On Wikipedia I am reading about the four Arkansas-class monitors.
How the heck do we make the plural possessive of “Arkansas?”
“The Akransas’ engines were…” Clearly this is the singular possessive.
“The Akransases engines were…” Obviously and attempt at the plural.
“The Akransases’ engines were…” Just seems wrong too.
How about Arkansai?
The Arkansases’… is the only one that seems right to me.
As a former brief resident of Kansas, I think the plural of Kansas would be “Kansases”. I may have even heard that term before.
“Arkansas” of course is pronounced differently (the last “s” is silent) so I’m tempted to pronounce it like “Arkansaws”. But I’m not sure how that would be written. Maybe it’s spelled “Arkansases” but pronounced “Arkansaws”?
It might seem wrong to you, but it’s correct.
Well, except that you’ve misspelled “Arkansas”
Arky’s
(I’m a resident)
(:))
I think it’s like the word, “deer”. You have one deer and you have five deer.
That’s correct. Style guides say to add only an apostrophe to plural proper names ending in ‘s’.
I’d like to suggest Arkansauce.
Irrelevant to the question in the OP. First, you’re talking about a plural rather than a plural possessive. “Deer” is unusual in having the plural the same as the singular. The plural just takes apostrophe "s’ like most other plural nouns: “the deer’s tracks” can refer to the tracks of a single deer or a herd of deer.
Why in the hell would we want more than one?
I think it can be argued that “Arkansas” is already plural, therefore trying to make it more plural by forming “Arkansases” is pushing it, especially with the silent ‘s’. (Then again we have: one people, two peoples. So maybe the plural should be spelled the same (Arkansas) but with the s voiced. One Arkansaw, two Arkansaws.)
The possessive of the singular should then clearly(?) be Arkansas’s; in the plural I would probably write it the same (cf Jones’s, Moses’s), but you should refer to your official style guide for that case.
I’m also curious about potential need(s) for such a construction.
You think that lets you off the hook? :dubious:
Arkys is the plural of alligators.
The OP explains it. “Four Arkansas-class monitors” can be referred to as “four Arkansases.”
Given that only one of the four ships was named Arkansas, it seems wrong to refer to collectively by that name. Instead you would call them the Arkansas-class monitors, and then perhaps just the monitors.
My first thought is “Arkansans”.
“The Arkansans were armed with two twelve inch guns in a turret.”
You think that lets you off the hook? :dubious:
Arkies is the plural of alligators.
Arkskansas? (Like Mothers-in-law)
Arkansae?
Arkanses?
No it isn’t, by any stretch of the imagination. Although the name of the state is derived from a French plural, it is treated as a singular noun in English. Would you say “Arkansas is a US state” or “Arkansas are a US state”?
Similarly for the name of a kind of ship derived from the state.
The plural of Jones is Joneses, as in “keeping up with the Joneses.” The plural possessive would normally be Joneses’.
I’m going to ask for a style guide citation for alternatives to that.
Sure, but he’s probably better off rewriting/writing the sentences to not even have to do that- any way you try and pluralize “Arkansas” is liable to look awkward.
So rather than “The Akransas’ engines were…” rewrite it like:
“The engines of the *Arkansas *class were…”
Or something similar- avoid having to pluralize it by writing the sentence differently.