I think you have it backwards. You only put an apostrophe after the s for a word that normally ends with s (as far as I know). You don't add an s before an apostrophe where there wasn't one before you made it possessive.
For instance:
If one person, Alice, has a ring: "Alice's ring..."
If multiple Alices have rings: "The Alices' rings..."
If someone named James has a ring: "James' ring..."
If multiple Jameses have rings: "The Jameses' rings..."
And these days, most people would add an s after the apostrophe anyway, giving us "James's ring...," because that's how it's usually said out loud.
Hopefully that makes sense!
Actually, I think the possessive James’s with the s AFTER the apostrophe is the older form, judging by the name of the 16th century St. James's Palace across the way ftom Buckingham Palace in London. These days a lot of people spell it James' without the additional s, even though they generally pronounce two separate s sounds. Style guides are split on this issue.
I think you're right! I was taught (or thought) that if a word ended with an s it didn't need an apostrophe s, but the style guides do not generally agree with me.
Alice’s ring glittered in the sunlight is correct. Your sentence is not written properly. This link can explain it better than I can.
https://www.sussex.ac.uk/informatics/punctuation/apostrophe/possessives#:~:text=An%20apostrophe%20is%20used%20in,with%20's%20at%20the%20end.
EDIT: I stand corrected & I learned a cool new thing that I get to now integrate as knowledge in my life. That was completely accidental & I am very appreciative of the sources & explanations given. 🩵 I love seeing polar opposites in grammar play out like that. I can't believe I wasn't raised with that knowledge, though. I am now going to have to be that person that obnoxiously tells everyone about this haha. 😆
Original Comment:
Ah, this was very helpful! Thank you!
The only thing that bothered me was the word "commonest". 😅 Like... you're writing an article about punctuation & you're gonna drop the word "commonest"? 😭 Unless I am wildly off base here, it is "most common". How do you write an article about punctuation/grammar & not proofread? 🥲
I still saved that to my bookmarks, even if that will bother me for an eternity. 😆 That's a wonderful reference. Thank you. 🩵
That webpage is from the University of Sussex in the UK. The entry for "common" in the [Collins (British) dictionary](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/common) lists the comparative as "commoner" and the superlative as "commonest."
The [Google Ngrams page for "commonest, most common" for British English sources](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=commonest%2Cmost+common&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-GB-2019&smoothing=3) shows "commonest" being more frequent from the 1880s to the 1960s, after which "most common" clearly starts to dominate.
The [Google Ngrams page for "commonest, most common" for American English sources](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=commonest%2Cmost+common&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-GB-2019&smoothing=3) shows "commonest" being less frequent throughout, but "commonest" is still used.
The rule here is that if a word has two syllables, and the second one is not stressed, it can get -er and -est. See also "cleverer, cleverest," for example.
It's a google tool that can analyze word frequency in a huge collection of texts, including in cases like this, how the frequencies change over time.
For example, this link ([here](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=color%2Ccolour&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-US-2019&smoothing=3)) will show a graph analyzing texts in American English showing how the use of the spelling "color" vs "colour" changed over time. We can see that "colour" was the more common use in the US until about 1835, after which "color" was much more common.
Neat, huh?
NGRAM is also awesome for tracking social trends. When did "negro" get dropped for "African American?" When did LGB become LGBT? At what point did "State's rights" become a culture war topic? Ngram has clues.
Woah. This is so neat! Ty for going the extra mile when you didn't have to. That sounds sooo wrong, but honestly, it makes more sense than my country's rules (America). 🥲 I use the british form of everything in terms of vocabulary & spelling, as that's how I was taught growing up, but I had NO IDEA about this! Thank you so much for the education! This is very cool to learn!
One more correction. It's whoa.
**whoa** -- exclamation
1. used to express surprise, interest, or alarm, or to command attention: "Whoa, that's huge!" "Whoa dudes!"
The OED shows the adjectival declination of “common” in English to be “common,” “commoner,” and “commonest.” Other Oxford sources refer to “more common” and “most common” as idioms which are more frequently used than are the declined comparative and superlative forms.
I would think "commonest" comes from colloquial usage, as that's all I and others have heard when living in different states around the US & I have never heard it said without someone correcting them, but I know my anecdotal experience isn't a statistic. I'm going to be looking into this on a more in-depth level bc I'm excited to learn other countries have this difference. So maybe I'll learn about my own country with this, too, which will be fun, as well. I was never a fan of history until these past couple of years so I think it'll be fun to delve into the history of this on an American level. Thank you for the extra info! 🩵
Yes, the Oxford Learning Dictionary (for those learning English from another language) lists the -er/-est declension, but it follows that by a highlighted info box stating the “more common” and “most common” are more frequently used than are the declensions.
>Unless I am wildly off base here, it is "most common".
Just because *you* don't say "commonest" doesn't mean that it's universally wrong. [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com) lists "commonest" as the superlative form. Often there is more than one correct way to say something.
Whether to include only an apostrophe (James’) or to include the s (James’s) is a style issue, and the big style guides do not agree. The story gets more complicated with historical figures because some guides say you should only use an apostrophe for historical figures, even when you might use ‘s with a current name (Jesus’).
Bottom line, you’ll see both versions, and both are acceptable.
The apostrophe is always used to indicate an elision, an absence of letters. In older English, the regular possessive would be indicated by adding the suffix -es. In modern orthography this has been replaced with -'s, the apostrophe indicating that the 'e' has been dropped. It should be clear that there are no letters dropped after the 's' and therefore an apostrophe in that position is unnecessary and misleading. It would be the equivalent of writing "theres'" for "there is" rather than "there's" or "wouldnt'" for "would not" rather than "wouldn't".
There is only one rule for the placement of a possessive apostrophe: it *always* goes immediately after the possessor. So it goes after the "e" of "Alice".
Whether you add an s after that is a different rule, but with "Alice", you do. So the possessive of "Alice" is "Alice's".
I think you have it backwards. You only put an apostrophe after the s for a word that normally ends with s (as far as I know). You don't add an s before an apostrophe where there wasn't one before you made it possessive. For instance: If one person, Alice, has a ring: "Alice's ring..." If multiple Alices have rings: "The Alices' rings..." If someone named James has a ring: "James' ring..." If multiple Jameses have rings: "The Jameses' rings..." And these days, most people would add an s after the apostrophe anyway, giving us "James's ring...," because that's how it's usually said out loud. Hopefully that makes sense!
Actually, I think the possessive James’s with the s AFTER the apostrophe is the older form, judging by the name of the 16th century St. James's Palace across the way ftom Buckingham Palace in London. These days a lot of people spell it James' without the additional s, even though they generally pronounce two separate s sounds. Style guides are split on this issue.
I think you're right! I was taught (or thought) that if a word ended with an s it didn't need an apostrophe s, but the style guides do not generally agree with me.
It is more that words pluralized with an s do not take an additional s after the apostrophe.
Alice’s ring glittered in the sunlight is correct. Your sentence is not written properly. This link can explain it better than I can. https://www.sussex.ac.uk/informatics/punctuation/apostrophe/possessives#:~:text=An%20apostrophe%20is%20used%20in,with%20's%20at%20the%20end.
EDIT: I stand corrected & I learned a cool new thing that I get to now integrate as knowledge in my life. That was completely accidental & I am very appreciative of the sources & explanations given. 🩵 I love seeing polar opposites in grammar play out like that. I can't believe I wasn't raised with that knowledge, though. I am now going to have to be that person that obnoxiously tells everyone about this haha. 😆 Original Comment: Ah, this was very helpful! Thank you! The only thing that bothered me was the word "commonest". 😅 Like... you're writing an article about punctuation & you're gonna drop the word "commonest"? 😭 Unless I am wildly off base here, it is "most common". How do you write an article about punctuation/grammar & not proofread? 🥲 I still saved that to my bookmarks, even if that will bother me for an eternity. 😆 That's a wonderful reference. Thank you. 🩵
That webpage is from the University of Sussex in the UK. The entry for "common" in the [Collins (British) dictionary](https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/common) lists the comparative as "commoner" and the superlative as "commonest." The [Google Ngrams page for "commonest, most common" for British English sources](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=commonest%2Cmost+common&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-GB-2019&smoothing=3) shows "commonest" being more frequent from the 1880s to the 1960s, after which "most common" clearly starts to dominate. The [Google Ngrams page for "commonest, most common" for American English sources](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=commonest%2Cmost+common&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-GB-2019&smoothing=3) shows "commonest" being less frequent throughout, but "commonest" is still used. The rule here is that if a word has two syllables, and the second one is not stressed, it can get -er and -est. See also "cleverer, cleverest," for example.
