Indicating Possession For a Word Ending in -s

[Scott R]

When I was growing up, I definitely remember being taught that words ending in -s could indicate possession by placing the apostraphe after the ending -s.  Like:

Nicholas' brother
Charles' last will and testament
Bess' dresses
Jesus' tears

Is that the grammatically correct way to do things?  I'm being told it isn't...and if it isn't, could someone point me to the rules that govern this nonsense?

[The Genuine]

That's what I was taught too.  And I too have since been told it's wrong.

I caved and add the extra S now.

[Brinestone]

Chicago advises adding the extra 's where it's pronounced and not where it isn't. Which generally means that you'd get:

Nicholas's brother
Charles's last will and testament
Bess's dresses
Jesus' tears (Jesus and Moses and the like are special because their names have two s sounds in a row, so our natural instinct is not to say "Moses's")

[Porter]

I say "Moses's" and "Jesus's".

But, like Scott, I was taught to write "Moses'".

[Scott R]

Chicago advises adding the extra 's where it's pronounced and not where it isn't.

Okay-- thanks.  I guess that makes sense, since English is somewhat phonetic.  

But it looks clumsy on paper...

[Annie Subjunctive]

Someone somewhere taught me that modern names ending in S need the extra S (Charles's, Nicholas's) but that classic names can just use the apostrophe (Jesus', Moses', Archimedes', Euripides')

Also, knock knock...

[rivka]

Other guides do not add the superfluous s. I'm with them.

Lois'!

[Porter]

English rules are gross and smell like poo.    

[Jonathon]

When I was growing up, I definitely remember being taught that words ending in -s could indicate possession by placing the apostraphe after the ending -s.  Like:

Nicholas' brother
Charles' last will and testament
Bess' dresses
Jesus' tears

Is that the grammatically correct way to do things?  I'm being told it isn't...and if it isn't, could someone point me to the rules that govern this nonsense?

As others have said, it's a correct way to do things. The reason, I believe, is that pronunciation of possessives ending with s is variable. Some people pronounce the extra s, and some don't. And some fascist style guides like AP think there's only one right way to do things.  

[Jonathon]

English rules are gross and smell like poo.  

There's something about equating "English rules" with "standardized English orthography" that bugs me for some reason. It's like saying math sucks because you don't like the fact that there are multiple ways to draw division notations.

[sweet clementine]

Also, knock knock...

who's there?

[The Genuine]

There's something about equating "English rules" with "standardized English orthography" that bugs me for some reason.

Me too.

[TomDavidson]

Some people pronounce the extra s, and some don't.

I couldn't figure out who doesn't pronounce the extra "s," or in what circumstances you might not. After all, no one says -- or would say -- "I stole Jesus tricycle." But then I realized that if the word already had an extra "s" as a consequence of a plural, I normally wouldn't say the "s"; in other words, I would NOT say "I shot out the Smiths-es window."
 

[Porter]

English rules are gross and smell like poo. 

There's something about equating "English rules" with "standardized English orthography" that bugs me for some reason. It's like saying math sucks because you don't like the fact that there are multiple ways to draw division notations.

The fact that there are multiple ways to draw division notations doesn't suck.

The rules for writing English (a subset of "English rules") do suck.

[Scott R]

The rules for writing English (a subset of "English rules") do suck.

I think they're value-neutral.

[BlackBlade]

The rules for writing English (a subset of "English rules") do suck.

I think they're value-neutral.

So they're really Swiss rules?

[Annie Subjunctive]

Also, knock knock...

who's there?

Euripides.

[sweet clementine]

Euripides who?

[Annie Subjunctive]

Euripides pants, I break-a you face!

[pooka]

I like the repeating s sounds explanation.  I will promulgate it.  Next time someone asks, which I anticipate will be never.  

If I feel like messing with them I will say "what did you think a semicolon was for?"

[sweet clementine]

[dkw]

Some people pronounce the extra s, and some don't.

I couldn't figure out who doesn't pronounce the extra "s," or in what circumstances you might not. After all, no one says -- or would say -- "I stole Jesus tricycle." But then I realized that if the word already had an extra "s" as a consequence of a plural, I normally wouldn't say the "s"; in other words, I would NOT say "I shot out the Smiths-es window."

I don't usually pronounce the extra "s".  I admit if I had thought of this issue before Charles was born, however, he would probably have been named Alan.  It works for me to say, "No John, that's Charles' drink" but I don't like to say-- in answer to "can I have that?"  -- "No, it's Charles."  So then I add the extra "es" sound.  Unless I think ahead and say "No, it belongs to Charles."

[Annie Subjunctive]

You'll have to just start calling him Chuck, I guess.

[pooka]

I take it "Charlie" is out of the question.

[dkw]

When he's old enough to decide if he wants a nickname, we'll go with what he wants to be called.  Until then, "Charlie" is out of the question.

Except the occasional "Charlie-bear."