Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amdahl!rtech!jeff
From: jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: Possessive plurals of last names
Message-ID: <648@rtech.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 22-Sep-85 02:19:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtech.648
Posted: Sun Sep 22 02:19:20 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 10:16:34 EDT
References: <2475@mit-hermes.ARPA> <1160@ihuxn.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA
Lines: 32

> --
> > Our local newspaper uses anomalous punctuation of plural possessives 
> > attached to people's last names...
> > 
> > Thus: "The students' possessions were destroyed in a fire."
> > But: "The Johnson's possessions...."
> > 
> > What do others think?
> 
> The possessive of a plural noun is supposed to be
> s'--I know of no alternative rule.  For nouns whose singular
> ends in "s", including proper names, Strunk and White suggest
> no special exception to the 's rule.  Thus: Carliss's snot-nosed
> kid, Thomas's hideous deformity, etc., which are no different from
> the usual "'s" possessive, viz: Ken's bizarre mood.
> -- 
> ken perlow       *****   *****

The original example used a plural noun.  "The Johnsons" means a group of
people named "Johnson".  A single person with that name would simply be
called "Johnson".  Since it is a plural noun, the apostrophe should come
after the "s", not before it.

On reflection, using "the" when naming a group of people but not when naming a
single person seems peculiar.  Comments?
seems 
-- 
Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.)
"Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..."

{amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff