deird_lj | Weird Punctuation Decisions

Entry tags:

Weird Punctuation Decisions

I’ve been corrected in the comments to my last post for pluralising “Mary-Sue” incorrectly.

And while part of me wants to wave my editing course in people’s faces and go “I know better than anyone! Hah!” and another part of me wants to change it so that people won’t think I am bad at punctuation, I thought it might be more interesting to make a post about it – because I’m obsessed with language, and find this stuff far too fascinating.

Yes, I did check my textbooks before posting. And they… disagreed.

Let’s look at a boring and normal name.

Mark

Original word: Mark
Possessive form: Mark’s (as in “This is Mark’s hat.”)
Plural form: well, it’d be “Marks”, right? After all, simple English plurals are made by sticking an S on the end – that’s really all that has to be done.

Which would be all well and good – if all names were names like Mark, Luke, and Katherine.

However…

Louis

This one already has enough debate over the possessive form. (Is it “Louis’s hat”, or “Louis’ hat”? No-one’s quite sure.) Add in the possibility of more than one Louis, and there’s a whole new issue.

If there are five people called Louis in one room, are they the “five Louis”, or “five Louises”, or “five Louiss”?

Buffy

If Buffy clones herself, are there “two Buffys”, or “two Buffies”?
(Jane Espenson prefers Buffies.)

Henry

Has England had “eight King Henrys”, “eight King Henries”, or “eight Kings Henry”?

My textbooks disagree. One recommends a different style for each name – “Marks”, “Louis’s”, “Buffys”, and “Kings Henry”, respectively – one says “do whatever you want, just be consistent”, and one says to use apostrophes: “three Mark’s, five Louis’s, two Buffy’s, and eight King Henry’s”.

I decided to go the apostrophe-adding route, even though I knew it would look like I was mixing it up with possessives.

So: was I right? Or wrong? Or should I have done something completely different?
Tell me in the comments!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'd just take the plural away from the name. Five people named Louis. Two Slayers. Eight Kings named Henry. Titles and other pronouns seem like the way to go. Mostly, "be consistent" is the most sensible advice I've seen. Readers will figure it out as long as you're consistent.

Mostly, "be consistent" is the most sensible advice I've seen. Readers will figure it out as long as you're consistent.

*nods*

It seems to come up a lot. My style guides keep saying "Well, there's this option, or this other option, or possibly this option. But remember: BE CONSISTENT."

Edited 2010-04-15 23:45 (UTC)

I'm big on apostrophes for pluralizing weird things. Like, I still say B's and 1960's, even though apparently the fashion is to go without apostrophes nowadays. So, hip hip hooray to Mary-Sue's.

I totally do the B's thing, cause otherwise it looks funny, but sometimes I like how a decade looks with no apostrophe. 1960s. It just looks hip. IDK, I'm weird.

I loathe the apostrophe-adding route with the passion of a thousand fiery suns. Just plain Marks and Buffys would be my choice.

So, how would you pluralise Louis?

Louises. Basically I'd use the same rules to pluralize proper nouns that I would to pluralize common nouns.

(With the exception that proper names ending in y wouldn't get the 'ies' ending, because, well, they're someone's name.)

This. Although I do use "Buffies" sometimes - it never occurred to me until Jane did it, but she and I are both silly that way.

The one that presents a problem is Louises. Because that could be the plural for Louis OR Louise. Not sure what to do about that.

This - though I'd use Buffies if I wanted the mildly amusing (to me) visual gag.

What's your opinion on using a pluralistic third-person pronoun in place of a singular non-gendered third-person pronoun? ("They" instead of "he" or "she".)

I'd say it's fine for short paragraphs, but when used over and over it starts making sentences fairly ambiguous - too many things that could be "they" in the one example.

I rather like the way RPG books handle things: D&D alternates between "he" and "she", and the Buffyverse RPG says flatout that women are the heroes in the Buffyverse, so "she" is used as the default.

One of my books on editing has "she" used for the author and the editor, and "he" for the publisher and the designer...

Heroquest says in the introduction that they will use "she" for the Narrator/GM and "he" for players, as a default throughout. Similar to your last example.

Alternating pronouns sounds logical, until you get he GM beig referred to as "he" then "she" then "he" again all within the course of a single paragraph. :-)

I'm not a fan of the unnecessary apostrophe. It's hard enough to learn to use them correctly without complicating matters. Sorry, Jane Espensen, but Buffies is just silly. Buffys is the plural; Buffy's the possessive.

Be consistent is great advice, but consistent and correct is even better.

Be consistent is great advice, but consistent and correct is even better.

True - but when books on language all disagree on what the correct form is, what are you supposed to do?

I attempted to address this question some years ago in an essay on betaing, and struck the same problem.

My bible is The Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation but English is a living language and things change, damn it. *g*

Oooh... Links...

