Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Fun with Polls Lois' vs. Lois's

As some of you know, Rivka and I have been writing a story together. However, we have hit an editing sticking point. How would you write the possessive form of Lois? Two ways are gramatically accepted, and we seem to think it's a personal preference. The problem is that we each have a different preference.

so: How would you phrase this sentance?

If I could vote more than once, I would. I'm a big stickler for Lois'.


Jen
Is interested in knowing which preference the two of you have at the end of this. <g>

I have always written it as Lois's, because I was always taught that even if a word ends in an "s" that you would still add an "'s" to it

Nice and interesting question...

Really? I, on the other had, was taught that you always place an 's, except if the word ends in s, when you only put an apostrophe.

The thing is, that when I send a story at the Archive, my GE said, among the other corrections, that "Lois's" is correct and not "Lois'". "When the word is in the SINGULAR," he said, "you do add an s. You do not add one only if it is in the PLURAL."

Given the fact that all of my teachers are Greek and my GE is... I think from the USA, (well... at least I know for sure he is a native English speaker), I assume that he is right.

So, I vote for Lois's.

AnnaBtG.

I voted for Lois' - however, I'm really not a stickler about this. In fact, lately I've been tempted to change my stance on the issue because I've realized that I pronounce it "Lois's." But that looks funny to me after all this time of writing it as "Lois'." Can you tell I'm really conflicted on this?

Anyway, I think the only thing that *really* matters is that writers pick one and stick to it. Be consistant in whichever you choose.

Annie

Editing to add this:

With all due respect to your GE, I would hesitate to take the opinion of any native English speaker at face value when it conflicts with what you've been taught by your English intstructors. Just because we speak the language does not mean we necessarily understand the minutiae of the rules of grammar.

The point of this poll is that there there are two equally acceptable versions. It's merely a question of which you prefer.

I picked Lois' just because that's how I've always written, that's how I was taught. But it really doesn't matter much to me, as long as its consistent, like Annie said.

Caroline

We've had conversations on this one in the past and I don't think we've ever reached a concensus yet.

I have a personal preference for Lois' - not out of any sense of logic or grammar rules, but simply because I arbitrarily think that Lois's looks dashed clumsy.

When I'm beta-reading or GEing for the Archive, I tend to just let it be down to the individual choice of the author. I did flirt with trying to insist on Lois's for a brief period and did try making myself use it too, but in the end thought, what the heck, since no one seems to be able to pin it down one way or another, it may as well be down to the individual.

I'll definitely go with other posters - consistency is the main thing, either way.


LabRat

How true is that, for me at least. All of my french instructors over the years have known at least 12 times the grammar rules that I knew.

Jen

English teachers the world over seem to teach different things. Who knows? Maybe both are correct. I don't have an English grammar text book in my possession. I'll bet most native English speakers don't. I've been taught that regardless of singular or plural, you do not append an additional 's' to the end. So I've always considered it Lois'. I also think Lois's just looks plain wrong.

But hey, I don't have the documentation to prove it.

Definitely Lois's!

Tricia

I think Tricia might know which one I prefer

EDIT: Okay, to be honest, Rivka and I had a pretty big argument over this, so we decided we'd settle it from the poll. I prefer Lois's (Tricia has trained me well ), while Rivka prefers Lois'. However, since we had another grammar issue that I was more concerned with, I decided to let her use Lois' if she let me use my quotation mark issue.

- Alicia

I did an Internet search for grammar rules just because I was curious. And of course, I found the Internet was no help. On three university websites, I found three different rules.

One website said that you always append 's to the end of a possessive even if the noun ends in an 's'.

A second university website said you only append an 's if you pronounce another syllable after the name, e.g. lois-es would then be spelled Lois's, whereas a word like boys would only have a ' appended to it because you don't pronounce the plural, boys-es.

A third university website said that it was completely optional. You could append either ' or 's to the end of a possessive ending in 's'.

So there you have it. Three colleges with three different answers. Sigh. Esperanto is looking better and better.

I just voted and noticed that Lois's is far behind. We're in the minority here, Tricia!


Actually, in my two first stories you'll notice that I've used Lois'

When Tricia started to BR for me she told me to use Lois's and of course I did. Anything to keep my BR happy!

That's the way I was taught in school, anyway. Initially, I started writing Lois' because I'd seen it in so many fanfics; I just assumed it had to be the American way.

Ursie

Know what I think? I think nobody knows.

I think two things are clear.

One, both forms seem to be grammatically "legal."

Two, some people feel VERY strongly about which one they use. (Yes, including me. )

If you want to see which one we ended up using, look here.

