I’ve seen lots of inconsistency in the following examples and am hoping for the definitive word:
Which of each example is correct?
OR: The mailbox belongs to the Whites.
OR: We’re eating with the Smiths tonight.
OR: Ted’s and Bill’s excellent presentation won many compliments.
Sign Me,
Confused
In your first two examples, no apostrophe is needed. “Whites” and “Smiths” are simply plurals. One Smith, two Smiths. Using an apostrophe to denote a plural is an example of punctuation going to the dog’s. 
The third example is a little tougher. Ted and Bill are two distinct persons (unlike, for example, Barnes and Noble), and as such, I think “Ted’s and Bill’s” is correct. But it doesn’t seem to flow as well as “Ted and Bill’s.”
Someone with ready access to a Chicago Manual of Style should be along directly to give us a definitive answer.
Gee, I don’t find this to be nit-picky at all.
The use of plurals and possessives is pretty straight foreward (except for Number Three, I guess) and it is not too much to expect for people to get it right.
The gospel according to Keanu says: “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”
Whoa! Radical, dude!
The first two examples have already been addressed, so I’ll take a stab at number three, despite the fact that I am not a grammarian.
In this example, “Ted and Bill” should be treated as a collective noun phrase. That is to say, it is a group that contains two members. It’s equivalent to saying something like “the Science Club’s excellent presentation…”, so the possessive would be “Ted and Bill’s”. If we were speaking of a separate presentation for each person, then “Ted’s and Bill’s excellent presentations…” would be technically correct, if rather awkward. I would recommend rephrasing in that case. Rephrasing the initial example would not be a bad idea, either.
“The excellent presentation by Ted and Bill won many compliments.” would be a better construction, IMHO.
The apostrophe is superfluous; it indicates possession here where this is none. You are eating with the Smiths. You’re not eating with the Smiths’ dog, or something.
It’s the latter.
According to Harbrace College Handbook: “To indicate individual ownership, add the apostrophe and s to each name.” The example they use is “Joan’s and Sam’s apartments.”
If you use the former (that is, no “'s” with “Ted,” then the implication is that Ted won many compliments - and so did Bill’s presentation. Of course, if that’s what was meant, then use that. 
Argh! Scratch that.
If there was one meeting that won compliments, then use “Ted and Bill’s”; because, as Harbrace goes on to say, “meeting” here applies to both people. It was both Ted’s meeting and Bill’s meeting.
In the “apartments” example I used, there are multiple apartments, one for Joan and one for Sam. In your example, there is (presumably) one meeting.
“Ted and Bill’s meeting” is then correct. Ixnay on the last ostpay.
It’s good to know Harbrace backs me up. I don’t have a handbook on hand, so I was working mostly from instinct.
Here’s one that bugs me. My last name is Harris.
How do you correctly write the following:
Welcome to the Harris’.
Welcome to the Harris’s house.
That’s Jim, Betty, Ralph, Charlie, and Tom Harris’s house
That’s Joe Harris’s house.
Are all those right? I never know.
You are the Harrises, not the Harris.
Welcome to the Harrises’
Welcome to the Harrises’ house.
That’s Jim and Betty Harris, and Jim and Betty Harris’s house.
That’s Jim Harris’s wife, Betty.
Wait a minute. I always thought that when there were two
people in possesion of something that they both get an
apostrophe.
So let me get this straight now:
if two people posess the same thing then only the last named
gets the apostrophe (for instance if Sam and Joan are roommates
you would use, “Sam and Joan’s apartment”) but if two people
posess two different things then they would both be the lucky
refcipients of an apostrophe (for instance if they lived
at two separate residences you would use, “Sam’s and Joan’s
apartments”) - is this correct? Have I finally got it right? :dubious:
Conventionally, proper nouns that end in s get an 's if they are acting as possessives: Harris’s statement to the police, for example, or Joe Harris’s house. (Not everyone follows this, though; some prefer to leave the apostrophe naked, i.e. without an s.)
We are the Harrises (plural, not possessive)
Welcome to the Harrises’ house (plural and possessive)
(I hope these are correct. Now I’m home and don’t have that book.)
It is a standard rule of English (and Danish, BTW–probably all the Scandinavian languages) that the genitive s is added to the entire noun phrase, if the NP is the possessor, as it would seem to be in C. This leads to an ambiguity when the last word of the NP is a noun that might be the possesor. Consider the following sentence that has four readings, two of which are contradictory and two are tautologous:
The son of the king’s daughtor is the daughter of the king’s son.
Sorry, Paul, but I chose the title simply because it had a nice ring to it.
No, it isn’t (in Swedish at least). Although the the usual wording nowadays is Kungen av Danmarks … = The King of Denmark’s … the original construction was Kungens av Danmark ….