I don't think this has yet been covered in any of the other questions on similar topics. There was one other very similar question, however, it was not specifically talking about the case where the proper noun ends in a plural noun. Feel free to vote to close if I am wrong.

What is the correct way to make a proper noun ending in a plural noun ending in an "s" possessive? This frequently happens with corporations, e.g., "Dunkin' Donuts." Should one work off of the fact that the entity is singular—suggesting Dunkin' Donuts's—or should one work off of the fact that "Donuts" is plural and ending in an "s"—suggesting Dunkin' Donuts'?

I expect that the answer might depend on dialect because some regions refer to corporations in the singular form ("Dunkin' Donuts is a company") while other regions refer to corporations in the plural form ("Dunkin' Donuts are a company"). I am specifically interested in American English, but would be interested in hearing answers for other dialects too.


3 Answers 3


All you do is listen to what people say, and then write that down. That is the only rule that matters.

  • So, what you are saying is that if people conversationally add an extra "iz" to the end of the word then add "'s" in writing, else just add an apostrophe?
    – ESultanik
    Commented Nov 1, 2012 at 14:22
  • @ESultanik Precisely.
    – tchrist
    Commented Nov 1, 2012 at 19:04
  • 1
    In the Dunkin' Donuts example, both with and without the extra "iz" sound plausible to me. So, how does one determine what people say? Would you claim that both constructions are valid?
    – ESultanik
    Commented Nov 4, 2012 at 15:13
  • @ESultanik One typically determines what people say by listening to them make unprompted, casual utterances. My intuition is that most speakers add no bonus -iz. Compare “Dunkin’ Donuts’ best product is their custard bismark” without the -iz, versus “Dunkin’ Donuts’s best product is their custard bismark” with a bonus -iz at the end. I rather doubt you are apt to hear the second in equal distribution with the first, but that is just a guess, and only actual field work can answer the question.
    – tchrist
    Commented Nov 4, 2012 at 15:38
  • 1
    @binki No, I am saying that you should spell it the way you pronounce it. See english.stackexchange.com/questions/1073/…
    – tchrist
    Commented Jan 2, 2014 at 16:44

The doughnuts do not make up the company.

Dunkin' Donuts is the company's name

Something that belongs to the company would be "Dunkin' Donuts' annual report"

  • 2
    According to the answer to this question, if we treat the company name as singular, then it should actually be "Dunkin' Donuts's annual report".
    – ESultanik
    Commented Oct 31, 2012 at 17:09
  • 1
    @ESultanik but the comment makes it even simpler (and this is the rule I always learned in the USA). Commented Nov 1, 2012 at 7:36
  • @ESultanik There are two answers there (perhaps there weren't when you wrote this comment). Commented Aug 12, 2015 at 20:27

According to Fowler, according to Truss, the 'rules' for nouns ending in s (and a subset would be plurals ending in s) are:

(1) Names ending in an '-iz' sound do not take a second s - Moses'; Bridges'

(2) Names not ending in an '-iz' sound and 'from the ancient world' do not take a second s either - Archimedes' screw; Achilles' heel

[(2b) Jesus has a poetic alternative: Jesus' disciples; Jesu's disciples]

(3)Modern names ending in s, and foreign names where the final s is not pronounced, take a second s:

Keats's poems; Davy Jones's locker.

However, this leads to inconsistencies: Athens' original games were held millenia ago; Athens's most recent Olympics were held within living memory.

Many companies, institutions and place-names contain apostrophes already as they refer to a pseudo-possessive - but others don't: Lloyd's (Insurance); King's Cross Railway Station; Lloyds (now Lloyds TSB), the bank; Kings Cross itself. One would perhaps have to write Lloyd's's employees... .

The 'rules' are broken so many times that they can hardly be deemed actually to be rules. Davy Jones' locker seems the far more common variant. And different style guides give different recommendations anyway. There is no apostrophe czar (though many pretenders).

  • The Laws of Moses become Moziziz Lawz in modern English. They are not Mozaz Lawz. Same with In Jeeziziz Name Amen. All those “rules” are so much hooey if they do not map to what people say.
    – tchrist
    Commented Oct 31, 2012 at 18:23
  • 1
    Modern must be post-2009 then: 'And where I come from, the possessive form of Jesus and Moses are NOT generally pronounced with three syllables at all. ‘For Jesus’s sake’, or ‘Moses’s staff’..? They really grate on the ear.' Commented Oct 31, 2013 at 10:31
  • I cannot remember hearing Moses pronounced as “Moziz”; I thought it was always “Mozis”.
    – binki
    Commented Jan 2, 2014 at 16:28
  • I've never heard your version! I'm sure they're both 'correct', though they're both anglicisations of the Hebrew, of course. Here's a dictionary giving what it says are 'North American' and 'British' pronunciations, both ending with the -z rather than the -s sound. I've come across another guide recommending the final -s sound, but where the chap reading it out seems rather to use the -z. Commented Jan 2, 2014 at 16:52

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