Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amdahl!rtech!jeff From: jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) Newsgroups: net.nlang Subject: Re: Possessive plurals of last names Message-ID: <648@rtech.UUCP> Date: Sun, 22-Sep-85 02:19:20 EDT Article-I.D.: rtech.648 Posted: Sun Sep 22 02:19:20 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 10:16:34 EDT References: <2475@mit-hermes.ARPA> <1160@ihuxn.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA Lines: 32 > -- > > 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 > 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 Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com