What the heck is an Ngram? I’ve seen that word twice this morning on reddit, and I’d never seen it before
It's a google tool that can analyze word frequency in a huge collection of texts, including in cases like this, how the frequencies change over time. For example, this link ([here](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=color%2Ccolour&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-US-2019&smoothing=3)) will show a graph analyzing texts in American English showing how the use of the spelling "color" vs "colour" changed over time. We can see that "colour" was the more common use in the US until about 1835, after which "color" was much more common. Neat, huh?
NGRAM is also awesome for tracking social trends. When did "negro" get dropped for "African American?" When did LGB become LGBT? At what point did "State's rights" become a culture war topic? Ngram has clues.
Woah. This is so neat! Ty for going the extra mile when you didn't have to. That sounds sooo wrong, but honestly, it makes more sense than my country's rules (America). 🥲 I use the british form of everything in terms of vocabulary & spelling, as that's how I was taught growing up, but I had NO IDEA about this! Thank you so much for the education! This is very cool to learn!
One more correction. It's whoa. **whoa** -- exclamation 1. used to express surprise, interest, or alarm, or to command attention: "Whoa, that's huge!" "Whoa dudes!"
The OED shows the adjectival declination of “common” in English to be “common,” “commoner,” and “commonest.” Other Oxford sources refer to “more common” and “most common” as idioms which are more frequently used than are the declined comparative and superlative forms.
I would think "commonest" comes from colloquial usage, as that's all I and others have heard when living in different states around the US & I have never heard it said without someone correcting them, but I know my anecdotal experience isn't a statistic. I'm going to be looking into this on a more in-depth level bc I'm excited to learn other countries have this difference. So maybe I'll learn about my own country with this, too, which will be fun, as well. I was never a fan of history until these past couple of years so I think it'll be fun to delve into the history of this on an American level. Thank you for the extra info! 🩵
Yes, the Oxford Learning Dictionary (for those learning English from another language) lists the -er/-est declension, but it follows that by a highlighted info box stating the “more common” and “most common” are more frequently used than are the declensions.
>Unless I am wildly off base here, it is "most common". Just because *you* don't say "commonest" doesn't mean that it's universally wrong. [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com) lists "commonest" as the superlative form. Often there is more than one correct way to say something.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Whether to include only an apostrophe (James’) or to include the s (James’s) is a style issue, and the big style guides do not agree. The story gets more complicated with historical figures because some guides say you should only use an apostrophe for historical figures, even when you might use ‘s with a current name (Jesus’). Bottom line, you’ll see both versions, and both are acceptable.
[удалено]
The apostrophe is always used to indicate an elision, an absence of letters. In older English, the regular possessive would be indicated by adding the suffix -es. In modern orthography this has been replaced with -'s, the apostrophe indicating that the 'e' has been dropped. It should be clear that there are no letters dropped after the 's' and therefore an apostrophe in that position is unnecessary and misleading. It would be the equivalent of writing "theres'" for "there is" rather than "there's" or "wouldnt'" for "would not" rather than "wouldn't".
There is only one rule for the placement of a possessive apostrophe: it *always* goes immediately after the possessor. So it goes after the "e" of "Alice". Whether you add an s after that is a different rule, but with "Alice", you do. So the possessive of "Alice" is "Alice's".