How do YOU use the '?
September 13, 2007 4:00 PM Subscribe
I have a friend named James, I'd like to know how to spell James's name.
My friends and I hang out at our friend James's house a lot, funny thing is that about half of us say James's house (and pronounce it "Jame-ses house") and about half of us say James' house (and pronounce it "James house").
Several sources say either is acceptable, I find this surprising as the same sources also say that "James' house" would indicate the house where more than one James live. To me this indicates that 'James's house' should be the ONLY acceptable form.
Can all you Metas tell me how you would spell/pronounce it.
Here is some additional info:
- For singular names ending in "s," the Chicago Manual of Style adds an "s" after the apostrophe, as in "Charles's bike."
- (from Write101) Some words sound awkward when an apostrophe 's' is added: Jesus's disciples. The accepted form here is to just use the 's' apostrophe: Jesus' disciples. This only applies to names of Biblical or historical significance e.g. Jesus, Moses, Zeus, Demosthenes, Ramses ... the rest of us whack in the apostrophe and add an 's.'
My friends and I hang out at our friend James's house a lot, funny thing is that about half of us say James's house (and pronounce it "Jame-ses house") and about half of us say James' house (and pronounce it "James house").
Several sources say either is acceptable, I find this surprising as the same sources also say that "James' house" would indicate the house where more than one James live. To me this indicates that 'James's house' should be the ONLY acceptable form.
Can all you Metas tell me how you would spell/pronounce it.
Here is some additional info:
- For singular names ending in "s," the Chicago Manual of Style adds an "s" after the apostrophe, as in "Charles's bike."
- (from Write101) Some words sound awkward when an apostrophe 's' is added: Jesus's disciples. The accepted form here is to just use the 's' apostrophe: Jesus' disciples. This only applies to names of Biblical or historical significance e.g. Jesus, Moses, Zeus, Demosthenes, Ramses ... the rest of us whack in the apostrophe and add an 's.'
You're right. It's also possible, depending on what style guide you go by, and what country you're in, that the other is right as well. Language isn't a static thing, and has a lot to do with common usage. The idea of using James's house (and pronouncing it James-es) is actually newer, at least as I learned in English class from an instructor that used the same Chicago Manual. I believe things such as gods, like Zeus, use the differing syntax - Zeus' house would be correct. (I guess you referenced in in the more inside).
So, stick with a style, and go with it. I would use James-es, but I would understand if someone left out the -es. Unless you're in argument, the best you will get is mutual understanding with friends. If you're in an argument, the best you can do is convince others to go by the same style manual, or to agree to disagree but understand you're saying the same thing different ways.
posted by mikeh at 4:11 PM on September 13, 2007
So, stick with a style, and go with it. I would use James-es, but I would understand if someone left out the -es. Unless you're in argument, the best you will get is mutual understanding with friends. If you're in an argument, the best you can do is convince others to go by the same style manual, or to agree to disagree but understand you're saying the same thing different ways.
posted by mikeh at 4:11 PM on September 13, 2007
I have a friend called Chris and I say "Chrises house" but spell it "Chris' house" because "Chris's" looks bit weird to me.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 4:12 PM on September 13, 2007
posted by EndsOfInvention at 4:12 PM on September 13, 2007
Strunk and White go with the apostrophe-s version ("Charles's friend, Burns's poems"), except for ancient proper names - much like your Write101 source.
Of course if you want to free yourself from a prescriptive line of thinking, well heck, either one is comprehensible, right? Anybody who looks down their nose at you for going with James' is clearly a person who doesn't have nearly enough REAL problems in their lives to think about.
Perhaps if it's causing such a tizzy, though, you can just go with Jim's =)
posted by zeph at 4:14 PM on September 13, 2007
Of course if you want to free yourself from a prescriptive line of thinking, well heck, either one is comprehensible, right? Anybody who looks down their nose at you for going with James' is clearly a person who doesn't have nearly enough REAL problems in their lives to think about.
Perhaps if it's causing such a tizzy, though, you can just go with Jim's =)
posted by zeph at 4:14 PM on September 13, 2007
While to me it seems obvious that the first is correct, some style guides also accept the second.
As for how you say it out loud, whichever way feels the most natural works. Some would even spell it the opposite of how they'd say it.
posted by lampoil at 4:17 PM on September 13, 2007
As for how you say it out loud, whichever way feels the most natural works. Some would even spell it the opposite of how they'd say it.
posted by lampoil at 4:17 PM on September 13, 2007
Response by poster: zeph - ah-hem, I AM the one who looked down my nose, ROFL!
posted by Cosine at 4:17 PM on September 13, 2007
posted by Cosine at 4:17 PM on September 13, 2007
I know this has been an AskMe question before, because I've answered it before. But I can't find the goddamned thing, probably due to crappy tagging. And if this stays at just "grammar," no one will find this either.
Both are correct, and as I mentioned last time, it's my experience that African-American English tends toward dropping that second "s."
Mostly, I know this through having a black neighbor named James, whose house I've been to. James' house.
posted by klangklangston at 4:23 PM on September 13, 2007
Both are correct, and as I mentioned last time, it's my experience that African-American English tends toward dropping that second "s."
Mostly, I know this through having a black neighbor named James, whose house I've been to. James' house.
posted by klangklangston at 4:23 PM on September 13, 2007
*laugh* Eeep, I suppose if I looked down my own nose more often I might see my blasted foot getting ready to jam itself right into my mouth ;) No offense meant, of course (heck, I was the one with her beloved copy of Strunk and White just waiting at the ready!), enjoy your grammatical triumphs ...
(for the record, I would pronounce it "James" unless I was, I dunno, asked to repeat myself or maybe if I were trying to really emphasize whose house it was ...)
posted by zeph at 4:23 PM on September 13, 2007
(for the record, I would pronounce it "James" unless I was, I dunno, asked to repeat myself or maybe if I were trying to really emphasize whose house it was ...)
posted by zeph at 4:23 PM on September 13, 2007
To me, it's James's (Jame-ses) house. (Note: Chicago also makes some of the Jesus'/Xerxes'/etc. exceptions. See 15th ed., 7.20 and 7.22.)
posted by scody at 4:25 PM on September 13, 2007
posted by scody at 4:25 PM on September 13, 2007
I wanna say there's some pattern based on voiced versus unvoiced final sibilants, but I'm not sure.
posted by klangklangston at 4:26 PM on September 13, 2007
posted by klangklangston at 4:26 PM on September 13, 2007
I think this is one of those things where there is a traditional way of doing things (James's) and a newer way (James') that has become so common that it is now acceptable.
When in doubt I go with what Chicago says, so James's it is( pronounced Jameses), but, I like Chicago quite a lot. Other style guides are perfectly good, I just like Chicago.
Side note, isn't the plural of James Jameses? As in I know lots of Jameses but only one Ron. In that case the plural possesive would be Jameses'
posted by oddman at 4:28 PM on September 13, 2007
When in doubt I go with what Chicago says, so James's it is( pronounced Jameses), but, I like Chicago quite a lot. Other style guides are perfectly good, I just like Chicago.
Side note, isn't the plural of James Jameses? As in I know lots of Jameses but only one Ron. In that case the plural possesive would be Jameses'
posted by oddman at 4:28 PM on September 13, 2007
Response by poster: I don't think so, if more than one boy has a ball it's not the boyses' ball, it's the boys' ball.
posted by Cosine at 4:35 PM on September 13, 2007
posted by Cosine at 4:35 PM on September 13, 2007
I would write it "James'", and pronounce it "James-es." As a liberal-arts educated Northeasterner (Baawwwston), I've never seen the "James's" version used by any colleagues or professors.
My girlfriend, also a Northeasterner, concurs.
posted by ellF at 4:39 PM on September 13, 2007
My girlfriend, also a Northeasterner, concurs.
posted by ellF at 4:39 PM on September 13, 2007
It's just a style convention; there's no right or wrong. AP style:
James' house
for goodness' sake
Fred and Sylvia's apartment
a writers guide
three days' work
posted by futility closet at 4:42 PM on September 13, 2007
James' house
for goodness' sake
Fred and Sylvia's apartment
a writers guide
three days' work
posted by futility closet at 4:42 PM on September 13, 2007
futility closet: "It's just a style convention; there's no right or wrong. "
Yup. I used to be militant about these things until I actually took copy editing courses.
posted by loiseau at 4:57 PM on September 13, 2007
Yup. I used to be militant about these things until I actually took copy editing courses.
posted by loiseau at 4:57 PM on September 13, 2007
My usage is the same as emd3737's, above. Apparently we're in a minority. (And, yes, if I were talking about some object that belonged to the family of Mr. James, I would write it "Jameses'" and pronounce it "Jameseses".)
posted by hattifattener at 5:34 PM on September 13, 2007
posted by hattifattener at 5:34 PM on September 13, 2007
It's really about whatever you're comfortable doing. Personally I limit myself to a maximum of two -seses.
posted by Reggie Digest at 5:40 PM on September 13, 2007
posted by Reggie Digest at 5:40 PM on September 13, 2007
I don't think so, if more than one boy has a ball it's not the boyses' ball, it's the boys' ball.
