I've been browsing the paizo blog and can follow the links to see expanded versions of the various pictures. Is the fact I cant see any of Sean Reynolds's photos his technical problem or mine? :(
Edit: And is it Reynolds' or Reynolds's?
Ditto for me as well.
These have been sorted out for a bit.
Edit: And is it Reynolds' or Reynolds's?Reynolds'
Reynolds's.
A singular noun which pluralizes with an s drops the final s in its plural possessive form. For example, "the pick pocket stole all of his marks' wallets."
A singular noun which ends in an s naturally does not drop the final s in its singular possessive form. For example: "Thanks, Ross, for fixing the links to Reynolds's pictures."
Edit: And is it Reynolds' or Reynolds's?Reynolds'
Reynolds's.
A singular noun which pluralizes with an s drops the final s in its plural possessive form. For example, "the pick pocket stole all of his marks' wallets."
A singular noun which ends in an s naturally does not drop the final s in its singular possessive form. For example: "Thanks, Ross, for fixing the links to Reynolds's pictures."
Under what grammar rules? I'm sincerely curious, since my name is "Charles" and my entire life it's been "Charles' book" and not "Charles's book".
(After writing that I decided to look it up and found this nice place http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/possessives.htm which says it's a matter of taste, not a hard and fast rule despite what Strunk says. It also goes on to say that if the word ends in a hard "S" (sounds like a "z") it should drop the second "s" after the apostrophe because saying "Charlezes" or "Reynoldzes" is extremely clunky. While saying "Rosses" (with a soft "S") isn't.
So there you go. No hard and fast rule like many nit-picky parts of the english language. Just be consistent.)
Thanks all for the technical and grammatical support. Both are appreciated.
Edit: And is it Reynolds' or Reynolds's?Reynolds'
Reynolds's.
A singular noun which pluralizes with an s drops the final s in its plural possessive form. For example, "the pick pocket stole all of his marks' wallets."
A singular noun which ends in an s naturally does not drop the final s in its singular possessive form. For example: "Thanks, Ross, for fixing the links to Reynolds's pictures."
Under what grammar rules? I'm sincerely curious, since my name is "Charles" and my entire life it's been "Charles' book" and not "Charles's book".
(After writing that I decided to look it up and found this nice place http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/possessives.htm which says it's a matter of taste, not a hard and fast rule despite what Strunk says. It also goes on to say that if the word ends in a hard "S" (sounds like a "z") it should drop the second "s" after the apostrophe because saying "Charlezes" or "Reynoldzes" is extremely clunky. While saying "Rosses" (with a soft "S") isn't.
So there you go. No hard and fast rule like many nit-picky parts of the english language. Just be consistent.)
Was away from internet all weekend, and all interest in this is probably gone, but here you go.
It's from the Chicago Manual that singular nouns ending in s do not drop the possessive s. http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/PossessivesandAttributives/Poss essivesandAttributives01.html
This is a relatively recent change as the entry notes. In the 2003 edition, it was allowed. The 2010 edition changed that to not recommended.
In general, though, "be consistent" is really the best answer here. I've never been one for prescriptive grammar so long as clarity of intent and meaning are maintained (particularly given the particularly arbitrary nature of prescriptive grammar in English). But, as Chicago is the style used by almost all publications out of humanities scholarship, which uses MLA and I don't know their position on this, that seems like the best answer to me. Of course, this is also only in regards to American English. British English could vary radically.