Harris'(s)
« previous post | next post »
Holly Ramer, "There’s an apostrophe battle brewing among grammar nerds. Is it Harris’ or Harris’s?", AP News 8/13/2024:
Whatever possessed Vice President Kamala Harris to pick Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate, it probably wasn’t a desire to inflame arguments about apostrophes. But it doesn’t take much to get grammar nerds fired up.
“The lower the stakes, the bigger the fight,” said Ron Woloshun, a creative director and digital marketer in California who jumped into the fray on social media less than an hour after Harris selected Walz last week to offer his take on possessive proper nouns.
The Associated Press Stylebook says “use only an apostrophe” for singular proper names ending in S: Dickens’ novels, Hercules’ labors, Jesus’ life. But not everyone agrees.
Debate about possessive proper names ending in S started soon after President Joe Biden cleared the way for Harris to run last month. Is it Harris’ or Harris’s? But the selection of Walz with his sounds-like-an-s surname really ramped it up, said Benjamin Dreyer, the retired copy chief at Random House and author of “Dreyer’s English: An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Style”.
My initial reaction is the traditional linguists' complaint — this is just a fuss about spelling conventions, and has nothing to do with "grammar". But there's at least an overlap with morphophonology, which emerges as the AP article proceeds:
Dreyer was inundated with questions within minutes of the announcement, which came while he was at the dentist.
“I was like, ‘All right, everybody just has to chill. I’ll be home in a little while and I can get to my desk,’” he said.
While there is widespread agreement that Walz’s is correct, confusion persists about Harris’ vs. Harris’s. Dreyer’s verdict? Add the ’s.
“To set the ’s is just simpler, and then you can take your valuable brain cells and apply them to more important things,” he said.
Woloshun chimed in with a similar opinion on the social platform X, where apostrophes are being thrown around like hand grenades. “The rule is simple: If you say the S, spell the S,” he argued.
That puts them on the same side as The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal — and at odds with AP.
What does Woloshun mean by "say the S"?
If you're talking (not writing) about "Harris'(s) first name", you'd pronounce it with three syllables, not two, no matter how you spell it: /ˈheɹəsɪz/ in IPAish. At least I would.
This is a general fact about English morphophonology — both plural /s/ and possessive /s/ are (generally) pronounced as /ɪz/ after words ending in /s, z, ʃ, z, tʃ, dʒ/.
Except not always. The possessive of a (regular) plural is pronounced the same as the plural — if we're talking about a nest belonging to some ants, it's the /ˈænts/ nest, not the /ˈæntsɪz/ nest. That's an interesting fact worth exploring, but it's not relevant to the possessive form of names ending in /s, z, ʃ, z, tʃ, dʒ/.
However, there's an additional historical complication, which again emerges later in the AP article:
Timothy Pulju, a senior lecturer in linguistics at Dartmouth College, said that until the 17th or 18th century, the possessive of proper names ending in S — such as Jesus or Moses — often was simply the name itself with no apostrophe or additional S. Eventually, the apostrophe was added (Jesus’ or Moses’) to denote possession, though the pronunciation remained the same.
“That became kind of the standard that I was taught and adhere to, even though in retrospect, I don’t think it’s a great standard,” he said.
That’s because linguists view writing as a representation of speech, and speech has changed since then. Pulju said he expects the ’s form to become dominant eventually. But for now, he — along with the Merriam-Webster dictionary — says either way is acceptable.
FWIW, I agree with Dreyer, Woloshun, and Pulju. But English orthography is irrational in so many ways that one more divergence between pronunciation and spelling is not worth fussing about.
For another interesting linguistic aspect of English possessives, see
"A correlate of animacy", 9/27/2008
"The genitive of lifeless things", 10/11/2009
"Mechanisms for gradual language change", 2/9/2014
Update — Bob Moore laid out a somewhat different take on Facebook:
For English grammar nerds only: What is the possessive of Harris, Harris's or Harris'? I am shocked to learn that the AP style guide says that if a singular noun ends in s, the possessive is always formed simply by adding ' (apostrophe). In the dark ages, when I was taught "proper" grammar, the rule I learned was the possessive of any singular noun is formed by adding 's, however the noun ends. In recent years, however, I have noticed that in informal language, the possessive of some singular nouns ending in s can be pronounced just like the base noun, which would be written by just adding '.
