When one pronounces Ross' Rosses, should one not write Ross's (if not Rosses)?
Since the apostrophe used to be an e, should it not (really) be: Loves Labour's Lost? (Love's < Lovees.)
Ross's
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 231
- Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:31 pm
- Location: Chicago
Re: Ross's
You can find the rules of apostrophe usage in any grammar book or website: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=English+apostrophe+usage
As for the historical claim that "the apostrophe used to be an e," yes, that's true, but you can't replace it with a simple mechanical formula. In older English, the forms of "love" were love (simple) and loves (possessive), and the possessive form was pronounced as two syllables. After the pronunciation changed, the writing convention was eventually changed also: the -es in the possessive form was changed to -'s.
As for the historical claim that "the apostrophe used to be an e," yes, that's true, but you can't replace it with a simple mechanical formula. In older English, the forms of "love" were love (simple) and loves (possessive), and the possessive form was pronounced as two syllables. After the pronunciation changed, the writing convention was eventually changed also: the -es in the possessive form was changed to -'s.
Dic mihi, Damoeta, 'cuium pecus' anne Latinum?
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:50 pm
Re: Ross's
Great. I'm sure we learned that words ending in s should only have an apostrophe with no additional s behind it; glad to see that that was wrong.