comments
Comments

9 Comments on “English Spelling – Apostrophe + S, after S”

Leave a Comment

Hi James
Nice class!
Weel, i got stuck sometimes to use (‘s and s’). Could you check for me, if this sentences are rights ?
“The dog of Chris ate the food.”

Which one is correct ?
1 – Chris’s dog ate the food.
2 – Chris’ dog ate the food

If you can send me an answers, i’ll be glad.
Rey

Sunday, April 19th 2009

    Both of them are correct, as james explained in the lesson.
    The first case is usual case.
    In the second case we take of the ‘s’ because the pronunciation is difficult. If you use this form, you must use it through out of the whole document, otherwise, it becomes confusing!

    Monday, July 19th 2010Reply to this comment

amm confusin’ I guess the first statement is the right one:D

Friday, July 10th 2009

the second is correct

Saturday, November 14th 2009

HEY, YOU ARE VERY GOOD ON ALL TOPIC THAT TEACH.
NOW I ASK THE QUESTION: HOW I CAN HANDLE PRONUNCIATION, THIS IS MY MAYOR PROBLEM; IF YOU CAN PLEASE HELP ME.
THANK YOU
JOSE10

Thursday, May 13th 2010

thanks james!

Friday, July 30th 2010

What happens when there are more than one James?

Say for arguments sake St James’s park was dedicated to two St James’s – how do you get that accross?
How will the reader know that the park is possed by two?

Another example (more likely to occur) would be when you say ‘The James’s household’ – how does that work when you want the reader to know that the household is the home of more than one person with the surname James?

Thursday, September 2nd 2010

    This is a very rare and particular case, but first we need to make “James” plural — to show that there is more than one James family or saint. So it would become Jameses (pronounced the same as “James’s”). Then if we are talking about possession with the multiple Jameses, it will become Jameses’s or Jameses’. In this case, the first option is quite difficult to pronounce, so we might use the second. In thirty years of speaking English, I have never run into this, though!

    Thursday, September 2nd 2010Reply to this comment
Reply
Reply

Leave a Comment