which "real grammar people" say is the wrong way, is becoming the wrong way! It's not that it's older -- it's just instinctual.
Next thing you know the MLA is going to start throwing silenht h's into everhything. Freaking neo-antiquated punks.
I'm also for the destruction of the semi-colon -- I breathe horizontally, not vertically!
Did you read my excerpts from the Chicago Style Guide?
mcarnes said:
Possessives and past tenses are different uses of ' You can't say "James has iPod fell and broken"
Brize said:
You'd be fine. But if you wanted to go the home of the James family, it would be the James' house.
English can be such a perverse language.
savar said:
No, I'm afraid you have that backwards. James's is proper, but Jesus' is proper, too, according to Strunk and White (or so says the Wikipedia).
Check out the Wikipedia article on the apostrophe. According to that, both are correct, but most language institutions agree that it should be James's but makes exceptions for historical names.
thedude110 said:Only sort of.
James' is right according to me and the rest of the "just go with your gut" grammar crowd. But we're ultimately losing the battle, because all my English teacher colleagues (and the freaking MLA -- sell-out hippies!) teach "James's." So the right way, which "real grammar people" say is the wrong way, is becoming the wrong way! It's not that it's older -- it's just instinctual.
Next thing you know the MLA is going to start throwing silenht h's into everhything. Freaking neo-antiquated punks.
I'm also for the destruction of the semi-colon -- I breathe horizontally, not vertically!
Um, okay... but what's wrong with the semi-colon? What would you use in its place?
IJ Reilly said:
I did, for better or worse!
Point is the general obscurity of the rule, though. If language has two functions (communicative and aesthetic), and one the rules of our grammar fails both tests (how many out of 100 know the rule in question -- I certainly didn't!), then the rule doesn't matter. You find other ways to differentiate between multiple Jameses in your prose, or you follow the "rule" that you think the majority will understand.
Macaddict said:
The semicolon is a disaster. It scares children, for God's sake.
I favor the dash in all its forms. The dash indicates paused space (it's a breath) while more clearly individuating the sentence parts while also implying that any attempt at communication is essentially a non-sequitir.
Such that:
That bubble tea we got tonight was amazing -- I wish it held up in the fridge.
Ok, since I think the consensus is that both might be technically correct, here's my gut answer:
How would you say it?
More like Jamezez (James's) or more like Jamezz (James'). Hence why I think the "right" answer is James's.
Try it with another: Peoples'. Here you would not say Peoplezez, but might extend the s/z sound a bit, like Peoplezz.
Does that make any sense?
How would you say it?
More like Jamezez (James's) or more like Jamezz (James'). Hence why I think the "right" answer is James's.
Try it with another: Peoples'. Here you would not say Peoplezez, but might extend the s/z sound a bit, like Peoplezz.
Does that make any sense?
I'd definitely say James's but I would always write James'. Its just the way it is. {doo doo doo, doo doo doo, doo doo doo}
I was a bit confused but the explanations above - James's for singular possessive and James' for plural possessive - have the ring of truth and familiarity about them.
"I went to the James's house last night - Lucy James' PowerMac Quad is a bit of a goer!"
I disagree however that James's is a modern usage. I defer to the ancient authority on English, the Royal Family, who set up one of their parks called St James's Park in central London (one of London's most posh parks, and lovely to walk in and feed the birds at lunch time), round about AD 1670.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._James's_Park
Cheers
Tomato
"I went to the James's house last night - Lucy James' PowerMac Quad is a bit of a goer!"
I disagree however that James's is a modern usage. I defer to the ancient authority on English, the Royal Family, who set up one of their parks called St James's Park in central London (one of London's most posh parks, and lovely to walk in and feed the birds at lunch time), round about AD 1670.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._James's_Park
Cheers
Tomato
I was taught that monosyllabic proper nouns ending in s got the 's as a possessive, otherwise just the apostrophe. Therefore, James's, Miles's, Jess's but Jesus', Dolores', Francis' etc. It seems to work pretty well, whatever grammatical dogma you subscribe to.
WOW, school coming in handy!
it's James's
Anyways, my english teacher last year knew EVERTHING. The rule is that for like old heroes, legends, famous old people (ex. Hercules' , Jesus' , Zeus')
For everyone else, its apostrophe s including those ending in s.
it's James's
Anyways, my english teacher last year knew EVERTHING. The rule is that for like old heroes, legends, famous old people (ex. Hercules' , Jesus' , Zeus')
For everyone else, its apostrophe s including those ending in s.
This is one of my pet peeves, but I think it really is our language's fault.
In Spanish, if you wanted to indicate "belonging to James" you'd say the equivalent of "of James" which is "de Diego" or "de Santiago"
One of my other pet peeves is people that assume James=Jaime.
In Spanish, if you wanted to indicate "belonging to James" you'd say the equivalent of "of James" which is "de Diego" or "de Santiago"
One of my other pet peeves is people that assume James=Jaime.
steamboat26 said:
So the rule is if it is James the guy next door, it's James's house, but if it is for St. James is should be St. James' brother?
That makes no sense...like if I had a friend names Jesus, it would be Jesus's Mini Cooper, but for olde skool Jesus it's Jesus' Cross.
Does it apply to people named after famous people? Because then the issue still applies as James is after Saint James. And lots of other names are based in Religious or Mythical origins.
I don't think it applies to being named after a religious or mythical person (like a dog named Hercules) just to the real person. I am not absolutely sure, the rule does seem to have some possible exceptions, but that is what my english teacher told me, and he was a genious.TheAnswer said:
