# Grammatical faux pas or grammarian's nitpicking? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 25, 2003, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammatical-faux-pas-or-grammarians-nitpicking/184331 "2003-06-25T18:17:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnac_the_Magnificent)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammatical-faux-pas-or-grammarians-nitpicking/184331/1 "2003-06-25T18:17:13Z")
I’ve seen lots of inconsistency in the following examples and am hoping for the definitive word: Which of each example is correct? 1. The mailbox belongs to the White’s. OR: The mailbox belongs to the Whites. 1. We’re eating with the Smith’s tonight. OR: We’re eating with the Smiths tonight. 1. Ted and Bill’s excellent presentation won many compliments. OR: Ted’s and Bill’s excellent presentation won many compliments. Sign Me, Confused ---
**Author:** ![Labdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/439d5e/32.png) [@Labdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Labdad)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammatical-faux-pas-or-grammarians-nitpicking/184331/2 "2003-06-25T18:31:37Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammatical-faux-pas-or-grammarians-nitpicking/184331/3 "2003-06-25T18:35:24Z")
Gee, I don’t find this to be nit-picky at all. 1. B 2. B 3. Don’t know. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammatical-faux-pas-or-grammarians-nitpicking/184331/4 "2003-06-25T18:58:09Z")
The gospel according to Keanu says: “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” Whoa! Radical, dude! ---
**Author:** ![Balance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@Balance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balance)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammatical-faux-pas-or-grammarians-nitpicking/184331/5 "2003-06-25T19:10:58Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammatical-faux-pas-or-grammarians-nitpicking/184331/6 "2003-06-25T19:12:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Country Squire \* > \*\* > The mailbox belongs to the Whites. > > We’re eating with the Smiths tonight. > \*\* 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. > [@](#): > > 1. Ted and Bill’s excellent presentation won many compliments. > > OR: Ted’s and Bill’s excellent presentation won many compliments. 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. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammatical-faux-pas-or-grammarians-nitpicking/184331/7 "2003-06-25T19:18:02Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Balance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ccd318/32.png) [@Balance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balance)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammatical-faux-pas-or-grammarians-nitpicking/184331/8 "2003-06-25T19:51:08Z")
It’s good to know Harbrace backs me up. I don’t have a handbook on hand, so I was working mostly from instinct. ---
**Author:** ![mrbuddylee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/51bf81/32.png) [@mrbuddylee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mrbuddylee)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammatical-faux-pas-or-grammarians-nitpicking/184331/9 "2003-06-25T20:00:51Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammatical-faux-pas-or-grammarians-nitpicking/184331/10 "2003-06-25T20:33:17Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![luvtinayothers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e79b87/32.png) [@luvtinayothers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/luvtinayothers)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammatical-faux-pas-or-grammarians-nitpicking/184331/11 "2003-06-25T22:10:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by dantheman \* > \*\*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. \*\* 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: ---
**Author:** ![dantheman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dantheman/32/9421_2.png) [@dantheman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dantheman)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2003, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammatical-faux-pas-or-grammarians-nitpicking/184331/12 "2003-06-25T23:05:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mrbuddylee \* > \*\*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. \*\* 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.) ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammatical-faux-pas-or-grammarians-nitpicking/184331/13 "2003-06-26T00:28:48Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Carnac\_the\_Magnificent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnac_the_Magnificent)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammatical-faux-pas-or-grammarians-nitpicking/184331/14 "2003-06-26T01:30:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Paul in Saudi \* > \*\*Gee, I don’t find this to be nit-picky at all. > > 1. B > 2. B > 3. Don’t know. > > 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. \*\* Sorry, Paul, but I chose the title simply because it had a nice ring to it. ---
**Author:** ![Floater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dc4da7/32.png) [@Floater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Floater)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2003, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/grammatical-faux-pas-or-grammarians-nitpicking/184331/15 "2003-06-26T12:07:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Hari Seldon \* > 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, No, it isn’t (in Swedish at least). Although the the usual wording nowadays is _Kungen av Danmark **s** …_ = _The King of Denmark’s …_ the original construction was _Kungen **s** av Danmark …_.