# Possessive form of Jones. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 9, 2017, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233 "2017-05-09T23:00:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/21 "2017-05-10T16:09:55Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Is “Jesus” not a latinization of Joshua or Jeshua or something like that? So the proper plural (nom.) would be Jesi. Thus, Jesus’ would not be confused with Jesi’s. “Jesi” would only work if it were second declesion, which it’s clearly not. It looks like the declension is u-stem neuter in the oblique cases and nom. and acc. masculine, so the plural would be “Iēsūs” (as opposed to singular “Iēsus”), which when anglicized comes out to “Jesus” and “Jesus,” leaving you with exactly the same problem you started with. But wait—if you’re going to go with Latin, you don’t need an apostrophe. The possessives would be “Iēsū” (singular) and “Iēsuum” (plural). If you want to anglicize that, you’ve got “Jesu’s,” which should make everybody happy. ---
**Author:** ![markn\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@markn\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markn_1)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/22 "2017-05-10T16:12:12Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Is “Jesus” not a latinization of Joshua or Jeshua or something like that? So the proper plural (nom.) would be Jesi. Thus, Jesus’ would not be confused with Jesi’s. Unless it’s fourth declension rather than second. Honestly, I’m not following this at all. You’re saying we should use the Latin rules for the plural of Jesus (if such a thing were ever needed), but the English rules for forming the genitive/possessive? Regardless of what seems logical to you, “Jesi” is not used in English and would not be understood by anyone if it were. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/23 "2017-05-10T16:14:07Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > No, it really doesn’t. “Flanders’s”, “Flanders,” and “Flanders’” are pronounced identically. Jones’ and Jones’s are pronounced identically… What do you base this claim on? Are you making an empirical statement? Because if that’s the case, I’m almost certain it’s wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/24 "2017-05-10T16:22:47Z")
> [@markn\_1](#): > > …Honestly, I’m not following this at all. You’re saying we should use the Latin rules for the plural of Jesus (if such a thing were ever needed), but the English rules for forming the genitive/possessive? Regardless of what seems logical to you, “Jesi” is not used in English and would not be understood by anyone if it were. I’m pretty sure it was a joke, along the lines of the pseudo-Latin “octopi” fake plural. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/25 "2017-05-10T16:24:11Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Well, I can tell you what’s happening in my mind. I’m questioning whether there’s any sensible _foundation_ for things that might have been “drilled into me by the third grade”. Does a rigid universal rule “always add -'s to _any_ singular noun” really work to achieve good writing/speaking style? Neither you nor Ascenray have addressed that question, because you’ve only talking about easy examples. I think most people are fine with Jones’s, and probably also Jesus’s, because they sound reasonable. But would you really claim that all of these are good writing/speaking style? > > _Paul Daniels’s magic show > Michael Matthews’s bicycle > Jeremy Isaacs’s opera > John Williams’s score_ > > And above all: > _Ned Flanders’s house_ It seems as though it might be sort of related to the rule about plurals of words ending in “-y”: change the “-y” to “-ie” and add “-s”, unless the “-y” is preceded by a vowel, in which case, the plural is “-ys”. So, if the “-s” is preceded by a consonant, use “-s’” as the possessive, but if it is preceded by a vowel, use “-s’s”. The pronunciation, as far as I can tell, is the same. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/26 "2017-05-10T16:37:00Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > P.S., Not that you’ve done this here (yet!), but when someone says something like this, it’s more often than not a preamble for a bunch of prescriptivist poppycock.🙂 True. I’m fully committed to the idea of descriptivism, but I have to rationalize the seething annoyance I have at the writing habits of most of the internet community. And the way I do it is by comparison to manufacturing, like I alluded to in my previous post. Standardization is important for readability, just like having standard wire gauges is important for manufacturers and consumers. Or even how having standard rules of the road is important for drivers. Reading prose that is poorly spelled, uncapitalized, with nonstandard or nonexistent punctuation is not only extremely slow and frustrating, it’s almost _painful_. It’s usually only the egregiously bad stuff that causes me problems, but it’s the same issue whether I’m mildly annoyed at a misplaced apostrophe or enraged at a block of unpunctuated, uncapitalized run-on text. It’s only a matter of degree, not kind. So one can promote standardized spelling, punctuation and grammar without losing your “descriptivist” card. Of course, it’s the standardization that matters, not any particular set of rules, but I have to say I’m partial to the rules I was taught when I learned English myself as a kid. Which is only natural, I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/27 "2017-05-10T16:37:11Z")