But I don't think this works for all nouns ending in s, as the AP would have it. To get super nerdy, I believe that the possessive of a singular noun ending in s can only be pronounced the same as the base noun if removing the final s leaves a phonologically possible word. It may come as a surprise to some, but not all sound sequences possible in a language can be single words in the language. To take a simple example, batman is a word in English, but tman not only isn't a word, it couldn't be an English word, because it's impossible for native English speakers to pronounce. English has other sorts of restrictions on possible words that are not exactly impossible to pronounce, but just don't seem natural. As far as I can tell one of these restrictions is that an English word can't end in a short i. So if you try to take the s off the end of Harris, you are left with Harri ending in a short i, which is not a phonologically possible word in English.
So how does this affect how the possessives of singular nouns can be formed? Consider the name of a guy I used to work with, Dave Wilkins. If I wanted to say I was going to his house, I could say either, I'm going to Dave Wilkins's house, or, I am going to Dave Wilkins' house. Either one sounds fine to me. But this works because Wilkin would be a phonologically possible word of English. I never heard of anyone with that name, but if I did, it would sound perfectly natural. So it's almost like I am pretending my former colleague's name is Wilkin, and forming the possessive like most singular nouns do, by adding 's to get Wilkin's, which would be pronounced exactly like Wilkins'.
This doesn't work in the case of Harris, because Harri ending in short i is not a possible name in English, so Harris' with a short i is not a possible possessive in English.
I agree with Bob that both pronunciations are possible with a name like "Wilkins" — though this doesn't generalize for me to all other proper names ending in /s, z, ʃ, z, tʃ, dʒ/ after something that could stand alone as a possible word, like "Case" or "Texas", and even those whose pronunciation could be analyzed to have an /s/ affix, like "Wicks" or "Schwartz".
Jan Lee said,
August 15, 2024 @ 7:18 am
I edit a publication whose name is The Apostrophe. We love this discussion. Our time has come!
John F said,
August 15, 2024 @ 7:57 am
The AP style really annoys me. I think it is fairly reasonable to add ‘s for singular proper nouns like “Harris’s”. In “ants’ nest” ants is plural, and you don’t say “ants-es” you say “ants”.
There is probably a Greek reason for Jesus & Moses having a nonstandard genitive. Danish just cut the ‘us’ off the end of Jesus, because that is a standard Greek ending that isn’t really a thing in Danish.
Anubis Bard said,
August 15, 2024 @ 8:54 am
I've noticed that whenever my Pennsylvania relatives close a prayer they say – "In Jesus' name," with no extra "s" sound. Is that an anachronism like the "thy" and "thee" or is it the case that a triple "s" is a bridge too far, like how I would say "I went to Ben Schwartz's house," – with a z+s, but would never say "I went over to the Schwartzes's house."
Not that I expect any such tidiness. Just interesting.
Coby said,
August 15, 2024 @ 8:57 am
Consider the two surnames Davis and Davies, as pronounced in NAmE (in BrE they are pronounced the same, like NAmE Davis). The possessives that sound natural to me are Davis's and Davies', respectively, even though the latter sounds like Davy's.
Philip Taylor said,
August 15, 2024 @ 9:23 am
"Consider the two surnames Davis and Davies, as pronounced in NAmE (in BrE they are pronounced the same, like NAmE Davis)" — not invariably so, Coby, in my experience. The former is /ˈdeɪv ɪs/, the latter /ˈdeɪv iːz/ for at least some of my friends and former colleagues.
Mark Liberman said,
August 15, 2024 @ 9:25 am
@Coby: "Consider the two surnames Davis and Davies, as pronounced in NAmE (in BrE they are pronounced the same, like NAmE Davis). The possessives that sound natural to me are Davis's and Davies', respectively, even though the latter sounds like Davy's."
I agree. This seems to support Bob Moore's analysis…
Yuval said,
August 15, 2024 @ 9:27 am
Whatever possessed. Ha!
