Language desk
< August 27	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 28

Possessive form of names ending in z

I was recently taking a look at the article about the List of Hogan's Heroes episodes because there was a certain episode I was trying to find when I noticed that there were a few instances where the article lists summaries dealing with Schultz as "Schultz'" (that's Schultz followed only by an apostrophe). I'm sure that's not supposed to be right and I want to see about fixing it, but I'm not sure what to do with the possessive form here. Does it need to be left as is, or does it need something following the -z at the end?

Thanks in advance! 2600:380:7E59:E5C4:58BA:358B:BBA0:954 (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Possessives, "Schultz's". Nardog (talk) 03:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's standard procedure in English. It's only s' when the word ends in an actual "s". A word ending in a "z" is usually pronounced like a "z", if the speaker is being careful. We also often see words ending in "s" possessivized as "s's". One thing I wonder, though, is how German handles the possessive. In Spanish, for example, the possessive is usually "[object] de [owner]", that is, "[object] of [owner]". What would that look like in German? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The German language depends quite a lot on use of grammatical case. In German, the possesive is normally expressed by using the genitive case. 'The man's house' would be expressed in German as Das Haus des Mannes, where des Mannes is the gentive case of der Mann. --T*U (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But see Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod for an unusual form of the possessive. TSventon (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans are known for being rather formal, but one could argue that when it comes to grammar, they are very casual... --T*U (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone pronounce "Schultz" with a /dz/? I don't think I've ever heard that. Or did you mean the possessive is pronounced like a /z/? I always assumed that it was a matter of a final /s/, not of orthography. Not part of my dialect. — kwami (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How would you characterize the "z" sound in the middle of words like "lazy"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

/z/. — kwami (talk) 06:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's only s' when the word ends in an actual "s". That is not in fact the rule used here on Wikipedia. Per the MOS entry that Nardog linked, singular nouns and proper names take 's to form the possessive, even if they end with an s (with one odd exception). The MOS gives as examples the boss's office, Illinois's largest employer, Descartes's philosophy. But plural nouns ending in s do take a simple apostrophe. CodeTalker (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It can be "s's", but "s'" is only used when the word ends in an actual "s". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Different style guides recommend different rules. For most of the examples in the MOS the pronunciation of the term does not end on a sibilant (/ˌɪləˈnɔɪ/, /deɪˈkɑːt/, /vɛˈɹoʊ/), in which case all guides agree that ⟨'s⟩ should be appended. If the term ends on a sibilant (/s/, /z/, /ʒ/, /ʒ/) and the pronunciation of the possessive is realized by adding /ɪz/, they also agree on this addition. But if the possessive form is pronounced without alteration, many recommend or allow appending merely an apostrophe, as, for example, in "in Jesus' name".^[1][2][3] --Lambiam 09:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that style guides used to recommend this. They are much less likely to do so now, most in fact do NOT recommend the form "Jesus' name" and instead recommend following the "always use 's" rule. The Oxford guide even calls this a "traditional" style, and while it does note that it happens more often with certain very specific classical names like Jesus, such is idiomatic and fossilized, in general with the very few idiomatic exceptions, modern style guides generally recommend 's 100% of the time when referring to a singular possessor. Your third source, for example, is over 100 years old: [4]. And the middle one is not really a style guide, so its adherence to common rules of style is suspect anyways. --Jayron 32 12:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also here. --Jayron 32 18:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really an orthographic rule, but normative grammar. If you add /ɪz/ to a word, then you append 's in writing; if you don't, then you don't. What this rule is really saying is that you should add /ɪz/ to the word. People have confused speech and writing here, much as people who don't drop their aitches do when they say "an history". Spelling pronunciations are a factor in the latter, maybe here too. — kwami (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding that rule. Are you saying that "Illinois's" and "Descartes's" should be pronounced with a terminal /ɪz/? I've never heard such a pronunciation of either word. CodeTalker (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You add /z/ after a vowel (as in 'Illinois'), and /s/ after /t/ (as in 'Descartes'), so those words would have a terminal /z/ and /s/. You only add /ɪz/ after a sibilant. Except that in some accents people don't (or maybe don't just after /s/, I don't know). If you don't add /ɪz/ in your accent, then if you write as you speak you would only add <'> in writing. So this orthographic rule implies that you should change the way you speak.

Or perhaps people have already changed how they speak, and there's been a lag in updating the orthography to match. I'm not aware of anyone who doesn't add /ɪz/ after a sibilant, except in a few expressions such as 'for goodness' sake', but I don't know what goes on in other accents. — kwami (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know a colonel who thinks your notions that orthography should slavishly follow pronunciation to be naive. --Jayron 32 11:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a colonel of truth, or maybe that was already the joke... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I once had an English teacher who insisted on naïve and skïng. I expect he's correcting the choir eternal by now. Alansplodge (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They might distract him with a debate over whether it's spelled "Hallelujah" or "Allelujah". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

gavia articulata oculos

It's been translated as 'swivel-eyed loons'. Which Latin source has it come from? Thanks. Omidinist (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omidinist, a quick internet search suggests a 2013 Guardian article. Caveat: quick internet searches can give incorrect results. TSventon (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) None. It's clearly recent made-up "Latin", unparsable syntactically, like nil carborundum illegitimi. (Classical Latin gavia is the name of the loon genus but referred to a different bird in ancient times.) Deor (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Omidinist (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Omidinist, the Guardian article describes the swivel-eyed loon as a species and therefore gives it a Latin name, which should have two parts, not three. The system of Latin names is credited to the 10th edition of Systema Naturae, published by Carl Linnaeus in 1758 and 1759. TSventon (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the two senses of loon are etymologically unrelated is a giveaway this is meant as a joke. Not only is the Latin unparsable (a translation that retains the ungrammaticality somewhat is "articulated gull the eyes"), it also fails to convey the sense of swivelling. A zoologist, having determined that the swivel-eyed loon does constitute a hitherto undescribed species of a monospecific genus, might propose the taxonomic name Insanus oculorotans. --Lambiam 09:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Useful comments. Many thanks. Omidinist (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]