...and that's why.
posted by Reggie Digest at 5:42 PM on September 13, 2007
...and that's why.
posted by Reggie Digest at 5:42 PM on September 13, 2007
OUP (i.e. canonical British English) style is 's after non-classical personal names ending in s (James's, Dickens's, etc.), and just ' after classical names (Venus', Mars', Jesus') and plurals ending in s (Reuters'), but 's after classical names used for non-classical things (Venus's atmosphere).
The Economist and The Guardian (whose style guides are online) makes no such distinction. It's always 's (James's) unless the word is plural.
However you write it, it's always prononced "Jameses house" in the UK.
posted by caek at 5:54 PM on September 13, 2007
The Economist and The Guardian (whose style guides are online) makes no such distinction. It's always 's (James's) unless the word is plural.
However you write it, it's always prononced "Jameses house" in the UK.
posted by caek at 5:54 PM on September 13, 2007
Also, WRT the biblical names: Are you sure it's because they're biblical (or pagan, or whatever)? Those particular examples are awkward to me not because of their context, but because of their sound.
Something like James or Charles or Chris has an s immediately following a consonant sound, whereas those religious names each have an s after a vowel sound, where that vowel sound is more often than not following another s. The vowel alone makes it awkward; the extra s just compounds it.
Maybe?
posted by Reggie Digest at 5:56 PM on September 13, 2007
Something like James or Charles or Chris has an s immediately following a consonant sound, whereas those religious names each have an s after a vowel sound, where that vowel sound is more often than not following another s. The vowel alone makes it awkward; the extra s just compounds it.
Maybe?
posted by Reggie Digest at 5:56 PM on September 13, 2007
er... You can disregard "Chris", or I can throw in some extra baloney about how it's monosyllabic and therefore the 's is more welcome.
posted by Reggie Digest at 5:59 PM on September 13, 2007
posted by Reggie Digest at 5:59 PM on September 13, 2007
I don't think so, if more than one boy has a ball it's not the boyses' ball, it's the boys' ball.
That's because boys is already plural. James is singular.
What's another singular word that ends with S? How about class?
One class. Two classes. Something that belongs to one class is the class's. Something that belongs to two classes is the classes'.
One James. Two Jameses. Something that belongs to one James is James's. Something that belongs to two Jameses is the Jameses'.
posted by lampoil at 6:03 PM on September 13, 2007 [1 favorite]
That's because boys is already plural. James is singular.
What's another singular word that ends with S? How about class?
One class. Two classes. Something that belongs to one class is the class's. Something that belongs to two classes is the classes'.
One James. Two Jameses. Something that belongs to one James is James's. Something that belongs to two Jameses is the Jameses'.
posted by lampoil at 6:03 PM on September 13, 2007 [1 favorite]
I was taught to never write James's, only James' is correct.
posted by lsemel at 6:12 PM on September 13, 2007
posted by lsemel at 6:12 PM on September 13, 2007
If you're asking about official style in writing, pick a style manual. If you're talking about the spoken language, lampoil is correct:
whichever way feels the most natural works.
I was taught to never write James's, only James' is correct.
Nope, that's wrong.
posted by languagehat at 6:16 PM on September 13, 2007 [2 favorites]
whichever way feels the most natural works.
I was taught to never write James's, only James' is correct.
Nope, that's wrong.
posted by languagehat at 6:16 PM on September 13, 2007 [2 favorites]
only James' is correct
But it's not. James's is perfectly correct according to Chicago style.
The point is that there are multiple style guides -- MLA, AP, Chicago, Oxford, Strunk & White, etc. It's generally best to pick on and be consistent. I prefer Chicago most of the time, but A) even then, there are places where our house style where I work deviates from Chicago; and B) it doesn't make the other styles wrong, it just makes them different.
Except for the New Yorker style guide, which is, of course, occasionally and majestically batshitinsane.
posted by scody at 6:20 PM on September 13, 2007 [1 favorite]
But it's not. James's is perfectly correct according to Chicago style.
The point is that there are multiple style guides -- MLA, AP, Chicago, Oxford, Strunk & White, etc. It's generally best to pick on and be consistent. I prefer Chicago most of the time, but A) even then, there are places where our house style where I work deviates from Chicago; and B) it doesn't make the other styles wrong, it just makes them different.
Except for the New Yorker style guide, which is, of course, occasionally and majestically batshitinsane.
posted by scody at 6:20 PM on September 13, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'm side tracking, but what does one do with the name Ross? Ross's house, Ross' house . . .
posted by 6:1 at 6:33 PM on September 13, 2007
posted by 6:1 at 6:33 PM on September 13, 2007
The correct spelling is James' house. "James's house" and similar constructions are silly.
posted by Count Ziggurat at 7:26 PM on September 13, 2007
posted by Count Ziggurat at 7:26 PM on September 13, 2007
(Speaking, by the way, as a former Canadian magazine editor.)
posted by Count Ziggurat at 7:27 PM on September 13, 2007
posted by Count Ziggurat at 7:27 PM on September 13, 2007
The correct spelling is James's house. "James' house" and similar constructions are silly.
(Speaking, by the way, as a current British newspaper editor).
Whee! What fun
Seriously, though: languagehat and lampoil have it.
posted by bonaldi at 7:42 PM on September 13, 2007
(Speaking, by the way, as a current British newspaper editor).
Whee! What fun
Seriously, though: languagehat and lampoil have it.
posted by bonaldi at 7:42 PM on September 13, 2007
a traditional way of doing things (James's) and a newer way (James')
Quite the opposite, in fact (see mikeh's post).
My personal preference is for more simplicity and regularity in English usage. This means dumping irregular spellings such as "judgment" (So it was formerly correct; who cares? The British have moved on.). I prefer "logical" quotation marks to bizarre rules such as whether the punctuation (e.g. comma) fits under the other punctuation (quote marks). And I think it makes more sense to use a standard 's wherever it is not otherwise dictated by longstanding usage, per Strunk & White.
So, James's, Ross's, and so on. You are adding the standard possessive suffix. It should formally be both pronounced and spelled, but I'm descriptivist and allow whatever pronunciation sounds best to you. Not everything is a formal paper, least of all casual conversation. (Heck, say "ax" if you grew up with it and aren't embarrassed by it.)
English is a really borked language in a lot of ways with its manifold influences; it deserves whatever help we can give it.
posted by dhartung at 8:13 PM on September 13, 2007
Quite the opposite, in fact (see mikeh's post).
My personal preference is for more simplicity and regularity in English usage. This means dumping irregular spellings such as "judgment" (So it was formerly correct; who cares? The British have moved on.). I prefer "logical" quotation marks to bizarre rules such as whether the punctuation (e.g. comma) fits under the other punctuation (quote marks). And I think it makes more sense to use a standard 's wherever it is not otherwise dictated by longstanding usage, per Strunk & White.
So, James's, Ross's, and so on. You are adding the standard possessive suffix. It should formally be both pronounced and spelled, but I'm descriptivist and allow whatever pronunciation sounds best to you. Not everything is a formal paper, least of all casual conversation. (Heck, say "ax" if you grew up with it and aren't embarrassed by it.)
English is a really borked language in a lot of ways with its manifold influences; it deserves whatever help we can give it.
posted by dhartung at 8:13 PM on September 13, 2007
I would write James' house, and I say it "Jamesss' house", with no 'e' or extra syllable but an extra emphasis on the 's' at the end, which causes a slight break between the s and the first sound of the next word, instead of my usual liaison.
posted by jacalata at 9:40 PM on September 13, 2007
posted by jacalata at 9:40 PM on September 13, 2007
Response by poster: Ok, so this has turned out to be the best question I've ever posted, thanks everyone!
Final verdict:
1. James's house and James' house are both correct but both are always pronounced James's house.
2. If another James moves in then we are hanging out at the Jameses' house.
posted by Cosine at 11:06 PM on September 13, 2007
Final verdict:
1. James's house and James' house are both correct but both are always pronounced James's house.
2. If another James moves in then we are hanging out at the Jameses' house.
posted by Cosine at 11:06 PM on September 13, 2007
Cosine, regarding point #2:
If "James's" is correct for singular possessive, why isnt "Jameses's" acceptable for plural possessive?
posted by jak68 at 12:57 AM on September 14, 2007
If "James's" is correct for singular possessive, why isnt "Jameses's" acceptable for plural possessive?
posted by jak68 at 12:57 AM on September 14, 2007
If "James's" is correct for singular possessive, why isnt "Jameses's" acceptable for plural possessive?
Because that's the core rule. Singular words get 's, plural words get just '.
posted by lampoil at 4:20 AM on September 14, 2007
Because that's the core rule. Singular words get 's, plural words get just '.
posted by lampoil at 4:20 AM on September 14, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Cosine at 4:02 PM on September 13, 2007