3

Possible Duplicate:
Preferred way to apostrophise in case of dual or multiple ownership by distinct entities

When forming the possessive of a compound noun, does one add "'s" to both or just one of the nouns?

For example,

Jim's and Huck's raft

or

Jim and Huck's raft

5
  • Some related questions: this one and this one
    – yoozer8
    Mar 8, 2012 at 3:54
  • @FumbleFingers You are correct. I was sure there was one around here somewhere, but I didn't notice it in the first few search results.
    – yoozer8
    Mar 8, 2012 at 4:00
  • @Jim: It took me a while! Next time it'll be easier even if we forget the best search terms, because if we don't find that original, we'll find this one - which will be closed with a link to the original! Mar 8, 2012 at 4:04
  • @FumbleFingers Although I agree that this seems a duplicate, there is a deeper question that to my knowledge is unanswered. See my comment below.
    – tchrist
    Mar 8, 2012 at 4:21
  • @tchrist: Both the answers to the original question address the issue of two different "possessions" as well as two different "owners". Mar 8, 2012 at 13:39

1 Answer 1

0

The latter is correct:

Jim and Huck's raft.

6
  • This is actually the same as how people say: “The person in the car’s phone rang”, in which you apply the ’s to the end of the NP. It’s really quite interesting IMHO. “Jim and Huck” is one NP, and the ’s gets applied to the end of the whole thing, just like with “person in the car”. See?
    – tchrist
    Mar 8, 2012 at 4:19
  • @tchrist: Sorry, I didn't understand your explanation. The sentence "The person in the car's phone rang." is not English.
    – Jesse Good
    Mar 8, 2012 at 4:31
  • Of course it’s English. You hear it all the time from native speakers.
    – tchrist
    Mar 8, 2012 at 4:32
  • @tchrist: I'm a native English speaker and have never seen that usage (I also Googled it and didn't get any hits). However, English is a big language so I could be wrong! Also, native speakers make mistakes all the time when speaking, so that might be the case.
    – Jesse Good
    Mar 8, 2012 at 4:35
  • Complex NPs like chairman pro tem, surgeon general, and mother-in-law all form a possessive by adding ’s on the last word, no matter that that word is not the head noun of the NP. They form plurals in a very different way. That type of ’s is more than merely somewhat odd. You also have an odd case with a double substantive in the NP when the second part is a pronoun: notice how the possessive of “It belongs to Bill and me, so it’s Bill’s and mine” not “so it’s Bill and mine”. There’s more afoot here than just putting ’s at the end.
    – tchrist
    Mar 8, 2012 at 5:13

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.