It really is ridiculous. My editing class got into a discussion about "Louis' hat" versus "Louis's hat", got so passionate about it that there was soon shouting from both sides of the debate - and half an hour later we still didn't have an answer.

(Personally, I'd say that the S in "Louis" is unpronounced, and when you're talking about something he owns you're pronouncing an S - so clearly it should be "Louis's hat" with the first S silent... but a lot of my classmates are convinced I'm wrong.)

Ooh, first bit in the apostrophe bit of my essay because it's so contentious!

I couldn't leave this section without mentioning the humble apostrophe. Not so humble, actually, because correct usage is essential for clarity. They're used primarily to form the possessive of a noun:

• add 's to the singular form of a word (even if it ends in -s):
the owner's car
James's hat

...was the advice I parroted, then had to concede the point to a commenter that James' hat (or Louis' hat) was equally clear. I stand by Louis's hat, whether or not the -s is silent, though, as correct, very strictly speaking.

Louis is America still pronounces the 'S'. It's silent in Australia the way it is in France?

We say "Loo-is" compared to the "Loo-ee". So I've always done the apostrophe for words ending in S.

For instance, whenever I use the possessive form with Joss' name, I don't add an additional S. It's less to me about if the S is silent, but if there's an S at all. I remember learning that in grammar school and it always stuck.

I know people called "Louis" (silent S) and also "Lewis" (pronounced S).

But our discussion was specifically discussing King Louis of France.

I know people called "Louis" (silent S) and also "Lewis" (pronounced S).

Over yonder, both pronounce the S. The best example would be the capitol St. Louis. Still pronounced with the S. Though when talking about historical figures, then yeah I'd pronounce King Louis of France where the S is silent.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd always thought the rule where you drop the S here--instead of Joss's, you'd do Joss'--isn't related to pronunciation. It will still be said aloud 'Jossis', right? But that it reads as less ungainly without the extra S clogging up the works.

My style guide offers two alternatives:

1 (the modern style): Put an S on the end of all of them, no matter what - "Buffy's hat", "Giles's hat" - except when they're an old historical or mythological figure - "Archimedes' hat".

2 (the traditional style): Leave out the S from names that end in S - "Giles' hat" - unless you judge that the pronunciation would emphasise both S's - "Joss's writing".

In this case, Joss is both a modern-day guy, and someone with the double-S pronunciation - so it would usually be "Joss's".

Edited 2010-04-16 02:34 (UTC)

2 (the traditional style): Leave out the S from names that end in S - "Giles' hat" - unless you judge that the pronunciation would emphasise both S's - "Joss's writing".

See, I'd still pronounce "Giles'" with a double pronunciation of S. Every name I can think of that ends in an S, when made possessive would have a double S pronunciation. So I'm kinda looking squinty-eyed at the second rule. Archimedes' owl: double S. Phyllis' cow: double S. The only name I can think of that doesn't have the double S pronunciation is King Louis, as per your example above. And that's only when we Americans acknowledge the French pronunciation. Ex.: St. Louis' transit system is a mess. Double pronunciation of S.

It seems to me that basing the written rule on vocal pronunciation gets dodgy when quote-unquote English is pronounced so differently on three different continents. And that's before considering the vast variation within the same continent. And that old historical or mythological figures shouldn't get an extra S? That seems like a bizarre reason for grammar to me. At what point is a historical figure old enough to not be weighted down by that oh, so heavy S?

So I'm over here wondering why I was taught always add "'s" except when the noun ends in "s", then just add an apostrophe so the numerous S in a row aren't gumming up the works (reading Joss's makes me eyes hurt). Though I can see for clarity of the rule why the modern style just says add "'s" to everything to make it possessive.

I guess I'm saying the exceptions to those two rules above just look really odd to me. Grammar is used to denote the age of a historical figure? Grammar is influenced by spoken pronunciation that varies wildly?

I'm not sure if it's an American thing or an Emmie thing, but there's my curious thoughts.

It might be an American thing, because I seem to be getting exercised about my gawd-given right to keep it simple and not go around adding apostrophes to every "s" I see, or putting an extraneous "u"in "color" and "labor". Actually, I find it quaint and charming to see the "u", but I like to keep my apostrophes strictly for possessives and contractions. Oh, do I love a good contraction!

And yes, the possessive of Joss is Joss', the possessive of Louis is Louis', and the plural is Josses and Louises. It doesn't matter if it's spelled the same as something else. We have lots of things in American-English that are spelled the same and pronounced differently. It's all part of our rugged appeal.

I would say my own personal rule is stay consistent, and keep it simple. Sometimes I fail. :(

Edited 2010-04-16 03:29 (UTC)

And yes, the possessive of Joss is Joss', the possessive of Louis is Louis', and the plural is Josses and Louises.

I am not alone!

We have lots of things in American-English that are spelled the same and pronounced differently. It's all part of our rugged appeal.

Indeed. :D

Really? As in "Saint Lou-iss" rather than "Saint Lou-ee"? I'm amazed - I have always thought it was the latter. Isn't there a song about "Meet me in St Louis"? I'm sure I've always heard it sung as "Lou-ee"

(That's what I was thinking...)

Well, it's somewhat of a Southern thing to call St. Louis "Lou-ee" so the song might do that. Just like how New Orleans is pronounced "N'Awlins" more locally, where as I would say New "Or-leens" and then in France the end would be "Or-lay-ahn". But the general pronunciation is to pronounce the S. The silent S is still around, but it's not the most common pronunciation across the board in America. FWIW, people who live in St. Louis pronounce the S and say they can identify a foreigner if they pronounce it in the French manner.

Listening to the song again "Meet me in St. Louis", it's funny to note that "St." is still pronounced with the hard "t" when in French it would be "San Loo-ee". So, St. Louis still being pronounced with a silent S while the hard T has been adopted is just indicative of the word being stuck in evolution for a minority.

American English tends towards a more simplistic spelling style, but there's still relics of consonants never pronounced (knives with the silent K and gnats with a silent G), where as we remove what we see as superfluous U's and turn hard S's into Z's. Then we also have words borrowed from other languages where the foreign pronunciation is adopted by some. And then there's words like "ballet" and "fillet" with the silent "t" at the end. English is such a hodge podge of different languages--Latin, French, Anglo-Saxon--that I still find the idea of basing punctuation rules on pronunciation to be problematic.

Edited 2010-04-16 04:24 (UTC)

American English tends towards a more simplistic spelling style, but there's still relics of consonants never pronounced (knives with the silent K and gnats with a silent G) and then words borrowed from other languages where the foreign pronunciation is adopted by some.

Plus, you guys say "yuman" and "erbal" and "yumanity" rather than pronouncing the H like normal people. That weirds me out...

I agree about "erbal" and the "h" being silent, but I don't think "human" or "humanity" have a pure "y" sound instead of the "h". The soft "h" coming out as more of a "hyu" sound, but still significantly different to me than "yu". A different part of the back of the mouth is stressed to pronounce the two sounds. It's a subtle difference, but definitely not a "y". My tongue, mouth and throat understand the difference between a soft "h" and a hard "y". :P

Do the first syllables of "human" and "you" sound the same to you when Americans say it? That's interesting.

Do the first syllables of "human" and "you" sound the same to you when Americans say it? That's interesting.

Not the same, exactly. But if I was writing it out phonetically, I'd have to go with "yoo-man" rather than anything else.

(Someday, I'm so going to video myself demonstrating my normal accent and my fake British and American, so that I can actually discuss accents without resorting to really weird spellings.)

I think the soft "h" really is a "hyu" combo. You start off with the hard "ha" at the back-top of your throat and it rolls down into your tongue for the "yu" finish. Where as the "yu" just stays purely on the tongue and doesn't need any added push from the back of the throat.

And yes, I've been saying aloud "human" and "you" to feel the difference. :P

It reminds me of some German words that combine two consonant sounds in interesting ways for my American tongue.

*tries it out myself*

It feels like... well, like there's not a pronounced H, but that the space where the H should be is cancelling out the first bit of the Y - thus making it sound softer than a normal Y.

(Does that make sense?)

I'm not sure anymore. I'm too amused by the image of us "hu-hu-hu'ing" at our computer screens from opposite ends of the globe.

It feels like... well, like there's not a pronounced H, but that the space where the H should be is cancelling out the first bit of the Y - thus making it sound softer than a normal Y.

Wait, that does make sense. It's like you have the beginning of the H and the ending of the Y.

Woo! We make sense! *high-fives*

Why not just solve the problem by saying, "The hat of Louis"? :p

Consistent and correct is good, but there are cases where not perfectly correct communicates better than being technically correct. For example, the word "yous". Technically the plural for "you" is "you", but it can be hard to express if someone is talking to a group, if they're talking to an individual in that group, or the entire group itself. "Yous", although not correct and can sound uneducated, often communicates the meaning clearer than just saying "you".

Technically the plural for "you" is "you"

Technically the singular for "you" is "thou"...

:P

Technically the plural of "you" is "y'all". Or "youse".
At least in some dialects.

These are all excellent questions. If I'm writing the plural of a name that ends in "y" I just add an "s". Buffys, Henrys. I don't know that I've had to do that with any name ending in "s", so I'll have to think about that one. I think I'd just try to get around it by writing something else. lol (Just checked the style manual I use and it says just add "s" for Buffy, but it doesn't have a rule for proper nouns ending in "s". Not helpful! I think with the ones ending in "s" I'd be tempted to use an apostrophe.

ETA - I see there was a discussion further up about possessives and apostrophes. It is now generally considered most correct to use 's even with proper nouns that end in "s". However, for proper nouns, the Giles' house, Louis' hat is still considered correct as well. Consistency would be the rule there, although I will admit that I tend to say the word aloud to myself and I usually go with whichever version is the most easily pronounced. :)

Edited 2010-04-16 01:44 (UTC)

I have no idea what the legit correct thing is, but I think the apostrophe thing is just easier and more clear.

(I have totally always had trouble with this thing though, so if I find a comment-generated Perfect Solution I will be very pleased.)

I can guarantee I do something different every time!

I am married to an editor/writer, half of his family are professional writers and none of it seemed to have rubbed off on me.

But I would definitely go with Buffys. Buffies is just silly. **g**

I read "Mary Sue's" as a mistake. I by far prefer Mary Sues.

I'd use Buffys, Henrys, Louises. I think there's a rule that you're not meant to alter spelling of proper nouns.
Once the word drops out of properness into common usage (a la "to google" from Google the search engine), it's okay to drop the capital and impose grammar rules on it.

I'm not referencing anything though, so feel free to tell me I'm talking out of my arse!

(I'm Miriam from your 4002 class, by the way... so you don't screen me for eternity!)

I'd be likely to misread Louises as "two people called Louise".

Once the word drops out of properness into common usage (a la "to google" from Google the search engine), it's okay to drop the capital and impose grammar rules on it.

Just trying to envisage a situation in which "Henrying" something could become a verb... :)

(Hi! Thanks for letting me know it's you - my general rule here is to screen anonymous comments unless I know who they are or how they found me.)

Well rogering is...

I was taught that the apostrophe replaces a missing letter - so Mark's book is the abbreviated form of the older English 'Mark, his book' and so on. Therefore it would be incorrect to put it in if you mean more than one Mark - just as it would be if you were talking about the unit of currency - more than one Bosnian mark, or the since replaced Deutschmark, is always written "marks".

More than one Louis however has the problem that words ending in 's' would normally be pluralised using 'es' - buses, asses, etc - except that more than one Louis would then be Louises and so the normal form of pluralising will change the gender. In that case it might be reasonable to replace that 'e' with an apostrophe so that you get Louis's - and so to then denote something (say a pen) as the possession of a single Louis you would replace the 'his' completely so making "Louis' pen".

See? Simples! To quote Aleksandr Orlov of Compare the Meerkat dot com! (Aleksandr Orlov is the most loved person in British advertising, and would doubtless be the next Prime Minister if he stood for Parliament... it's hard to explain but if you've never come across the Compare the Market ads you must go to look!)

Here's what I do:

An apostrophe stands for a missing letter or letters. In old English, the genetive case was formed by adding -es to the end of a word: "the book of Mark" would be written as "Markes book". Modern English misses out the 'e' sound, and so the word is shortened to Mark's instead of Markes.

As such, I never include an apostrophe to mark a plural. Not only is it, I submit, incorrect, it's also confusing because it can be mistaken for a possessive. (I'm generally a descriptivist, not a prescriptivist, when it comes to grammar; but something can still be "wrong" in a language if it prevents people communicating their meanings effectively.)

So:
80s not 80's
The As and the Bs, not the A's and the B's.

I would write the plural of Louis (French pronunciation, /'lu:ɪ/) as Louis (pronounced /'lu:ɪz/), although for clarity I might reword the sentence to make it clear it's a plural. If you pronounced it as an English name, sounding the final 's' in the singular, then the plural would be 'Louises' - but because that sounds like the plural of the girl's name Louise, I'd probably try to reword the sentence.

Technically, I'd say the plural of "buffy" would be "buffies", but when it's a proper name I'd pluralise Buffy as Buffys, just because that feels more respectful.

The plural of King Henry is King Henrys, because 'Henry' is a proper noun, not an adjective. While it's fun to pluralise expressions like 'Lords Appellant' or 'Courts Martial' or 'Advocates General', those are simply a case of putting the adjective after the noun instead of before it in imitation of mediaeval French practice. A court martial is a martial court, an advocate general is a general advocate; but king Henry isn't a henry king. :-)

I tend to add 's to proper names ending in -s to denote the possessive, because thaty's also how I pronounce them. Giles's book, because I'd pronounce that /'dʒaɪlzəz 'bʊk/ not /'dʒaɪlz 'bʊk/.

Edited 2010-04-16 12:17 (UTC)

Interesting. I think of apostrophe for weird plurals as a specifically Dutch thing to do - there it is used consistently for all foreign words imported into common use: foto's, for example.

I've literally never seen it in English, which is... surprising, given what your books say.

And I still don't like it, I'm afraid.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Weird Punctuation Decisions

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

apostrophology

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject