1. Charles' house OR 2. Charles's house

[cftranslate]

I mean

How do you pronounce and write:

Charles has a house

1. Charles' house
2. Charles's house
3. Charles house

Do you prronounce it /Charlsis house/?

[metal56]

I mean

How do you pronounce and write:

Charles has a house

1. Charles' house
2. Charles's house
3. Charles house

Do you prronounce it /Charlsis house/?

Of 1 and 2, when written and spoken, some of us use one, some use another. Bad news,eh?

The third is not a possessive, but would sound like 1.

2 is pronounced Charlsis.

[Metamorfose]

Hey Metal, I was taught that when it's a proper name ending in -s we should add another -s, so the choice between then is arbitrary?

José

[metal56]

Hey Metal, I was taught that when it's a proper name ending in -s we should add another -s, so the choice between then is arbitrary?

José

Consistency is the key, Jose.


Forming Possessives

Showing possession in English is a relatively easy matter (believe it or not). By adding an apostrophe and an s we can manage to transform most singular nouns into their possessive form:

the car's front seat
Charles's car
Bartkowski's book
a hard day's work

Some writers will say that the -s after Charles' is not necessary and that adding only the apostrophe (Charles' car) will suffice to show possession. Consistency is the key here: if you choose not to add the -s after a noun that already ends in s, do so consistently throughout your text.

http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/possessives.htm

Way to go, Jose.

[Metamorfose]

Nice answer Metal and nice link too

I wonder what my old teachers would think about this

José

[metal56]

Nice answer Metal and nice link too

I wonder what my old teachers would think about this

José

Were they native?

[Stephen Jones]

Both 1 & 2 are correct..
Lynn Truss in "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" devotes six marvellous pages (p.54-60) to the particular problem.

[metal56]

Both 1 & 2 are correct..
Lynn Truss in "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" devotes six marvellous pages (p.54-60) to the particular problem.

And I did it in one page.

[Metamorfose]

Were they native?

Yes, Brazilian natives

I know that if I showed that consistency is the key and the rest is a matter of personal style, if I may say so, they would thrown their books at me in public square...

That's why I like it here, you do not only answer our queries you also show us the whies and becauses

José

[metal56]

Were they native?

Yes, Brazilian natives

I know that if I showed that consistency is the key and the rest is a matter of personal style, if I may say so, they would thrown their books at me in public square...

That's why I like it here, you do not only answer our queries you also show us the whies and becauses

José

We do indeed. I think it is because most of us here are willing to admit that we are also still learning about our language.

BTW:

they would throw their books at me in public square...

That's why I like it here, you do not only answer our queries you also show us the whys and becauses

Another expression is:

the whys and wherefores.

Hope you don't mind the corrections.

[Metamorfose]

Don't worry, any correction is welcome I am amongst the ones here who are in need of corrections and insights.

The 'whys and wherfores'=> This one is now in my glossary


Is that true that there's a kind of campaign for natives to properly use the apostrophe?

José

[Andrew Patterson]

Is that (sic) true that there's a kind of campaign for natives to properly use the apostrophe?

Yes, indeed there is, it's called the apostrophe protection society:
http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/

[Stephen Jones]

Members of the apostrophe sociiety are those who can distinguish between the whys and wherefores and the why's and wherefore's.

Go on, take the plunge and see if you pass the entrance test

[Metamorfose]

Grammarian's hell awaits me!

José

[Andrew Patterson]

I notice that the sectionon examples of misuse in the apostrophe protection society has lots of examples of abbreviations with apostrophes. Surely this is a proper use. Sure it doesn't show possession or omission, but isn't it more important to show that the "s" is not part of the abbreviation.

eg MOT's while you wait. OK, abbreviations are usually upper case, and the "s" lower case, but this seems to have become standard use. When talking about lower case letters, it is the only way that we can mind our p's and q's without making them upper case. It would be very difficult to write about maths without this convention - x's, y's and z's.