Yeah, any rule of grammar is liable to have several valid alternatives

Roger, of your three websites, I agree with this one:

Lois' just doesn't sound right to me when I'm reading... but I'd definitely go with the Kents' kitchen, or whatever... or Lanes' dysfuntions... <g>

But isn't it a great sign that we've not only got people who know some grammar, but we've got people who *want* to know more? That attitude right there is, I think, a big part of the reason that we have such high quality fanfic.

PJ

I am all for Lois'. It's the way I always write it and I hate change, so...

I know what you're talking about.
In Greek - which is a far more difficult language than English - you can see this every day. Even teachers of Greek philology make mistakes, and big ones

However, I have three reasons to agree with the singular/plural theory of my GE:

1) When someone is a GE, you expect them to be well aware of grammatical etc. issues.

2) Languages advance very quickly. A new TV show is enough to bring up many new quotes, which soon become widely used.
So, since all of my teachers have been older than 50 years old, I could think they use an "old" way to write, or a more formal one.

Example:
You are out in London, Los Angeles, Metropolis... wherever. You ask someone what time it is. How many people would tell you "it's quarter past five"?
Almost no one.
Yet, this is the way I was taught to express the time.

3) It sounds correct. I think it agrees with this theory Roger posted:

Anyway, even if the English philologists have decided and there IS something that is SURELY correct and something that is SURELY wrong (but, as far as you have let me know <g>, they haven't), I believe that such minor issues can't be considered as real mistakes. There are bigger issues, too, when you can doubt which one is correct, and there really isn't an answer (i.e., spelt or spelled? My brother's English coursebook says they're both correct).

Allow me to use an example from Greek here:

"We are" and "we were" in Greek sound the same, but they are spelt differently (&#949;&#943;&#956;&#945;&#963;&#964;&#949;/&#942;&#956;&#945;&#963;&#964;&#949;, in case you can see the Greek characters on your screens).
A classmate wrote in his dictation the past form, instead of the present form he had to, in that text. He then copied the text on the blackboard, so that the rest of the students would correct his mistakes.
When the others corrected the other mistakes he had, I pointed that one.
My teacher's answer:
"Well, nowadays many people confuse these two forms... It's not really a mistake."

Although I believe this leads to forgetting our language (generally speaking, not only for Greek) and to using a newly formed, maybe stupid language, sometimes you can't convince the people to even correct the bigger mistakes... and the smaller ones, like the one we are arguing here about, are forgotten and used the way everyone wants.

Yes, it is. I hope it keeps being like this.

AnnaBtG.

P.S.: I'm sorry for writing so much and tiring you... if you knew the history of the Greek language and its present situation you'd understand.
I just hope English won't have a similar future (although, with all these new versions of English we see lately, and the way I write <g> I'm not so sure about it).

P.P.S.: I'm also sorry for my pessimism - but I can't help it.

well, as some of you have probably figured out, i'm the GE anna was referring to (i believe i'm the only male GE).

i grew up learning that you always add the extra "s," but changed that after a debate on the issue a couple years ago.

someone came up with a reliable-sounding source (i think it was wendy, on the ficlist, with the grammar book... or maybe it was col. mustard...) that suggested the theory that anna mentioned. it sounded sensible, and folcs seemed to agree that it worked. so that's the one i've been using ever since. long enough that i'd actually forgotten there were conflicting sources.

so, anyway, what i wanted to say was that i think it works, but that it shouldn't be taken as the one true way. i may have been raised by a grammar stickler, but i'm not an infallible source. i just try to be as careful and thorough as possible when i'm GEing.

of course, the "write it only if you'd say it" theory sounds good, too. i think that gives a fairly similar set of reccomendations, actually. certainly, both agree in this case that it should be "lois's." still, there are enough people who say it should be "lois'" that it should also be considered valid. <shrug>

Paul

Actually, I would. I might also say five-fifteen, but I think this would be equally likely. And I do not consider my spoken English to be particularly formal. <shrug>

As far as the apostrophe issue, Jack Lynch's Guide to Grammar and Style says this is one of several grammatical questions which

Have to say, I would too. I wouldn't think of saying five fifteen at all.

LabRat

Somebody asks me the time, and I can say any or none of the below, depending on situation:

------------
Sorry, I haven't got a watch on.

Argh! What did I do with my watch?

Hold on a sec, I've got a watch somewere... ahhh... quarter past five.

Look yourself. (as I point to clock on wall).

Urmm... about five fifteen maybe... I've put my watch somewhere...

Fifteen mintues till we can go home!
------------

You get the idea

We don't really speak English like they do in the text books.

(And I very rarely wear a watch on my wrist, but that's a whole other matter )

I'm not too fussed about Lois' or Lois's, I use both interchangably... I vaguely remember being taught to do it one way, but I can't remember which way that is now...