Kate Bunting said,
August 15, 2024 @ 9:38 am
Anubis Bard – Yes, that is what John F meant by 'a nonstandard genitive'. It's traditional in hymns etc. – as in the spiritual "Deep River" –
Walk into heaven and take my seat,
And cast my crown at Jesus’ feet.
ktschwarz said,
August 15, 2024 @ 9:46 am
Can the Supreme Court rule on this question? No dice! From LegalWritingPro:
Andrew Robinson said,
August 15, 2024 @ 10:13 am
Woloshun's "say the s" rule seems to agree with my (BrE) usage. I would never pronounce an extra s in "goodness' sake" or "Achilles' heel" so I wouldn't write an extra s either. I wonder though if these set phrases are fossils of an older pattern – if I was talking about anything else belonging to Achilles I might be tempted to say and write an extra s.
J.W. Brewer said,
August 15, 2024 @ 10:25 am
What's the name for the sort of meta-peever (like me and myl!) who gets annoyed that self-proclaimed "grammar nerds" think spelling and punctuation conventions fall within the scope of "grammar"?
J.W. Brewer said,
August 15, 2024 @ 10:40 am
Separately, I love ktschwarz's (or schwarz' ?) example of diversity of practice among Supreme Court justices. I was commenting on someone's Facebook post on this yesterday to make the point (probably more obvious among LL regulars than other segments of the population) that this was simply not an issue on which it was necessary for all users of the Language to converage on a Single Right Answer, although a given institution or publication might legitimately want to insist on a house style for consistency. But it's useful to remember that in certain institutions the likely costs (in terms of "office politics" and egos and potential damage to relationships) of trying to impose a uniform house style on all your writers may outweigh any anticipated benefits so you're better off letting everyone follow their own muse.
J.M.G.N. said,
August 15, 2024 @ 11:31 am
LPD:
With proper names ending in a sibilant, usage varies. Usually, the possessive is pronounced regularly, though the spelling may vary: Jones’(s) /ˈdʒoʊnzəz/. Less commonly, the possessive is unpronounced (dʒoʊnz), but then the corresponding spelling can only be Jones’. Note Jesus’ /ˈdʒiːzəs/
Ben Zimmer said,
August 15, 2024 @ 11:52 am
The New York Times style guide has this advice, which is kind of wild:
When the Times did their own story on the Harris/Walz apostrophe business, they neglected to mention the dissimilative exceptions of Kansas', Texas', Moses', et al.
J.W. Brewer said,
August 15, 2024 @ 11:52 am
Ramer's piece as block-quoted above refers to "Walz with his sounds-like-an-s surname." As I understand it, his surname is pronounced as a homophone of "walls" rather than as a homophone of "waltz," but of course "walls" is standardly pronounced with a word-final /z/ although spelled with an s. One might have thought "sounds like" referred to pronunciation, but perhaps not. Of course a less assimilated pronunciation for German-origin surnames ending in z is in turn /ts/ rather than /z/, as in z.B. the usual American pronunciation of Schwarz.
Kenny Easwaran said,
August 15, 2024 @ 1:00 pm
Regarding "Case" and "Texas", two things:
First, I pronounce both of those words with /s/, but if we dropped the sibilant and then put a possessive in, I would pronounce them with /z/. So perhaps the rule is the slightly more complicated one that you don't pronounce the possessive marker if removing the final sibilant and putting a possessive marker on would result in the existing pronunciation.
(I'm still not sure this is correct – I would talk about "Amy Wax's controversies" even though "Wax" sound the same as "Wack's". But perhaps there is dialectal variation.)
The other issue is that I'm not sure that "Case" and "Texas" really would be phonologically possible without the final /s/. To my ear, "Kay" has a longer vowel than "Case", because the final /s/ shortens the vowel. And I don't think either vowel in "Texas" can be used at the end of a word.
Boris said,
August 15, 2024 @ 1:09 pm
I too have been taught that for a proper name ending in S the way to make a possessive is by adding an "'s". Given my name, I have skin in the game here too, and I get mildly annoyed when someone says or writes "Boris'".
fdeblauwe said,
August 15, 2024 @ 1:56 pm
In Dutch, the possessive genitive is "s" attached to the word without apostrophe. Exceptions are 1) if pronunciation ends in a long vowel, then "s" preceded by an apostrophe; 2) if pronunciation ends in a sibilant, then apostrophe only without "s."
Allan from Iowa said,
August 15, 2024 @ 1:59 pm
Many years ago a friend asked me to help him find the rule in Strunk & White. It said to always use 's except for "revered figures of antiquity" where you would just add an apostrophe. So I told him that in what he was writing, he should definitely use 's because I knew he didn't see Jesse Helms on the same plane as Moses or Jesus.
