punctuation - Which singular names ending in “s” form possessives with only a bare apostrophe?

Many questions already ask about this topic (What is the correct possessive for nouns ending in "‑s"? , When did it become correct to add an “s” to a singular possessive already ending in “‑s”?, etc.) and their answers vary, but they always give exceptions to the apostrophe-s rule, for example:

6.24 The general rule for the possessive of nouns covers most proper nouns, including most names ending in sibilants."

Examples they give include Kansas’s, Ross’s land, and Jones’s reputation. Exceptions include Jesus’  and Moses’.

Which names does this apply to? Is the Aeneas’  form correct, or is it Aeneas’s instead?

Answer

The most useful rule — and the most general and the easiest to remember — is simply that you add ’s whenever you actually say an extra /əz/ at the end when forming the possessive, compared with how you say the non-possessive version. Let your own ear be your guide. That’s all there is to it. No fancy rules full of exceptions. Just your own ear (as a native speaker, mind you).

So words ending in unstressed /iːz/ are exempt, like for example this series’ end, that species’ demise, Mercedes’, Ramses’, Sophocles’, Socrates’, Achilles’, Diomedes’, Archimedes’, Eratosthenes’, Ulysses’. (But not trapeze’s, because that one is stressed! See how that works?)

But these days, not much else is. I say “in these days” because in previous ages, some people did not add another /əz/ if it already had one, and so wrote Jesus’ to indicate they did not say an extra /əz/ there compared with Jesus: both are just /ˈd͡ʒiːzəs/ However, most people today now say Jesus’s, because it has three syllables: /ˈd͡ʒiːzəsəz/.

Same with Moses’s with three syllables instead of the older Moses’ with just two. Note that things like Ross’ and Chaz’ are always wrong, because no one says those with only a single syllable. That is a common error.

So it’s your boss’s house, because it’s got an extra syllable when you say it. Similarly, all the Jameses I have ever personally known have had the extra /əz/ tacked on when you are talking about something of theirs, which means it is for those speakers James’s house, albeit all the Jameses’ houses, because nouns are only allowed one /əz/ inflection, not two.

In all cases, the best thing to do is let your own ear be your guide, because writing should represent speech. That means that if you say an extra /əz/ then you write ’s, but if you don’t say it, then you don’t write it. That’s why you from time to time see forms like for goodness’ sake or for conscience’ sake. Those are possessive, but have no extra syllable.

As for the specific case of Aeneas, in older writing you will find that because his name already ends in /əz/, people would suppress the extra one when they would form the possessive, like Aeneas’ escape from Troy. Note very carefully that that posits a three-syllable possessive when spoken. If when you yourself say it, however, it turns out that you would yourself use the four-syllable version as most people today now do, then it would have to be Aeneas’s escape from Troy.

But now you have three issississes in a row, which will certainly require careful elocution to pull off — especially if you don’t mean to sound like Gollum with his fisheses.

orthography - When adding prefixes to noun phrases, should you hyphenate?

When adding a prefix to a noun, I've been taught to usually hyphenate (e.g. life → pro-life, breakfast → pre-breakfast, coal → anti-coal) with some exceptions (e.g. preschool). But how does this work with noun phrases? Do you leave out the hyphen?

For example:

• pre Independence Day




• anti pen and paper

Answer

How you should hyphenate depends on your publisher. For example, at O’Reilly Media, their style guide explicitly directs you not to use a hyphen with four prefixes:

• Unless part of a proper noun, close up words with the prefixes “multi,” “pseudo,” “non,” and “sub” (e.g., “multiusers,” “pseudoattribute,” “nonprogammer,” and “subprocess”).

However, the word pseudo-tty is specifically grandfathered in under that spelling because of its historical use that way in Unix operating system technical documentation.

For the most part, hyphens are best used for temporary, impromptu compounds, not for established words, where their repetition just looks messy. North American publishers are distinctly less hyphenated than British publishers. Here’s an exercise that draws attention to these differences.

Remember, the goal is clarity. Even American publishers may ocassionally retain the hyphen when the prefix is applied to a word that starts with the same letter as the prefix ended with:

• a non-native solution instead of a nonnative solution


• post-traumatic instad of posttraumatic


• circum-meridional instead of circummeridional (but circum-Mediterranean has a capital, so its hyphen should be retained)


• a re-election campaign instead of a reelection campaign


• co-ownership instead of coownership

During an earlier era than our own, but not so long ago as not to be seen, adjacent vowels in hiatus were marked with diaeresis instead of a hyphen:

• a reëlection campaign


• coöwnership

However, apart from The New Yorker Magazine, such careful typography is today seldom seen, and the the tyranny of typewriter’s impoverished character set is widespread: if people don’t have a key with a character on it, they probably won’t use it, even when it would be much better if they did.

Additionally, metric prefixes are never hyphenated, so it is always a milliampere not a milli-ampere.

So with clarity in mind, with a proper noun that is an open (read, unhyphenated) compound, you should have no trouble applying the prefix just the first word:

• pre-Independence Days

However, with a multiword phrase — and do notice I did not say a multi-word phrase — in which nothing is capitalized, this becomes ambiguous in standard written English, because you do not know whether the prefix is intended to distribute across the whole phrase. If you write:

• non-salt and pepper

Are you talking about nonsalt as well as about pepper, or are you talking about something which is neither of those?

One solution is to hyphenate the whole phrase and then apply an en dash for the prefix:

• a salt-and-pepper look versus a non–salt-and-pepper look

You might try an en dash on open compounds, too, where it works better than a hyphen:

• a salt and pepper look versus a non–salt and pepper look

But you should be careful with that, because multiword adjectives are typically hyphenated.

For a recent book of my own on computer programming, I wound up using a distinctly programmer-friendly invention. I put parentheses around the open compound and applied the prefix to the whole thing. So instead of writing either of:

• The difference between a word-boundary and a non–word-boundary is. . . .




• The difference between a word boundary and a non–word boundary is. . . .

I instead wrote:

• The difference between a word boundary and a non-(word boundary) is. . . .

It worked well for that audience, meaning programmers. But whether you care to be so bold in general English is something you should think about carefully.

Remember, clarity is the goal.

grammaticality - Is there an exception to the prohibition against ending a sentence with “ ’s ” at work here?

The ’s can be used as a contraction representing a weak, unstressed word that is not pronounced. It allegedly cannot occur in sentence final position.

• She is not ready, but he is.


• She’s not ready, but he is.


• She’s not ready, but *he’s.

The last one is not grammatical there.

Similarly, here the last one is not grammatical:

• He has not started yet, but she has.



• He’s not started yet, but she has.


• He’s not started yet, but *she’s.

This answer claims this is because you cannot end a sentence with a weak form. It backs up its point with reasonably scholarly documentation.

However, this does not seem to be invariably true.

• Shall we go to the movies? Yes, let us go.


• Shall we go to the movies? Yes, let’s go.


• Shall we go to the movies? Yes, let’s.

Unlike the third example in the first two sets, here in this case the third example is indeed grammatical, despite ending with a weak form.

Is this an exception to the rule, or is there another rule at work here?

vocabulary - Vocabularies about order of the things

I want to know if what certain orders or positions in the orders are in English.

The following are my questions, assume that we have ten apples, I put my questions on these apples:

What is the name of the order when all apples are red? We say the apples are all red?

What is the name of the order when one apple (the first) is red, the next one is yellow, and then the third one is red and the forth one is yellow again and this continues to the last apple.

What is the name of the order when one is red, and the next two are yellow and the forth one is red and again the next two are yellow and ....

You see, I'm seeking for word/phrase to describe this orders.

My second concern is the position of the items in an order.

We say the first apple is red.
We say the last apple is red.
But, how do we say one apple to the end is red? I mean an apple before the last one?

Thanks

Answer

If by "order" you mean the arrangement or organization, you can try these terms directly or look them up in a thesaurus for some alternatives:

What is the name of the order when all apples are red? We say the apples are all red?

Uniform pattern The apples are uniformly red.

What is the name of the order when one apple (the first) is red, the next one is yellow, and then the third one is red and the forth one is yellow again and this continues to the last apple.

Alternating pattern The apples alternate between two colors - red and yellow.

What is the name of the order when one is red, and the next two are yellow and the forth one is red and again the next two are yellow and ....

Repeating pattern The apples have a pattern that repeats after every three.

We say the first apple is red.

First item is red.

We say the last apple is red.

Last Item is red, Ultimate item is red.

But, how do we say one apple to the end is red? I mean an apple before the last one?

Next-to-last item is red, Penultimate item is red.

grammaticality - Placement of the word "also"

Earlier today on another site in the network, a user posted a question like this:

Is there a better way to use [x]?

There was a lot more to it, but the very first comment addressed this question directly and explicitly:

Why do you want to use [x] and not [y]? Also have you considered using [z]?

I took this latter sentence as:

You should consider using [z] instead of [x].

And proceeded to explain why [z] is not a valid alternative to [x].

The commenter vehemently insists that it should be clear and obvious that by starting the sentence with "also," I should know that they actually meant:

You should consider using [z] in addition to [x].

Can someone please explain from an English and grammar standpoint why having "also" at the beginning of the sentence - with or without a comma - does not associate with the thoughts in that sentence the way he/she thinks that it does?

Answer

"Also" when used in the beginning of a phrase is usually used to introduce a new point. (In any case "also" usually refers to the previous clause)

"Also, have you considered using [z]?" - here "also" is just used to introduce a new topic and the meaning is equivalent to "Why do you want to use [x] and not [y]? Have you considered using [z]?" Whether 'z' was meant to be used in addition or as a replacement to 'x', or to 'y', is unspecified.

Alternatives:

"Have you also considered using [z]?" = you should consider using [z] - again, whether [z] is an addition or a replacement and to what, [x] or [y], is not known.

"Have you considered also using [z]?" = you should consider using [z] as well as [y] or [x] - whether [z] is an addition to [x] or [y] is still unknown but in this case it is not a replacement

The question of whether [z] would be in addition/replacement to [x] or [y] might be obvious from context but not from the grammar:

"Why do you want to drink water and not tea? Also, have you considered drinking coffee?" - is coffee in addition or as a replacement? And to what, tea or water?

Referring to a gerund with a pronoun

Is it considered grammatical to refer to a gerund in the subject position with the pronoun "it"?
Example:

Visiting a dentist regularly is recommended as it can contribute to overall health.

grammar - Should the verb of the independent clause come before or after the dependent clause?

Which of the following is correct?

1. The Boeing 777 crashed, carrying 227 passengers and a crew of 12 members, into international waters.




2. The Boeing 777, carrying 227 passengers and a crew of 12 members, crashed into international waters.

Any elaboration would be very much appreciated.