For me it doesn't affect the meaning of what I'm communicating, people reading it will understand it. However, when you get to issues like we were/we are in Greek, or in English things like your/you're or its/it's and so on, these are important, because used incorrectly they could cause confusion and hinder communication.

Helga

Just recently, I've started teaching my kids about telling time. And I can tell you, all the workbooks have pictures of old-fashioned round clocks -- just like a lot of wrist watches. The day may come when we give up "quarter past" but I don't think we're there yet

PJ
who really only got *good* at reading clock hands when she got a fancy WB Superman watch, which not only isn't digital, but doesn't even have *numbers* on the watch face <g>

First, there is a distinction between Lois's and the boys': while they are both genitive, or possessive, cases (ie belonging to Lois, the boys), one is a singular (proper) noun and the other is a plural noun. There are, from what I vaguely remember, different customs concerning the genitive case of names ending in 's'. But whether I can find a source is another matter...

Now, bear in mind that I'm jet-lagged and thus not inclined to go into lengthy searches... I can't find anything in my Oxford grammar guide. Fowler, on the other hand, has this to say:

As for more modern - and American - usage, see here:
Professor Charles Darling\'s grammar website . This site suggests what I have seen recommended elsewhere: Lois's for a first name, but Richards' for a surname.

Another good rule of thumb I have seen is: ask yourself how you would pronounce it. Would you say 'Lois's car'? Or 'Lois' car'? I think most people would say the former, though I'm willing to be disagreed with.

Although I'm pretty convinced that Lois's is correct, when GEing I don't try to persuade the author to change from Lois' as long as he/she is consistent in usage - which is all that matters, really!


Wendy (who says 'quarter past five')

Argh! How many times do I have to explain this rule, class? The rule is definite in American English usage. I have checked all four grammar books currently residing on my bookcase. (One of the quirks of being a former English teacher) The rule is very simple and has been stated above by a number of people. With the exception of the following proper nouns: Jesus, Achilles, and Moses, add 's to a singular proper noun that ends in an s. Add an apostrophe to a plural noun that ends in an s whether it is proper or common. So, it is Lois's, the Lanes', the boys', and Moses'. If any of you found a website that said it was all right to say Lois', the information was incorrect. If you were to say Lois', then you have said that there is more than one Loi and are using the possessive form.

One last tidbit that may explain the confusion. In the field of journalism, at least in the United States, stylebooks have for decades changed a few of the basic rules of grammar in order to save space on the newspaper page. So the AP and UPI stylebooks say to not place a comma before "and" in a series (i.e. "We had bacon, eggs and toast" instead of "We had bacon, eggs, and toast.") The journalistic stylebooks, UPI at least, also say to write Lois'. But if you're not writing a newspaper article, it's not correct.

Schoomarm

I can't actually get my hands on my HS grammar book, which said both uses were acceptable.

However, the link I listed above was one of several I found. (I chose to link to that one for its ease of use and clarity.) Each was backed up by someone whose job it is to teach English, and/or who has published books on English grammar and usage.

I repeat my previous conclusion: a variety of sources make it clear that both usages are correct. Therefore, it is a matter of personal style. And of course, as Annie, Caroline, LabRat, and Wendy all pointed out, the main thing is to use one consistently.

Rivka, here is what the site you linked to says: As you can plainly see, the site you are quoting says exactly what I said was correct usage.

Schoolmarm

Hi Schoolmarm Just putting on my Admin cap for a moment to address a concern which has been brought to my attention.

Well, I believe that this is the first time you've explained it under your current nick. And certainly the first time on these boards, and there are people here who aren't part of other L&C forums.

Seriously, I'm sure you had the very best of intentions in relation to what you said in your post, Schoolmarm, so you may not be aware that the part I've quoted might be interpreted in a way you didn't intend. I'm just pointing that out in order to request that no-one who may have been upset by it respond - we don't want a fight.

Thanks, all. Normal service is now resumed.


Wendy
Boards Administrator

In general is a word ended in s you would just write it as s' I think that grammartically speaking writing it as Lois's is incorrect at least that is what I've been taught.

The thing I love about the English language is that it's chock-full of exceptions to the rules

If you want to pluralize a word, you add an 's' (car -> cars) -- except for when you have to add 'es' instead (bus -> buses). So it seems logical to me that there might be a similar exception to the rules of making posessives -- if the cars all have flat tires, it's "the cars' flat tires." If one bus has a flat tire, its "the bus's flat tire."

Plus I write by ear, and without the extra s at the end it just doesn't "sound" right to me

However, I'm perfectly happy to let others choose a different scheme, since apparently several of them are correct. As someone said, the main thing here is consistency -- pick one, and stick with it!

PJ