Ross Presser said,
August 15, 2024 @ 2:01 pm
I imagine it no longer carries as much weight as it once did, but Strunk & White's The Elements of Style loudly declares (section II, rule 1):
1. Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's.
Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,
Charles's friend
Burns's poems
the witch's malice
This is the usage of the United States Government Printing Office and of the
Oxford University Press.
Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in -es and -is, the
possessive Jesus', and such forms as for conscience' sake, for righteousness' sake.
But such forms as Achilles' heel, Moses' laws, Isis' temple are commonly replaced
by
3
the heel of Achilles
the laws of Moses
the temple of Isis
The pronominal possessives hers, its, theirs, yours, and oneself have no apostrophe.
Ross Presser said,
August 15, 2024 @ 2:02 pm
Sorry, Allan from Iowa, I missed your message posted 2 minutes before mine, saying essentially the same thing.
Philip Taylor said,
August 15, 2024 @ 2:07 pm
Kenny — « I don't think either vowel in "Texas" can be used at the end of a word » — for those of us who have a non-rhotic topolect, the final vowel of "Texas" has the same sound as the final vowel of (e.g.,) "centre".
Julian Hook said,
August 15, 2024 @ 2:17 pm
A few years back, there was a news story in my town involving a controversial note someone had written. The subject doesn't matter, except that the note included a possessive like "Adams's", which the writer had spelled that way. The local newspaper quoted the note but fussily inserted "(sic)" after "Adams's". Apparently the reporter knew the AP rule but didn't know that other style guides say other things.
Regarding Bob Moore's take: Even if "Harri" with a short i were a possible name in English, its possessive would be pronounced "Harriz", not "Harris".
J.W. Brewer said,
August 15, 2024 @ 2:51 pm
The Strunk & White claim about "the heel of Achilles" being "commonly" used in lieu of "Achilles' heel" can be tested by consulting the Google Books Ngram Viewer. While the "heel of" version was actually the more common one when Strunk originally published in 1919, by the time the "& White" revision came out 40 years later things were otherwise and the "heel of" version was barely 10% as common as the apostophe-using version.
For the other two S&W examples there seem plenty of adequate motivations for the "of" construction that have nothing to do with avoiding a contentious-among-peevers question of orthographic convention. For another proverbial-body-part example, "King Charles'[s] head" has consistently been more common than "head of King Charles" since the 1870's. Wikipedia says that while the fixed expression derives from Dickens's (or Dickens' ?) _David Copperfield_, it only became a widespread idiom meaning something like "idee fixe" circa 1890. Although wiktionary treats the canonical form as Charles', contrary to the Ngram Viewer's assertion that Charles's has been consistently more common and was (at least if Project Gutenberg transcribed it correctly rather than silently emending to fit their own taste) the form Dickens used.
Y said,
August 15, 2024 @ 2:51 pm
"Whatever possessed Vice President Kamala Harris…"
All right, already. Take a bow.
Rick Rubenstein said,
August 15, 2024 @ 4:17 pm
We should ask how Harris herself and her parents write it. What's the Harrises's stance on this? No wait, that should be "Harrises' ". But I pronounce all four syllables… [grumble English grumble grumble]
Roscoe said,
August 15, 2024 @ 8:32 pm
From "The Office" (US):
"I can use his malfeasance to establish leverage. Otherwise, it’s just malfeasance for malfeasance's…'s…sake."
Chris Button said,
August 15, 2024 @ 10:43 pm
I suppose a ruthlessly logically approach would take the apostrophe in its traditional representation of elision. In that sense Harris's is the only option. Harris' would then represent a mistaken reanalysis of a proper noun as a plural noun (e.g. cats')
GH said,
August 16, 2024 @ 1:34 am
I'm very surprised to learn that some of you would write -s' but pronounce it as if spelled -s's. I had assumed that -s' always represented cases like "Jesus' ", where the possessive ending is assimilated to the previous sound (whether as [s] or [z]). To write "Moses' " but say /ˈmoʊzəsɪz/ or /ˈmoʊzəzɪz/ (as the NYT suggests) strikes me as bizarre.
As an aside, on a recent visit to England I was struck by the number of pub names that omit the possessive apostrophe entirely, for example "The Saracens Head." Rather than a dispute between grammar nerds, are we dealing with some kind of quarrel between publicans and greengrocers?
