The Quote, the Apostrophe, and the 'S'

[Phoenixthewriter]

Kinda sounds like a childrens book when I look back at the title.

Well, anyway, let's just jump right into the question. First off, I have a question about the Apostrophe. When is it acceptable to use apostrophes as quotes, and when should you just use the normal double quotation?

"Oh I see," she said, "he's using the 'other' bathroom."

That sentence looks right to me. The single quotes are to signify that the girl is basically air-quoting that someone is not using the normal facilities. But then, what about third person non dialogue?

There wasn't a single 'normal' person in the room.

I would say in this case we're from the perspective of someone, who's opinion is that he's the only normal person there. Do we double quote or single?

Lastly: plurals, using the same apostrophe punctuation.

Cronos's blade. I've been told to leave the 'S' in?

So... leave the 'S' in? Many of my characters's names end with an 'S' (see what I did there?) and I really feel stupid only putting a single apostrophe in and dropping the last letter, but, what is considered the norm?

Thanks for your help guys. It's kinda been eating at me lately with all these proper nouns ending in S, and plurals being the possessive as well (his creatures's etc...)

 

[The Judge]

First, the single marks such as for 'other' are not apostrophes, though, obviously, it's the same key on the keyboard which you use, they're called quotation marks the same as the doubled "other" (or inverted commas as I was taught to call them for some reason).

You've done it right for 'other' when in dialogue as you're American (we in England tend to do it the other way round -- single usually and doubled for quotes inside). And I'd use the doubled marks again for the "normal" -- the single/double don't of themselves signify anything about the way the word is spoken or to be read, just that it is a quote/speech/comment of some kind.

As for the apostrophe used as an apostrophe after a plural, there's discussion about it in The Toolbox http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/51521-the-toolbox.html -- all good reading there.

EDIT: should have answered this anyway -- "characters's names" is wrong -- no final s at all -- "characters' names"

 

[Pyan]

And you have to be careful where you put the apostrophe, as well - "characters' names" is completely different from "character's names"...

 

[Phoenixthewriter]

Wonderful link. I had no idea there was a toolbox, nor had a clue what was inside it. Great information on this particular topic. At least I have the right idea, and that bit about only using a double 's' if it "sounds" right, is a great rule of thumb.

So, let me throw some names out, and you guys can tell me the best way to put down its possessive. As a note, I use incongruous names in my novel as a plotline element, and these would be examples of ones I might use.

Largas
Moles
Games
Mass
Palms

Honestly the whole issue of that s at the end makes me wish I had just avoided names like that all together.

 

[The Ace]

If these are proper names, then;

Largas' (Larga's if the character's name is Larga.)

Moles'

Games'

Mass' (Mas' if the character's name is Mas.)

Palms'

Or did you really give half your characters names with terminal esses ?

 

[Phoenixthewriter]

These aren't my characters names. Actually though, one is named Vargas, the other Patreus, one is Brass, and one is Boris.

So, I guess so if that's the case. Granted most of those are one minute characters, but that doesn't make the point any less valid. Although I think "Vargas's" sounds better in my head.

I hate those names now =P

 

[HareBrain]

All those "names" should be treated consistently with possessives, but it's a matter of taste. I prefer Mass's, Games's, etc -- mostly because you pronounce the "s" (at least I do -- Masses, Gameses) so it makes sense to write it. (I think I said exactly the same thing in the Toolbox, come to think of it.)

Amazingly, I've seen people leave off the "s" even when the names ends in a "z"!

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

All those "names" should be treated consistently with possessives, but it's a matter of taste.

Yes, it's a style choice whether on not you use 's after a name ending in s, or go for the increasingly common s', but whichever way you choose to do it, you need to do it consistently.

I choose to remain consistent with the way I've always done it, and use the 's .

 

[Jake Reynolds]

Traditionally speaking the single s should be used, as in the case of "Vargas' ray gun lay on the table". Similarly, the letter x should follow the same convention. However, as another example of the evolution of a global language, many writers use, for example, Vargas's. I think that you should see what works best. If you have a lot of names ending in s, then your page may look somewhat messy at times though.

