Quick question for all you grammar pedants! We're working on a customer mail shot for Easter to some of our selected customers, which has their name on the front of the tin. All good so far, until you get to a name ending in "S". To put it into context, here's a couple of examples...

Rob Smith's tin of goodies
and
Sally Travis' tin of goodies

The first example above is fine, but there's an argument in the office about whether you should drop the "S" after the apostrophe. I was always taught, I think, to drop it - so it should be Travis' instead of Travis's (which to me just looks wrong)

I'm 99% sure I'm right, but can anyone point me in the right direction and ideally some proof to back it up!?
Cheers.

To my knowledge 'Sally Travis' tin of goodies' as an example is what you want.

It should be Sally Travis's.

When it is a name ending in s, it is "apostrophe s".

When it is a plural ending in s, then it is just an apostrophe.

Travis' looks wrong to me.

Grammar however is not prescriptive, I instantly distrust people for instance, who state "rules" with language as if they should never be broken. Shakespeare broke rules all the time, he didn't give a [LIFTED].

I was taught that either is fine but s' tends to read better.

Let me put it this way.

Either is 'fine'. But one way is more fine than the other.

The Sun may write Travis', but The Times would write Travis's.

What you will find with newspapers is, they stick to their Style Guide, choosing one way and being consistent is perhaps more important in this instance; there isn't a "correct or incorrect".

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/apostrophe

Personally, I'm none the wiser if there is a 'correct way' after reading that

That's plain bullocks, because I always pronounce an apostrophe s

:edit: actually I'd go along with that, no one would say Bridgesis.

"With personal names that end in -s but are not spoken with an extra s: just add an apostrophe after the -s:

The court dismissed Bridges' appeal.

Connors' finest performance was in 1991."

Ha, ha, this is as clear as mud - sounds just like the arguments we had in the office today!
I had high hopes you knowledgeable lot would know the correct way, except it seems there is no correct way.

Not sure if this helps - probably not - but here's the full ist of the problematic names...

Michelle Francis’ tin of goodies
Paul Binks’ tin of goodies
Ines Rios’ tin of goodies
Arron Wells’ tin of goodies
Liz Morris’ tin of goodies
Sally Voss’ tin of goodies
Sally Travis’ tin of goodies
Lorraine Hawes’ tin of goodies
Rebecca Rolls’ tin of goodies
Rebecca Jones’ tin of goodies

Whatever we go with, I personally think it needs to be consistent. Before I was 99% sure I was correct, now I'm about 50%!!

Personally, I'd leave it as that.

Sounds like you wanted someone to just say you were right rather than analyse the use of grammar, my apologies.



Progress!

Next: can we argue about latin endings for plurals?

Because people who say "stadia" and "octupi" really grind my gears.

No, not at all, I want it to be right - that's why I asked the question. I know there are some sticklers for detail here (which is a good thing!) so I thought someone would know the correct way.

For what it's worth, my vote is both are correct. Choose one and stick with it.

I think I remember an old Fleet Street proof reader explaining to me the "ess poss" variant came about in the early days of letterpress printing. Dropping the possessive "s" and leaving the apostrophe saved characters at a time when pages were composited by hand.

To my designery eye, the lack of following "s" looks tidier but, as I say, both are technically correct.

My understand was ' is plural and 's is singular so : the Jones' tin; Sally Jones's tin. I may be muddled
i think I'm right


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or you could do what everyone else is doing and just drop the apostrophe. Although I'd look at you with scorn from my keyboard.