's or s'? [small grammar question]

i'm writing a paper about Joe Christmas and i have a question.
if i'm saying that something is belonging to or inherent of joe chirstmas, would i say that thing is Joe Christmas' thing or Joe Christmas's thing?

hey! give me Joe Christmas' corn-dog!

or

hey! where did you park Joe Christmas's car!?

 

Most English teachers I've had say that you'd say "Joe Christmas' [noun]."

Some school curriculum I had said that it would be "Joe Christmas's noun," except in the case of Jesus and Moses, where it would be "Moses' staff."

 

okay thanks, i think i'll go with the first one then.
my preliminary research conludes that both forms are mostly acceptable but i think the top one looks better.

 

lol, not sure i'd take advice from this guy.

 

hooo-boy!
yeah, i totally didn't catch that one.

 

Relax. I'm tired and I'm on a new and crappy keyboard. I'm very off-kilter right now.

 

Grammar Falsenesses are now exposed. The allegations show that grammatical knowledge is faulty. The situation requires consultation with wise internet sources. Trust can not be put into the words of falsifiers. It is the gravest error Axle-Starweilder. Take truth from the statements which expose the potential lies. Your grammar may be corrupted by deceit. Like a virus in the system of a cyborg, soon the grammatical corruption will spread throughout your knowledge of grammar and you will be reduced to a walrus of spelling, for a walrus has poor english grammar. Seek your answers elsewhere. Disregard the source that has been exposed as a potential falseness.

 

Source: Dictionary.com

 

hey, how about that?
i've been using dictionary.com this whole time for its thesauraus feature.
yeah, i think i spelled thesauraus wrong, but i left out the unnecessairy apostrophe in my "its". i really hate that one.

 

Yeah, it's really confusing.

 

Yeah, too many people don't use the 's enough at the end of singular nouns that end in s. But you're supposed to the majority of the time... I've never heard that it had to do with the number of sibillant sounds in the word, though. I had just heard that the exception was Jesus. I always wondered why. The sibiliance thing would make sense.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

well...
his last name is Christmas.

 

We were always taught in school that if a NAME ends in the letter s, then you add an apostrophe and NO extra s.
It looks like in recent years that has changed to make either way acceptable.

I know this issue personally, since my name ends in an 's'.

 

I always remember it as Joe Christmas' Noun. Never really seen it the other way.

 

Yeah, I was always taught Joe Christmas', and that's what I use now. I'm guessing it's swung the other way because people as a whole are becoming less intelligent. Raise your hand if you wanted to punch the kid in Bible study who insisted on pronouncing Jesus' (which should sound like Jesus's) as "Jesus". You know, Jesus eyes. Because that's what the possessive is supposed to sound like.

Incidentally, the spell checker? Not a fan of Jesus's.

 

Apparently, according to Eats, Shoots & Leaves, modern guides say you should add [ 's ] to the end of modern names, like Jones's Book, or Keats's poem, but just [ ' ] at the end of ancient names, like Archimedes' Screw, or Achilles' Heel. Of course none of these guides are necessarily strict.

Seems a bit messed up to me. You should use one or the other, not both.

 

Your way wraung

 

I was taught that if it's singular, 's should be added. Plural possessives end with an apostrophe only.

I think people just make this **** up as they go along.

 

my english teacher said if there a 's' at the end then there should christmas' jonhsons' books. only hwere theres no s at the like mike's books there should be 's

 

Okay, as a pedant and former editor, I will give you the Chicago Manual of Style's rules: For singular names that end without an -s, like Bill, the possessive form is (of course) Bill's. Then you have singular names that end with -s, whose possessive forms are also properly written with -'s. So the possessive form of the name James, for example, would be James's. There's one more singular form, but I'll hold off on that for later for dramatic effect.

Next you have plural names. My last name is Gowen. My mom and dad are, quite logically, called the Gowens. They have a 2003 Ford Thunderbird--very cool, 280 HP. That car is the Gowens' Thunderbird. The plural -s is followed by an apostrophe. They have a neighbor named Bob Willis. Mr. Willis, his wife and his little son Marcus are called the Willises (the -es is added because you can't pronounce two of the letter s next to each other. Try it. Of course, most native English speakers know that intuitively.) The Willises have a Subaru Impreza. Also a cool car. That Subaru is the Willises' Subaru (properly pronounced, Williseses!) The penultimate apostrophe follows the added -es.

Now, just to drive you crazy, let me get back to that one last singular proper noun possibility: In cases of Classical or Biblical singular names that end in -s, the apostrophe comes after the natural final -s, and no new -s is added. Thus, the possessive forms of the names Jesus, Moses, Zeus and Alcibiades are (respectively): Jesus', Moses', Zeus' and Alcibiades'.

There you go.

 

It's allways example's unless it already ends in an s, in which case it's examples'.

 

Well, if I read the above post correctly, that's a decent rule of thumb. It won't always be right, but it'll be right 90% of the time.