For me, with a word ending in -s, I pronounce the possessive singular /z/, spelled [‘s]. I pronounce the plural and plural possessive as /ez/, spelled [es] or [es’]. In words where I don’t have the extra syllable, I write just the apostrophe, which is what I think the Chicago Manual of Style recommends. The rule of thumb is that Classical names and others where final vowel before the [s] is pronounced, you don’t add the extra /z/ sound. Jones /ʤo:nz/ Jones’s /ʤo:nzz̩/ Joneses /ʤo:nzεz/ Joneses’ /ʤo:nzεz/ Jesus /ʤi:zus/ Jesus’ /ʤi:zus/ Jesuses /ʤi:zusεz/ Jesuses’ /ʤi:zusεz/ (excuse the partial IPA) ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/28 "2017-05-10T16:37:14Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > Well, I can tell you what’s happening in my mind. I’m questioning whether there’s any sensible _foundation_ for things that might have been “drilled into me by the third grade”. Does a rigid universal rule “always add -'s to _any_ singular noun” really work to achieve good writing/speaking style? Neither you nor Ascenray have addressed that question, because you’ve only talking about easy examples. I think most people are fine with Jones’s, and probably also Jesus’s, because they sound reasonable. But would you really claim that all of these are good writing/speaking style? > > _Paul Daniels’s magic show > Michael Matthews’s bicycle > Jeremy Isaacs’s opera > John Williams’s score_ > > And above all: > _Ned Flanders’s house_ Homer pronounces it correctly. There’s nothing “unreasonable” about it. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/29 "2017-05-10T16:41:05Z")
You guys are acting like there’s some point at which a uniform 's rule becomes objectively burdensome. There isn’t. It’s just as easy to say Daniels’s and Flanders’s as it is to say Jones’s. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/30 "2017-05-10T16:41:40Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > No, it really doesn’t. “Flanders’s”, “Flanders,” and “Flanders’” are pronounced identically. Jones’ and Jones’s are pronounced identically… > [@eschereal](#): > > …The pronunciation, as far as I can tell, is the same. I’m really puzzled as to why you guys think this. It’s pretty hard to tell exactly what people’s writing/spelling habits are for these things, because they are not frequent usages, so I’m not sure what the empirical state of affairs is. In any event, I’m fairly sure we all agree that nobody except Homer thinks it’s correct to say “Flanders’s” in Homer’s way with two distinct “s” sounds. But I’m puzzled why you would conclude that people do (or should) still _write_ it that way, to preserve an invented rule that every singular noun _must_ add a second “s” in the genitive; and then make things whole only by imposing an irregular and unexpected _pronunciation_ on that spelling. Isn’t the more parsimonious approach to just say that the rule is not universal, because it sometimes makes pronunciation awkward and inelegant, and that there are just exceptions? That, for example, the genitive of Flanders is Flanders’? ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/31 "2017-05-10T16:55:12Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > …it’s the standardization that matters, not any particular set of rules, but I have to say I’m partial to the rules I was taught when I learned English myself as a kid. Which is only natural, I guess. But this is the _entire_ problem, isn’t it? The problem with prescriptivism is parochialism, a lack of perspective on what’s arbitrary and what’s not. It’s the fact that a set of language rules that seem so instinctive, so natural and just plain _logical_ are, in fact, nothing more than the arbitrary rule set endemic to that individual’s time and place in history; and that a different arbitrary rule set may seem equally instinctive, natural and logical to a native speaker from a slightly different time and place. That’s why, although it may seem pedantic sometimes, it’s so important to insist that we remember that all we’re discussing here is question that’s as subjective as the length of women’s skirts; that of a good clear writing style that’s appropriate to our present culture. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/32 "2017-05-10T16:59:31Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > You guys are acting like there’s some point at which a uniform 's rule becomes objectively burdensome. There isn’t. It’s just as easy to say Daniels’s and Flanders’s as it is to say Jones’s. Are you really advocating that pronouncing “Flanders’s” the way Homer does is good oral style in our language? Hmm, all I can say is that I suspect you’re in the minority. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/33 "2017-05-10T17:09:39Z")
> [@Dr.Drake](#): > > Jesus’ /ʤi:zus/ See, in my dialect, it’s common to have a schwa-z syllable at the end there for the possessive of Jesus, so it sounds like “Jesuses.” At least, to me, that’s what sounds the most natural in phrases like “in Jesus’ name” or “Jesus’ disciples.” The latter pronounced as “Jesus disciples” instead of “Jesuses disciples” sounds downright foreign to me. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/34 "2017-05-10T17:09:56Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > I wonder what happens in people’s minds with grammar, punctuation, and other rules of writing? This is stuff I had drilled into me by the third grade. But all over the internet, it’s apparently up for debate? If you notice, even the St Lawrence University handout on apostrophes that **Leo Bloom** posted says, “If a person’s name ends in “s,” pronunciation can guide you somewhat: Chris’s dog chewed up Lois’s socks but left alone her copy of Sophocles’ plays.” Their answer is basically, “It depends. But we don’t have a set rule to follow, you just have to know it when you see it.” > [@Riemann](#): > > Well, I can tell you what’s happening in my mind. I’m questioning whether there’s any sensible _foundation_ for things that might have been “drilled into me by the third grade”. Does a rigid universal rule “always add -'s to _any_ singular noun” really work to achieve good writing/speaking style? Neither you nor Ascenray have addressed that question, because you’ve only talking about easy examples. I think most people are fine with Jones’s, and probably also Jesus’s, because they sound reasonable. But would you really claim that all of these are good writing/speaking style? > > _Paul Daniels’s magic show > Michael Matthews’s bicycle > Jeremy Isaacs’s opera_ I personally always use 'S for singular possessive names, even those that end in an S already. It’s easier than trying to decide which names should get it based on “pronunciation” like St Lawrence University suggests. I also know that from previous discussions on this topic, the answer always comes down to which style guide a person happens to be using, or for what publication they are submitting. Recently, I was proof reading a recommendation for an award. The recipient’s name, which I won’t mention, is similar to Butchells. There were several sentences which required a possessive, but had no apostrophe at all. You’d never believe these things were written by college educated lieutenants. I sent the document back to the writer for corrections. I pointed out the sentences where an apostrophe was needed. I told him that I didn’t care if he used just the ’ or added an 's. I said that I would personally use the 's, but that it wasn’t necessarily wrong to just use the apostrophe alone, provided he was consistent throughout the document. He made the corrections using 's. So the sentences read similar to, “SFC Butchells’s actions exemplified the bla bla bla bla”. Satisfied with this, I submitted the document. Yesterday, the document was returned to us for corrections, with red marks denoting the need to remove the S after the ‘, so that it would be Butchells’ instead of Butchells’s. This is what prompted me to come to the SDMB to find out what the consensus actually is among professional publications and style guides. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/35 "2017-05-10T17:19:03Z")
Anyhow, to the OP, Associated Press Style goes with a bare apostrophe on this. Chicago Manual of Style goes with apostrophe-s. As to which version is preferred by more publications, it depends on the publications. For American newspapers and magazines, I would go with "Jones’ ". Everywhere else, “Jones’s.” But there’s a lot of exceptions. Ask the publication you’re writing for which they prefer. I “grew up” on AP style (meaning, professionally that is the style guide I most often had to use), but I prefer the Chicago Manual of Style “Jones’s,” and that is what I do in my own writing. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Dr.Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Drake)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/36 "2017-05-10T17:32:51Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > See, in my dialect, it’s common to have a schwa-z syllable at the end there for the possessive of Jesus, so it sounds like “Jesuses.” At least, to me, that’s what sounds the most natural in phrases like “in Jesus’ name” or “Jesus’ disciples.” The latter pronounced as “Jesus disciples” instead of “Jesuses disciples” sounds downright foreign to me. Really? No wonder consensus is so hard to come by. I’m trying to figure out what rule my dialect operates by, but it’s tricky. “Jesus” certainly sounds weird with the extra syllable, but equally other words sound weird without it. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/37 "2017-05-10T17:38:09Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > In any event, I’m fairly sure we all agree that nobody except Homer thinks it’s correct to say “Flanders’s” in Homer’s way with two distinct “s” sounds. Well, you’re wrong about that. Because I for one am saying that Homer is correct to pronounce it with two distinct “S” sounds. Where he sometimes goes wrong is by adding an extra “E” sound — FlanderEses. Otherwise Homer has the genitive form absolutely correct. ---
**Author:** ![bardos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bardos/32/1069_2.png) [@bardos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bardos)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/38 "2017-05-10T17:45:47Z")
How about: She joneses every time she goes off heroin. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/39 "2017-05-10T18:28:40Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Homer pronounces it correctly. There’s nothing “unreasonable” about it. Wait–you have a cite for this _locus classicus_? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2017, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233/40 "2017-05-10T18:35:26Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > But I’m puzzled why you would conclude that people do (or should) still _write_ it that way, to preserve an invented rule that every singular noun _must_ add a second “s” in the genitive; and then make things whole only by imposing an irregular and unexpected _pronunciation_ on that spelling. > > Isn’t the more parsimonious approach to just say that the rule is not universal, because it sometimes makes pronunciation awkward and inelegant, and that there are just exceptions? That, for example, the genitive of Flanders is Flanders’? Hey, do not pin this overly-pedantic bullshit on me. As far as I am concerned, “-s’s” is ugly and should _never_ be used. I am a full-on opponent of the trailing s. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possessive-form-of-jones/786233.md?page=3)