Urgent spelling ? for experts: Possessive form of "Homeless"

Factual Questions
1

I’m writing a cover letter to an organization with the word “Homeless” in its title. What would the possessive form of this be? Say the organization is called “Programs for the Homeless.” Should it be:

Programs for the Homeless’ advocacy throughout the state has helped…

or

Programs for the Homeless’s advocacy throughout the state has helped…

My instinct as an editor tells me the latter is correct. (And let’s say that the sentence can’t be rephrased to avoid the possessive construct.)

Any thoughts here?

2

The latter is correct, IMO. OTOH, It would be better to say, “Advocacy programs for the homeless…”

3

Actually, if I’m reading that correctly, the agency is called something similar to “Programs for the Homeless”. The best way to show possession in that case would be to recast the sentence.

4

Thanks gents. Right now I’m working on the premise that the sentence cannot be recast, unfortunately. I usually prefer to avoid this kinda stuff when possible, but in this situation recasting the sentence makes things even worse.

And yes, jayjay is correct. The organization name is (something like) Programs for the Homeless or Help the Homeless, along those lines.

So far we’re all in favor of Homeless’s, assuming the sentence stands as-is. Anyone disagree with the consensus here?

5

Ugh…I hate being painted into a corner grammatically. My condolences on the situation.

6

Heh. Thanks, jayjay. Yeah, sometimes the higher ups make things more difficult than necessary.

Well, I found an article that indicates that the NYTimes uses “Homeless’s” in such a scenario, so that gives me a good styleguide to use just in case I get questioned on this later. In an article about an org called Picture the Homeless:

And also, from 1995:

…And now I want some Sun Chips and steak. (Shouldn’t’ve skipped lunch today.) Thanks for the backup, guys!

7

I agree … Homeless’s

8

Chicago style would also call for Homeless’s (though it would also prefer that you recast).

9

Yep, this isn’t a right or wrong answer under spelling/grammar – it’s going to depend on your style manual of choice. The one I use (from long ago school days) would call in all cases for “ss’s’.”

With style, main thing is to pick a regimen and be consistent.

10

I’ve never seen a word that required more than one apostrophe to show possession.

Follow the same rule as for mass. The mass’s cries could be heard at a distance.

What style manual were you using in your school days? Most students rely on textbooks or (later) reference books rather than style manuals.

11

I believe that sentence should be The masses’ cries…, surely? As in “huddled masses,” except requiring the possessive as an add-on?

Unless you’re talking about a sentient mass crying out in pain, like the Blob or something. :slight_smile:

12

I think either is “correct.” More people would probably be comfortable with the extra “s” present, but I was taught with no “s” in situations like that. So, go with everyone else?

13

Agree with Zoe. Never. Never. Never.

14

Originally Posted by New York Times
“…and people attending the Volunteers of America’s benefit in SoHo tasted the creations of a dozen chefs and wineries.”

Cool. At least they’re emulating the homeless who also taste the creations of a dozen chefs while dumpster diving behind restaurants, and are intimately familiar with the products of various wineries.

15

I believe that these are correct:

Programs for the Homeless*'s** advocacy throughout the state has helped…*

Programs for the Homeless*’** support throughout the state has helped…*
Stringing too many sibilants together results in a hissing noise, which is frowned upon. If your cover letter later requires that the possessive be followed by a noun beginning with an “s” sound, use only the apostrophe. Dickens’ stories is a popular example.

16

Frowned upon by whom? Certainly not my style guide.

This might be one way of handling this matter, but it’s by no means universal.

17

According to most sources I use. As it’s a matter of style, of course it isn’t universal.

A few cites:
Webster’s New World punctuation

Dictionary.com

My tattered Practical English Handbook (Seventh Edition):

18

These are the exceptions that I mentioned. You can add just the apostrophe when the word has more than one syllable – but not if you are going to be pronouncing the second s or z sound. The best examples that I can think of are names: Jesus’ robe, Brutus’ sword, the Beatles’ recording.

One source for this rule is Harbrace. I haven’t checked their online site, but I’ve used my first copy since 1961.

Some might disagree even with these because they might be inclined to say “Je-sus-es robe” and “Bru-tus-es sword” when they should not have the extra syllable attached.

I don’t think too many people are in danger of saying “the Beatles-es’ recording.”

choie, either mass or masses can be used. (I think that masses does sound better, but it wouldn’t have illustrated my point.)

19

Your examples are not parallel. Jesus and Brutus are singular, so the 's is a perfectly valid way of making a possessive. And when you do use that method, you pronounce the 's.

Beatles is plural, so it follows the rule for plural possessives: apostrophe only.

20

AP Style has this quirk. In that stylebook it’s “waitress’s dress” but “waitress’ seat” because of the “s.” Personally, I think it’s a stupid guideline.