Personally, I go for Vargas', but as Teresa pointed out it's largely stylistic nowadays. Since the advent of punkish styles to modern fiction (in various guises), such grammatical conventions can be left by the wayside, along with the word invitation (now apparently lost due to the tragic merging with the verb "invite").

 

[HareBrain]

Traditionally speaking the single s should be used, as in the case of "Vargas' ray gun lay on the table". Similarly, the letter x should follow the same convention. However, as another example of the evolution of a global language, many writers use, for example, Vargas's.

I don't know what you mean by "traditional" but in the 19th C (in British English at least) it was deemed more correct to use the extra "s". From my own reading, I'm pretty sure the missing "s" is used much more commonly now than a couple of decades ago.

I've just come across an interesting conundrum to do with St Thomas' Hospital in London. According to the Wikipedia page, in Victorian times it was called "St Thomas's Hospital", but was changed to its modern name "St Thomas' Hospital" because there is more than one St Thomas associated with it. But is St Thomas' the correct possessive form of a plural St Thomas? Would it not be St Thomases'?

And another one, the correct plural of court martial is courts martial. So what would the plural possessive be, as in "the courts['] martial['s/s'] jurisdiction"?

 

[Anne Martin]

Concerning possessives, I used to work on a music dictionary, and IIRC the house style at that time was to put 's if the name was single-syllable (ending in s), but s' if it was multi-syllabic. Hence, Arthur Bliss's composition, Lillian Bayliss' piano. I forget the reasoning.

Btw, while we are being pedantic, in the original question the correct possessive should be "whose opinion," since "who's opinion" asks us "who is opinion."

These days, I prefer to use italics rather than single quotes (or doubles in the UK).

'He's using the other bathroom.'

But that is my personal preference.

 

[Mouse]

I'm with Teresa. I always do 's rather than s'.

 

[Ursa major]

I also use apostrophe-es, e.g. Jones's.

I seem to recall that even in times past, there were exceptions: one wasn't supposed to add an s to make the possessive form of Xerxes, for instance, and other names from classical times that ended in an es.


(And I think that the number of esses involved also made a difference: e.g.

Amiss's system crashed

has possibly too many esses.)


The main thing, though, is to use an accepted form and do so consistently.

 

[Peter Graham]

Hi HB

I've just come across an interesting conundrum to do with St Thomas' Hospital in London. According to the Wikipedia page, in Victorian times it was called "St Thomas's Hospital", but was changed to its modern name "St Thomas' Hospital" because there is more than one St Thomas associated with it. But is St Thomas' the correct possessive form of a plural St Thomas? Would it not be St Thomases'?

Yes. But it probably looked ungainly. That's why you can get away with s' for a pluralised possessive in which the singular also ends in s.

And another one, the correct plural of court martial is courts martial. So what would the plural possessive be, as in "the courts['] martial['s/s'] jurisdiction"?

Good one. My guess is that "court martial" is an inversion compound, suggesting that the whole phrase has been imported from French at some point in the dim and distant. Had we made the phrase up ourselves, we would have said "Martial Court" (so as to distinguish from civil ones).

So, if we bear this in mind when approaching with an apostrophes, I think we'd get:-

"The Courts' Martial jurisdiction"

The jurisdiction links to the Court, so only the Court carries the possessive - pluralised in the above as per your question.

It looks odd, I grant you, which is why I suspect some folk would render it as:-

"The Courts' Martials jurisdiction" - possessive Courts, but plural Martial to match the plural Court.

The trick is to unpick the inversion first:-

"Martial Courts' jurisdiction"

Then put the inversion back together. It shouldn't change the punctuation, as it means the same thing. Try it with a non-inverted phrase too:-

"The red cars' seats". Denoting the seats of more than one red car.

Obviously correct. But in French, you'd say "voiture rouge" rather than "rouge voiture". But if we had imported "car red" as a whole phrase, it would make no sense to say:-

"The cars' reds seats".

Regards,

Peter

PS: I am now going for a short lie down.