[IAG]

Looks like both can be correct. http://learnersdictionary.com/qa/the-possessive-of-proper-nouns-like-perez-with-or-without-an-s

[IAG]

Looks like both can be correct. http://learnersdictionary.com/qa/the-possessive-of-proper-nouns-like-perez-with-or-without-an-s

 

 

Not sure I like this example as no context as to singular or plural, but appears quite controversial. Lol

[KingRevolver]

As far as the stand-alone apostrophe and apostrophe + s... that's debatable, but most writers would use the stand-alone apostrophe after the S, especially when it's a proper noun.

 

You said Yank's... which is completely wrong... and then tried saying it was a typo that you corrected.  No, you actually thought it was Yank's.  It's OK to be wrong.

 

Proof:

 

Yank's is correct.

 

And then here you said, "Actually Yanks's is correct" as if it had suddenly come to you.  So, you in fact did think it was Yank's at first, but ACTUALLY now it's Yanks's.  Then you go on to tell me that Yanks' is wrong-- when in fact-- it is not.

 

Actually Yanks's is correct I think...but it's not Yanks'

 

 

Just sayin'.

[KingRevolver]

Looks like both can be correct. http://learnersdictionary.com/qa/the-possessive-of-proper-nouns-like-perez-with-or-without-an-s

 

Like I said, debatable.  But Yanks'  is not wrong.  And most writers use the proper noun vs. common noun rule and stick with it.

[IAG]

Actually according to Oxford it is wrong.

 

 

 

 

Singular nouns and most personal names

 

With a singular noun or most personal names: add an apostrophe plus s:

 

We met at Ben’s party.

 

The dog’s tail wagged rapidly.

 

Yesterday’s weather was dreadful.

 

Personal names that end in –s

 

With personal names that end in -s: add an apostrophe plus s when you would naturally pronounce an extra s if you said the word out loud:

 

He joined Charles’s army in 1642.

 

Dickens's novels provide a wonderful insight into Victorian England.

[KingRevolver]

Personal names that end in –s

 

With personal names that end in -s: add an apostrophe plus s when you would naturally pronounce an extra s if you said the word out loud:

 

He joined Charles’s army in 1642.

 

Dickens's novels provide a wonderful insight into Victorian England.

 

Once again, debatable.  But I live in the U.S., not the U.K.  I'll stick to the way writers do things here.

 

Yanks'  is not wrong... which you stated that it was earlier... so in fact, you were wrong.  And, you corrected me by saying it was Yank's.  100% wrong.

 

The rest is debatable.

[The X]

Bunch of English professors in herevery.

 

JFC.

[Sol Aristatel]

Fascinating stuff here men.  No other place can you find the English language broken down to this extent.  This is the type of information that puts TGF above any other forum on the internet.

 

-FAZZER-

[KingRevolver]

Bunch of English professors in herevery.

 

JFC.

 

I'm certainly not.  I make tons of mistakes-- I've probably made quite a few in this thread already.  But I know changing it from Yank's to Yanks'  is not one of those mistakes.  And I was told it was a mistake earlier in the thread, which sparked the discussion, so I was left with no choice but defend the fact that I'm correct in this instance. 

[IAG]

Once again, debatable. But I live in the U.S., not the U.K. I'll stick to the way writers do things here.

 

Yanks' not wrong... as you stated earlier.

yeah, but that was from the article with the example I didn't like with the last name as it could be read as a plural....that's why I went to Oxford...but if you have something that contradicts would like to see.....only because I'm truly interested. Like I said, this is one that I just try to avoid if possible. In any case I'm very impressed by your ability to even have the discussion.

 

 

Yes, and Yank's was my original response before changing to Yanks's which prompted your reply.

[Deemer]

It is Yanks's

[KingRevolver]

It is Yanks's

 

Once again, that's debatable.  Both can be correct, but most writers here would do the stand-alone apostrophe.  I'm not arguing whether it's Yanks' or Yanks's.

 

I'm saying Yank's (which was contained in the original title) is completely wrong, and changing it to Yanks' (or Yanks's) is correct, but most would prefer Yanks' (I know that I do).

[joeybagadonuts]

I prefer you both STFU

[KingRevolver]

Yanks' ... not Yank's

 

Correct.

 

 

Yank's is correct.

 

Incorrect. 

 

 

Actually Yanks's is correct I think...but it's not Yanks'

 

Incorrect-- it sure can be.

 

 

His username is Yanks, not Yank.  It's also a proper noun and not a common noun, so it doesn't require the 's ending-- although that's debatable-- but newspapers use that rule.  Yanks'  is correct.  Not sure why you would think Yank's is correct- that's completely wrong.

 

Correct.

[IAG]

Why do you keep correcting the thing I corrected before you did? The fact that Yank's is incorrect hasn't been in dispute for 10 or so posts.

 

I have no dog in this fight. I don't care which way it is, I just want to know going forward, and everything I see shows the s's. Deemer confirmed.

If newspapers do it differently than the commonly accepted rule, that's fine. This is not a newspaper.

 

 

I just read an article that confirms that both have been used by Supreme Court justices in writing their opinions. That is sufficient for me to say that either is acceptable....even outside of newspaper world.

[IAG]

 

 

Kinger you will like this if you haven't seen it.

[IAG]

 

 

Kinger you will like this if you haven't seen it.

[Hoops]

I prefer you both STFU

[Guest pocketrockets]

Kinger, add this compulsion of yours for correctness as one of the main reasons girls dont wanna fuck you dirty.

[Guest pocketrockets]

OH, and...

 

 

[IAG]

I prefer you both STFU

. Hahahahaha

 

I have never gotten this one completely down, so forcing me to look at it from all angles was helpful...and my opinion of KR is much higher.

Nothing like a man who can intelligently discuss an apostrophe.

But I think we are done here.

[KingRevolver]

Why do you keep correcting the thing I corrected before you did? The fact that Yank's is incorrect hasn't been in dispute for 10 or so posts.

 

You originally thought it was Yank's, and you're not fooling me.  Sorry.  You decided to come into the thread to "correct me" but your correction was completely erroneous. You came in and said, and I'm paraphrasing, "It's Yank's and not Yanks' "  Then you state in a later post, "ACTUALLY, it's Yanks's."  So, in fact, you did originally believe it was Yank's, and in the latter post you were correcting yourself by saying, "ACTUALLY, it's Yanks's."

 

You then go on to argue about the usage of apostrophe + s, which I stated was debatable and could be used either way, but most use the stand-alone apostrophe in situations like the one we're discussing.  But, no, you decide to argue with me that it's Yanks's and not Yanks'.  

 

You were wrong twice.

 

Just sayin'.

 

[KingRevolver]

So, to summarize this whole thing:

 

1.  I said Yank's was incorrect.  (Correct)

2.  I said Yanks' was correct.  (Correct)

3.  IAG says Yank's is correct.  (Wrong)

4.  IAG says ACTUALLY Yanks's is correct, but Yanks'  is incorrect.  (Wrong)

5.  I stated that the usage of Yanks'  and Yanks's is debatable, but most writers use the stand-alone apostrophe in this situation.  (Correct)

6.  IAG continues to argue that Yanks's and only Yanks's is correct.  (Wrong)

7.  IAG finally comes to realization that both are OK to use, which means that coming into the thread to correct Yanks'  made her incorrect. (Correct)

8.  FW blames Hillary.  (Correct)

 

 

 

Cheers.

[spankie]

Cheer's. 

[Deemer]

Yanks's is correct. Kinger, you're incorrect