Chas Belov said,
August 16, 2024 @ 2:05 am
Upon reading that I immediately thought of tmesis, which I've never heard and always assumed the t would be pronounced. I just now checked the Wiktionary entry for tmesis and it turns out there are two pronunciations extant, one with a spoken t and one with a silent t.
Chas Belov said,
August 16, 2024 @ 2:09 am
Actually the pronunciation shows a schwa in parentheses between the spoken t and the spoken m. ¿Does that mean there's an optional schwa? I would be perfectly happy attempting to pronounce it without the schwa.
Scott Rhodes said,
August 16, 2024 @ 12:12 pm
Rick Rubenstein said,
Of course, they may not agree with each other. I don't recall ever hearing my father say the possessive version of our family name, but I've heard him say the plural and it's different from how I say it (he says Rhodeses, I say Rhodes…although for some reason I hold the "o" a bit longer for the plural than the singular). I also form the possessive of my last name as Rhodes'; it wouldn't surprise me to learn my father forms it as Rhodes's.
J.W. Brewer said,
August 16, 2024 @ 2:48 pm
@GH I can't speak to English pub signs but in the U.S. it's quite common for the apostrophe to be omitted where it would seem to belong in street names and often other toponyms. As best as I can tell, the explanation seems to be that the Official Government Signpainters don't have apostrophes in their inventory and aren't interested in adding them and/or feel that adding an apostrophe option could encourage variation and inconsistency and chaos. Sometimes there's inconsistency between closely-related names. I was last weekend visiting back where I grew up in northern Delaware, and the physical span crossing Brandywine Creek is still at present apparently Thompson's Bridge* per some government websites, but to get there you have to drive down what is officially Thompsons Bridge Road.
*40+ years ago local teenagers would go down to the heavily-wooded area around that bridge to learn more about tobacco and alcohol and the mysteries of the opposite sex etc. We didn't have the internet.
Chas Belov said,
August 16, 2024 @ 4:17 pm
San Francisco has St. Marys Street (no apostrophe), so named for St. Mary's College (apostrophe), which was once located there. There is currently a St. John's church at that location.
KevinM said,
August 19, 2024 @ 11:26 am
A propos of nothing, the model for Howards End was supposedly a house called Rooks Nest.
J.W. Brewer said,
August 19, 2024 @ 12:52 pm
A late note that may be relevant to among other things the interaction or feedback loop between pronunciation and spelling. One traditional formulation is that eschewing the extra s post-apostrophe is especially common for "classical" or "Biblical" names like Jesus or Achilles or what have you, but MWDEU (which I didn't get around to thinking to consult for a while) says that that's empirically not so likely when such names are monosyllables, giving "Zeus's anger" as an example. This is FWIW in their "genitive" entry rather than their "apostrophe" entry.
Philip Taylor said,
August 20, 2024 @ 8:34 am
It has only just occurred to me that this discussion is rather pertinent to a handbook which I am currently typesetting. It contains entries such as :
and I fear that at least one amongst those to whom it will be distributed will ask themselves « Why does he always put an apostrophe before the final "s" in "President’s", after the final "s" in "Ladies’" but nowhere in "Patrons" ?». To my mind, the reason is clear : there is only one President (well, two really — one men’s President and one ladies’ President), but there are multiple Ladies and multiple Patrons. And in constructions such as (e.g.,) "Ladies’ President’s vs President’s", there is/are one or more implied "team"s, i.e., "Ladies’ President’s [team] vs President’s [team]". With these facts in mind, would my fellow commentators on Language Log please advise me whether they consider my placement of apostrophes optimal ?
Philip Anderson said,
August 21, 2024 @ 12:36 am
@Philip Taylor
Just reading your list, I decided that President’s came with an implicit team.
It does appear that the presidents never cooperate, so President’s Day is probably correct, although Presidents’ Day would be more progressive.
Philip Taylor said,
August 21, 2024 @ 3:08 am
That does raise a good point, fellow Philip — I must ask the fixtures secretary whether one or both Presidents host President’s / Presidents’ Day …
David Morris said,
September 7, 2024 @ 8:53 am
Snopes currently has two photos of "Walz's for Trump" (viz, distant relatives of Tim Walz. One is genuine and the other is AI-fake. To me, plurals are never made using apostrophes and the plural of "Walz" is "Walzes".