Question for the grammar Nazis
 

Question:

If a company name (or any other proper name) ends in an "s" and you are speaking of something that belongs to that company, what is the proper way to say it?

If you were talking (well, writing) about the web site that belonged to XYZ Productions, would it be

XYZ Productions' web site or
XYZ Productions's web site

I know it would not be XYZ Production's, but I am having a discussion about which is proper. Any thoughts?

I think the use of 's is possesive. Like Mark's stuff. Production can't really be possesive but can be "mulitiple" as in more than one production, thus would be Productions. I believe it would be Productions'.

IMHO

You are correct. It would be Productions'.

I knew my years as an editor would eventually pay off... :cool:

There's no "right" answer in this case. You can't really go on the plural thing because, while the word "Productions" is plural, the entity as a whole (which is the possessive subject) is a single company. So it's one of the few instances where "Whatever sounds better" wins. Since "Productions's" would be pretty awkward to pronounce, "Productions'" is probably the better choice.

But the difference that I was asking about was when the proper name ends in "s". Note that the name of the example company I gave include an "s" at the end of the name.

Any proper name can be possessive - something can belong to it.

Yeah, the pronunciation thing is what throws me - is that a rule?

I have this recollection that the proper way to write it was Productions's, but that was many years ago.

It's accepted practice to fall back on pronunciation and supported by several prominent style guides.

Productions'.

That said, how about, "Lightyear's above the rest."

Used to drive me crazy.

Yeah, anything that ends with a proper "s" would be s' . Like "Warner Brothers". Exp: Warner Brothers' record label.

Different style guides give different answers so you'll find someone to support most any way you decide to go.

There is currently a bill in the Arkansas state legislature to give a final determination on whether the possessive of Arkansas is Arkansas' or Arkansas's.

AP style guide requires always adding 's to a singular noun to make it possessive. The New York Times styleguide would have you using Productions' without another s. The Chicago Manual of Style uses 's unless the final S in the singular noun is silent (Camus, Francois, Arkansas).

Way too much detail here.

So the key is to pick a style and just be consistent with it.

As Alex said, you'll find different style guides with different answers regarding proper names. On top of that, you'll see the same style guide give a different answer depending on the name (using the "Whichever sounds better" rule).

Examples:
Most guides will have "Jesus'" rather than "Jesus's".
Jones' vs. Jones's can go either way.

It goes on. When something that's singular ends with an 's', the standard rules go out the window. There's the added gray area in this particular case because the individual word the apostrophe is being applied to is plural, but the conceptual unit it's being applied to is singular.

So in the end, it's about picking one and being consistent.

Thank you to all who responded (and who may continue to respond). I guess the definitive answer is that there is no definitive answer.

Yep, GD is right. Pronunciation is the key. I love that he used Jesus's as the example, and the one I've seen cited most often is Moses's. Heheh.

It depends on the style guide for whichever company employs you. Mine, for instance, is s-apostrophe in all cases. Although it can be debated, I think you'll find that most of the standard printers and newspapers almost always side with s-apostrophe.

I know MBC discovered recently that there's a semi-accepted standard to use s-apostrophe-s for religious figures (Jesus's, Moses's, etc) but I think that's pretty silly.

Also, there's a general guideline my team follows in the face of such situations. If there's something that could be debated as to how it's stated, rephrase! If "I just visited XYZ Productions' website" gives you pause, say "I visited the XYZ Productions website" instead.

I think Eats Shoots and Leaves says this breaks down according to English vs. British. I don't recall which is which, but one side will say Mr. Jones'; the other, Mr. Jones's. I think both agree that plural is simply s', e.g, the dogs' bones. Your example complicates matters because it is a name that ends in a plural. I would go with s' or, more likely, try to evade the problem as LSPE outlines above. To be even more uncontroversial--or less controversial--you might say "the web site designed for/run by/etc. XYZ Productions."

My first thought is -- what kind of name is XYZ for a company? Is it short for Examine Your Zipper?

I would use s' for written, but probably pronounce the extra s sound verbally.

Ah, but that's just it. If the name is pronounced "Joneses," that's when you are to use Jones's.

Most times, the pronunciation does not change when possessisizing a word ending in "S" - and so the more common s' is proper.

I ALWAYS use the "s"- apostrophe. I have to deal with it any time my husband "owns" something. Chris' car. Chris' closet. Etc.

See, that's a case where I'd definitely use Chris's. "Chrises" sounds just fine to me, so I use it.

Unless you're saying you say "Chrises" but write Chris'? That's just weird.

I write Chris' when I talk about my stuff in the third person

It's a good thing Bob Dole never had this problem.

It's pretty standard grammatical practice. Chris' is pronounced "chrises." Powers' is pronounced "powerses." I can't find a single reliable grammar reference source online that promotes use of s's because of pronunciation.

Actually, I think I was misunderstood. I was actually saying the opposite. According to good ol' Strunk and White:

In this specific case, I would choose to avoid the problem altogether by adding a definite article to the whole thing and avoiding the possessive.

"Look us up on the XYZ Productions web site!"

If I read a sentence and hear something like "productionzez" in my head, I do just such an end run. Also, for whatever reason, the possessive attached to a person's name, (Chris's) sounds more natural than when used with, say, a corporate name. ("That's the Shotz Brewery," as opposed to "That's Shotz's Brewery")

Also, given that you are (very sensibly) asking for grammar advice, should you really be calling these helpful souls Nazis? In this instance, shouldn't they be your Grammar Friends? Huggy Plush Grammar Pals?

I've always thought that an apostophe at the end of a word just hanging there all limp and useless didn't look right, unfinished somehow. So I decided to always use 's.

Of course I usually rewrite the sentence to avoid the issue entirely.

Maybe if you stroke the apostrophe, it won't continue to hang there all limp and useless.

!

No... that would be EYZ, and I'm not easy.

Damn, I can't give you mojo for that...

As MBC pointed out, Stunk & White (as well as Modern Language Association, Economist, Purdue's Online Writing Lab) indicate that if the "es" is pronounced, it should be written 's. As for supporting sources, since most major sources actually support using 's as the standard case and using s' as the exception based on pronunciation, I'll site some that support said exception: The Guardian (admittedly a UK source), Emory, American Heritage/Bartlby.

Strunk & White is full of all sorts of crap so I've mostly stopped viewing them as a decent source, but like was said way up above, no matter what position you take on the rules of s-ending possessive nouns you'll probably be able to find some source that agrees with you.

So again, no matter how it is done someone important will think you're doing it wrong. So just pick a method that you're comfortable with and be consistent.

Personally I think the the possessive apostrophe is (and the contraction apostrophe) are unnecessary grammatically so let me be the first to advocate that you make a bold linguo-political statement and just not use them at all.

When I was editing (yes, believe it or not, I was an editor for several city-wide publicatons for many years) we developed our style guide and stuck with it. The use of the possessive apostrophe was our standard. But, as mentioned several times before, there are generally sources that will disagree with any particular style guide. I just went with consistency.

No...never mind...I'm not touching this either.

I can't be the only one who was surprised and frightened by this?

?

.

;

Punctuation

I know someone here will probably remember the parties involved, but I recall a story where an author was on vacation when his book was released. He sent a letter to his publisher to inquire how the book was selling and the entire text of the letter was a simple question mark: "?"

The editor responded with an equally simplistic letter: "!"

I love those silly little Reader's Digest stories :)