We have a discussion happening in regard to this topic due to the arrival of Christmas cards. Many are signed “The Smith’s” or “The Jones’,” and I know they are incorrect. One of the people posting said that if a noun following the family name is implied, the apostrophe is required. (Think of a sign in front of a home…the word “house” is implied, so the apostrophe is required.) I say this is incorrect.
Thoughts?
If you are saying something in which the family named is paired with an implied noun that the family possesses, then use the apostrophe.
Even *if *an apostrophe is required, it should be the Smiths’ [house] and Jonses’ [house].
Unless you really do mean to say “That’s the village blacksmith’s shop.”
This is one of my pet peeves. If the Smiths are signing a card, they are signing as the Smiths (plural), not a Smith’s (possessive) or the Smiths’ (possessive). I see decorative signs in front of houses that say “The Smith’s”. I want to knock on the door and ask “The Smith’s what?”
Of course, you also see it in stores, with handwritten signs saying “Apple’s 3 for $1.00”. What do the apples own?
It is? I might have to buy a few shares.
It’s to differentiate them from the 3 for $1.00 that the potatoes own.
I have a button that says, “APOSTROPHES DO NOT MEAN WARNING: ONCOMING S!”
But that would mean that Jone’s or apostrophe’s were incorrect. 
This is a style, so while you should be consistent in its applications the use of a different style is not incorrect. Too many people get taught that styles are rules, because it’s a million times easier for a teacher to do so, but that makes people think that the way others are taught are wrong. And that’s wrong.
You do have two different matters correctly distinguished: simple plural and the possessive. And you’re right that most style guide decree that “the apostrophe is never used to denote the plural of a personal name.” The Chicago Manual of Style (13th ed.) So that would be the Smiths and the Joneses.
The question is whether the implied possessive does call for an apostrophe. I don’t see a specific example in Chicago, probably because they’re dealing with written prose and the plaque on a house falls outside that. But failing a style guide, you can fall back on common usage. And there the historic style is definitely to include the apostrophe, as in The Smith’s.
The problem with common usage is that if everybody does things wrong for a long enough time, it has a tendency to become accepted as right. So far the incorrect use of apostrophes in plurals is still condemned by virtually all good writers (good writers being that large pot of people who write professionally, whether they are stylistically good or not, and who by default set the standards). When you start seeing “Apple’s 3 for $1.00” regularly in professional advertisements for major companies you’ll know the battle has been lost. Unless it’s “Apple’s 3 for $1.00 iPad sale,” in which case buy six.
Only if someone’s name is “Jone,” and you’re talking about his hair or his car. A proper noun like “Jones” should never be broken up, whether it ends with an “s” or not.
And “apostrophe’s” would be correct only in rare cases, like “The apostrophe’s tail is too high in that font.”
Oh, thank God! Somebody still remembers!!!
When my son was little, he had a hat that had a frog face on it.
When he wore it, he was “Frogman, Champion of Truth, Justice, and Proper Use of the Apostrophe.”
If someone is actually being TAUGHT another style, I suppose I’d have to agree with you. But is anyone being TAUGHT to write this way? My suspicion (speaking as a person who learned the difference between “its” and “it’s” only a few years ago, and is still working hard on “that” and “which”) is that many people simply guess, and while they often guess correctly, we only notice it when they guess wrong.
I was taught the difference between its and it’s.
But not “their” and "they’re, until I was 15, when a high school english teacher explained that there was a difference.
Was it on this board that I heard this syndrome amusingly called Grocer’s Apostophe?
It could be short for The Smiths’/Jones’ household. But I admit I may be being generous. (Especially since I think the more common construction would be The Smith Household)
Yes “the Smith Household.” It’s not like the Smiths are in possession of their household, they ARE their household (or are the most significant of the household). I would never use an apostrophe in this case.
I often pass a sign that says “The Thorpe’s”. I always wonder, who is The Thorpe, and what does he own?
If it had been " The Thorpes’ " then I could cut a little slack, as it is indeed the residence belonging to the Thorpes. Even if it just said “Thorpe’s” then I might have thought Mr. Thorpe a bit full of himself, not sharing his property ownership with his wife and family. But at least his grammar would have been defensible. (Or perhaps Ms Thorpe, of course.)
Evidently, people who make signs don’t seem to know the conventions. I suspect that when they ordered the sign, there was no discussion of apostrophes. If such a sign were delivered in response to my order, I’d return it.
Strunk & White’s rule for apostrophe works for me: if the thing being pluralized is a word or a name, do not use an apostrophe. That ambiguity when it’s not a name or word, such as with acronyms. Some might say that an acronym is, by definition, a word, but I say it’s when something that’s not a word is being used as a word. I don’t object to either option, as long as the writer is reasonably consistent.
What if John Smith is a bachelor who lives by himself? Wouldn’t it then be the Smith’s house?