# okay Charles' or Charles's / Luis' or Luis's



## KL_Phelps (Nov 7, 2013)

File this under strange debates you have while up at 3 in the morning. Was trading texts with a friend last night and somehow the 's vs s' at the end of names ending in S debate came up. (yes my life is that exciting!!!) searching the net we could not find a definitive answer. Some places said one way, others said the other way. Is this just a style choice? And if so, which side to you side with?


Edit: should also note that running example through various grammar software programs yielded no definitive answer either.


----------



## Rykymus (Dec 3, 2011)

There is no definitive answer. I use 's on the end of names ending with 's' because that's the way is sounds when you say it, and because every time I read s' I stumble.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

It's a style choice. Pick one style guide and stick with it (for your books). That way you'll be consistent.

That said, I'm a more aggressive hyphenator than CMOS, which I follow otherwise.

I prefer the 's, for James's stuff. After all, you pronounce the second s. Why not write it? But I don't flip out if someone else doesn't use it.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

I deliberately avoid first and last names ending in "s" so I can avoid the debate.  Besides not being sure which one to choose, I hate the way it looks.  Can you call him Chuck?


----------



## Ardin (Nov 1, 2012)

I use Charles's and Luis's. It's less confusing.
In my last story I used Prentiss's frequently. 
Jesus's too.


----------



## KL_Phelps (Nov 7, 2013)

daveconifer said:


> I deliberately avoid first and last names ending in "s" so I can avoid the debate. Besides not being sure which one to choose, I hate the way it looks. Can you call him Chuck?


that would be one solution but I actually use plenty of names that end with S


----------



## SarahCarter (Nov 8, 2012)

This was something that's been bothering me for ages. I'd see it one way somewhere, then the other way somewhere else. I thought that perhaps there was some rule that I was missing. Glad to have it confirmed that it doesn't really matter.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

Unless we're talking about more than one person with the unlikely names of 'Charle' or 'Lui', I'm going with apostrophe 's'.
edit: let me put it this way: would you write bus' or octopus'?


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

IIRC it's to do with the number of syllables in the word, and whether the final s is an s or a z sound. If the word ends in an s sound, then you use 's however many syllables the word has - eg. boss's, Harris's. 

If the word is one syllable with a z sound, then you would use 's - eg. Charles's. Two syllables with a z sound, however, is s' - eg. Jesus', as Jesusuz is a bit difficult to pronounce.

Or I might have made that up. I have had some wine.


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

I've avoided names ending with s for this reason, but not because I couldn't figure out which was right (Charles' vs Charles's; they're both correct), but because I could never remember from one instance to the next. By habit now I use apostrophe s. Plural is another story. In my current WIP, I have people visiting the Evans's house, which belongs to the Evanses. I shudder when I have to type the plural.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

Saul Tanpepper said:


> In my current WIP, I have people visiting the Evans's house, which belongs to the Evanses. I shudder when I have to type the plural.


If you're going to be consistent, you need to be putting "the Evanses' house," or you will have the grammar nazis on your ass as soon as you hit publish.


----------



## Rambled Mind (Mar 22, 2013)

Strunk and White says to use 's after everything regardless of the final letter of the word, so I've done it that way for years now.  It just seems to be less confusing for me that way.


----------



## KL_Phelps (Nov 7, 2013)




----------



## Matt Ryan (Nov 16, 2012)

I'm in the ...s's club. Just seems easier to decipher.

But when you use it in a Ulysses's type name, it gets a bit silly.


----------



## AndreSanThomas (Jan 31, 2012)

Either is correct. I prefer s' myself, however, that confuses a lot of people.  So, in my first novel of 80,000 words the main character's name is Wes. There is not a single Wes' or Wes's in the entire thing.  I wrote around every one because I didn't want to debate about it.


----------



## Saul Tanpepper (Feb 16, 2012)

Lydniz said:


> If you're going to be consistent, you need to be putting "the Evanses' house," or you will have the grammar nazis on your *ss as soon as you hit publish.


Le *sigh*

English, why you be so stoopid?


----------



## Quiss (Aug 21, 2012)

I use  s'  and I avoid names of main characters that end in s.
I have one and this has been driving me nuts. So no more.


----------



## Terrence OBrien (Oct 21, 2010)

I solved it by changing the character's name.


----------



## Lionel&#039;s Mom (Aug 22, 2013)

I had Agnes in my most recent novel and I almost changed the name because of this, but I really thought it fit her. I used Agnes' and tried not to let it make me crazy. But honestly, it did make me a little crazy. I'm glad to know either way is correct, though I doubt I'll name anyone ending in s again.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Ardin said:


> I use Charles's and Luis's. It's less confusing.
> In my last story I used Prentiss's frequently.
> Jesus's too.


According to Strunk & White, every proper name ending with "s" will get an apostrophe-s after that for possessive EXCEPT Jesus -- special case and doesn't need anything beyond an apostrophe.

So...

Jesus'
Charles's
Luis's

To the OP: You know you can go back to your original post, hit "Modify," and edit out the typo in your Subject line, right? If you were writing Scifi, I say "Chalres" is a good name, completely different from "Charles" but they both get an apostrophe-s. Hooray!


----------



## jlmarten (May 9, 2012)

The debate will rage on long after you and have left our writings, with or without 's or s', for the world to enjoy.

Just don't come down on the wrong side of the argument if you work for this guy. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3y0CD2CoCs&list=FLImpz1m8ojDVW44eH-xyDqA&index=5


----------



## JohnHindmarsh (Jun 3, 2011)

LOL! I looked at the heading Chalres and Charles (ignored the 's part) and tried to understand what the problem was apart from the mis-spelling. OK, it is Saturday afternoon.

(Now should that be misspelling or mis-spelling?)


----------



## KL_Phelps (Nov 7, 2013)

JohnHindmarsh said:


> LOL! I looked at the heading Chalres and Charles (ignored the 's part) and tried to understand what the problem was apart from the mis-spelling. OK, it is Saturday afternoon.
> 
> (Now should that be misspelling or mis-spelling?)


thank you for pointing that out


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

In school I was taught Chris' was correct. More recently (in the past couple years) editors have been telling me to switch to Chris's. It's an important question because that's my hubby's name, so I can't avoid using it.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

JanThompson said:


> According to Strunk & White, every proper name ending with "s" will get an apostrophe-s after that for possessive EXCEPT Jesus -- special case and doesn't need anything beyond an apostrophe.


Does that apply to all Jesuses (Jesusi? Jesen?), or just Yeshua the Annointed of Nazereth?


----------



## Anne Berkeley (Jul 12, 2013)

I wondered this too, but I cheated and went through all my books until I found a name ending with an s. I went with 's.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> Does that apply to all Jesuses (Jesusi? Jesen?), or just Yeshua the Annointed of Nazereth?


As far as I know, only singular "Jesus" because it ends with "s" as part of the name rather than "-es" suffixes. Here is the Strunk & White page, free courtesy of Bartleby which has the entire book, BTW:



> http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html
> 
> "Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in -es and -is, the possessive Jesus', and such forms as for conscience' sake, for righteousness' sake. But such forms as Achilles' heel, Moses' laws, Isis' temple are commonly replaced by..." - Strunk/White


Oh it so happens to have Charles 

HTH.

Here is the Elements of Style TOC: http://www.bartleby.com/141/


----------



## KL_Phelps (Nov 7, 2013)

Dara England said:


> In school I was taught Chris' was correct. More recently (in the past couple years) editors have been telling me to switch to Chris's. It's an important question because that's my hubby's name, so I can't avoid using it.


We must have had the same teachers. What I will say is that while using text to vocal programs using s' doesn't sound right, but 's does. Still haven't decided which way I will go with. It wasn't even an issue until I had that stupid conversation last night. Hadn't even given it a second thought. It was always s' (as I was taught), but now I am second guessing myself. Checking books on my shelves I have found it both ways.


----------



## Al Dente (Sep 3, 2012)

I use both. It really depends on what mood I'm in when I start a new story, but once I choose, I'm consistent through the entire manuscript.


----------



## RinG (Mar 12, 2013)

I've heard that if you pronounce the second s, then you use s's. Otherwise, use s'.

Since I pretty much always pronounce the second s, I use s's.


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

KL_Phelps said:


> We must have had the same teachers. What I will say is that while using text to vocal programs using s' doesn't sound right, but 's does. Still haven't decided which way I will go with. It wasn't even an issue until I had that stupid conversation last night. Hadn't even given it a second thought. It was always s' (as I was taught), but now I am second guessing myself. Checking books on my shelves I have found it both ways.


I think we needn't sweat over this. I think if you keep it consistent, it should be OK. For example, I say "eBook" a lot but then I saw that lots of people say "ebook" so I started to do a sweep through all my blogs to change it to "ebook" and then in the middle of the painful process, I saw that some people write it "eBook" anyway LOL but they remain consistent. So I decided that that's the key. Remain consistent.

Another one -- the double spaces between sentences. I know of editors who are STILL putting double spaces between sentences. I don't hire them. But back in the days of typewriting, if I didn't put double spaces I got into trouble. But just some years ago, two spaces went out vogue. So now we all use one space (except for some).

Having said all that, I will listen to my editor.



David Scroggins said:


> I use both. It really depends on what mood I'm in when I start a new story, but once I choose, I'm consistent through the entire manuscript.


What I just said... Thanks, David!! Hear ye, hear ye: Just be consistent, and let's move on!


----------



## KL_Phelps (Nov 7, 2013)

JanThompson said:


> I think we needn't sweat over this. I think if you keep it consistent, it should be OK.


I agree, it's just that now that it's been put in my head I can't stop thinking about it. It's like one of those optical illusion things, once it has been seen it can't be unseen!!!


----------



## Jan Thompson (May 25, 2013)

KL_Phelps said:


> I agree, it's just that now that it's been put in my head I can't stop thinking about it. It's like one of those optical illusion things, once it has been seen it can't be unseen!!!


I know it! Like not thinking of the pink elephant in the room. 

Consider this: James Patterson's latest Alex Cross NYT bestseller, _Cross My Heart_, only #13 in the paid Kindle store, has these names in it:

Antonius Quintus
Alex Cross

I checked out the sample, and right off the bat in Chapter 1, all over the place, were these:

"*Cross's* grandmother"
"*Cross's* wife"
"*Cross's* house"

http://www.amazon.com/Cross-My-Heart-Alex-ebook/dp/B00BAXFAVK/

HTH?


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

I consider CMoS the final authority when it comes to fiction:



> *7.16 Possessives of proper nouns, letters, and numbers*.The general rule extends to proper nouns, including names inding in s, x, or z, in both their singulr and plural forms, as well as letters and numbers.


Some of their examples are: 
_Tacitus's Histories
Dickens's novels
Malraux's masterpiece
_
Of course, they then go on to give exceptions (*eye roll*), but as a general rule _'s_ is what one uses for possessive.


----------



## daringnovelist (Apr 3, 2010)

Vaalingrade said:


> Unless we're talking about more than one person with the unlikely names of 'Charle' or 'Lui', I'm going with apostrophe 's'.
> edit: let me put it this way: would you write bus' or octopus'?


Yep, that's exactly how I write those. This came up a long time ago when I sold a manuscript to a young editor, so we went and researched, and found that apparently the s's is newer usage. I am fine with letting the editor use the house style in a magazine, but it makes me cringe, so I prefer s' even if it is old-fashioned.

There are actually some mixed style guides. For instance, "the horses' saddles" is often considered correct even by those who would use Charles's, because you don't pronounce horses (plural) differently than horses' (plural posessive).

I'm coming around though. Even old donkeys can learn new tricks.

Camille


----------



## JRiveraPerez (Oct 18, 2013)

Hey everyone, just wanted to toss my thoughts into the discussion.  I was always taught (American English) that unless the word is plural, ownership should always be expressed as 's.


----------



## Scott Pixello (May 4, 2013)

Just to be a bit of a curmudgeonly contrarian,
I was always taught that it was s' but I can see both sides of the argument. The folks to talk to are anyone whose name ends in -s (all the Jameses out there- now how do we make that pulral? I feel another thread coming on) who had to plump for one or the other from an early age or people who live on a street named St. Thomas'(s) Road. 

We could always adopt the Waterstones approach and just give up entirely.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

I was taught it's Charles' and that's what I use.


----------



## JRiveraPerez (Oct 18, 2013)

Here's what the Chicago Manual of Style says about it online on their site.



> Q. When indicating possession of a word that ends in s, is it correct to repeat the s after using an apostrophe? For example, which is correct: "Dickens' novel" or "Dickens's novel"?
> 
> A. Either is correct, though we prefer the latter. Please consult 7.15-18 for a full discussion of the rules for forming the possessive of proper nouns. For a discussion of the alternative practice of simply adding an apostrophe to form the possessive of proper nouns ending in s, see paragraph 7.21.


----------



## jenminkman (Mar 2, 2013)

I recently taught the rule to my first grade pupils (secondary school) and the textbooks we use (British English) say it's Charles's. The apostrophe without s should only be used in the plural possessive form. But if there's a debate going on about this, I guess the rules are gradually changing. After all, if more than 40% of people write Charles' , at some point this WILL be the correct spelling  Grammar rules only describe what the language does. It doesn't dictate how people should speak it.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

As others have pointed out, _Chicago_ is in favor of the apostrophe-s, even if the name ends in an _s, and Chicago is pretty much the standard for book publishers (though periodicals tend to go with AP style).

7.21, which touches upon their reasoning, says this:



7.21 An alternative practice for words ending in "s"

Some writers and publishers prefer the system, formerly more common, of simply omitting the possessive s on all words ending in s-hence "Dylan Thomas' poetry," "Etta James' singing," and "that business' main concern." Though easy to apply and economical, such usage disregards pronunciation and is therefore not recommended by Chicago.

Click to expand...

I can't really argue with them, either, because if you're saying it, you would say the extra s, so not seeing it is a bit of a stumbling block, in my opinion. That said, this debate will not be solved by us--it's a close second to the Oxford comma _


----------



## Jan Hurst-Nicholson (Aug 25, 2010)

Ardin said:


> I use Charles's and Luis's. It's less confusing.
> In my last story I used Prentiss's frequently.
> Jesus's too.


My Style Guide advises "Use the normal possessive ending 's after singular words or names that end in an s: boss's, caucus's, St James's, Jones's. 
Use the ending s' on plurals that end in s - Danes' Bosses' Joneses' ."

I have also read that it should be Jesus'.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Vaalingrade said:


> Unless we're talking about more than one person with the unlikely names of 'Charle' or 'Lui', I'm going with apostrophe 's'.
> edit: let me put it this way: would you write bus' or octopus'?


Yup.

The (possibly apocryphal) explanation I've heard for the loss of 's on singular nouns ending with "s" (and for the loss of the serial comma):

It started with newspaper editors, who realized they could save a small but significant amount of space over the entirety of the paper if they made these little changes that (they thought) would have no impact on clarity. Once everyone was seeing "Charles' muffler got lost" in the newspaper, and "A, B and C" started showing up as correct in journalism stylebooks, these forms crept out into the general population as the right way to do things, or at least an acceptable option. I don't think it is acceptable, though. Other than in journalism, I don't think you'll find these forms professionally endorsed.

And Strunk and White is extremely silly on the Jesus/Moses exception, IMO. The implicit reasoning seems to be that it's somehow disrespectful to clutter up these figures' names with additional letters. I can't think what else would motivate the exception.


----------



## George Hamilton (Dec 14, 2010)

Either is correct (Oxford Manual of Style) as long as you are consistent. But where possible I prefer not to have names ending in s to avoid this.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

The day I get access to time travel is the day a bunch of Victorians and Normans finally face a reckoning for what they did to this stupid language.


----------



## JRiveraPerez (Oct 18, 2013)

I wasn't even aware that there was a debate until I read this thread. I learned something new for the day. 


Anne Victory said:


> As others have pointed out, _Chicago_ is in favor of the apostrophe-s, even if the name ends in an _s, and Chicago is pretty much the standard for book publishers (though periodicals tend to go with AP style).
> ...
> I can't really argue with them, either, because if you're saying it, you would say the extra s, so not seeing it is a bit of a stumbling block, in my opinion. That said, this debate will not be solved by us--it's a close second to the Oxford comma
> _


_
I couldn't agree with you more._


----------

