As far as I'm aware it is always pronounced.Mr Bones said:Hello, timpeac. Thank you. That was what I actually thought. But my problem is that very often I don't hear this final siz. I know that it is suppossed to be there, but I fail to notice it when I listen to many natives to talk. Might it be possible that this sound is sometimes left out or am I a bit hard of hearing?
Anyway, it's reassuring to learn again that that is the way to pronounce it.
Oh yes - there is certainly controversy about the spelling - but would you agree with my views on the pronunciation aspect Panj? Basically always pronounced apart from in bad poetry/songs to scan and some people's pronunciation of surnames? I am just thinking off the top of my head so there may be other exceptions.panjandrum said:I think I agree with Timpeac on this issue, probably.
Do remember that there may be very different views on this subject. A wise writer will check the style guide for the organisation they are writing for.
I would always pronounce Father Christmas' as Father Chrissmassiz. I was taught that adding 's' after the possessive apostrophe is optional. But that was long ago.timpeac said:It would by me
Hi! That's Portugese , so i'm not sure but i don't think they prununce with "ceceo"... so "Luiz" is pronunced "Luis" as in Spanish , you will never hear "Luith", that's weird.ChiMike said:Of course, if I were pronouncing Luiz using "ceceo", I wouldn't use the English possessive at all. "That shirt belongs to Luith" striking me as the only pronounceable possibility.
I'd write Montes' and say "Montesses". We have friends called Francis, and we visit the [pron]"Francises"The last name is Montes and I am referring to both husband and wife. So would I use The Montes' are having a Boy or The Montes's are having a boy?
Thanks ofr your help!
I belong to a family which has an -s at the end of the name so it looks just fine to me! In fact, I sometimes feel it is disrespectful when people treat it as a plural and withhold the appropriate ending.SO use, The Monteses are having a boy. I guess it just looks funny.
If you write anything other than Monteses, you will either be plain wrong or just ambiguous and people will wonder which Monte family is being referred to"Montes' " describes something that belongs to more than one person named Monte.
"Montes's" describes something that belongs to one person named Montes.
All heck broke out when the Montes and the Monteses had a party with their friends the Williams and the Williamses from down the street, just because the Joneses and the Robertses couldn't make it that evening so no-one brought any food. We can get along just fine without apostrophes"The Monteses are having a baby. It'll be Mr. Montes's first child. We're going over to the Monteses's to celebrate. You remember my friend Monte, right? Well, I'll have to remember to pick up Monte's hat when we're over there - he left it at their house after the party last month. Maybe we should introduce him to your friend Monte - it would be interesting to see if the two Montes get along. Wait - you mean the Montes are having a baby too? I suppose we'll have to go to the Montes's house, then, too. I can pick up Monte's hat for Monte at the Monteses's when we see the Monteses and bring it over to the Montes's when we see the Montes."
No, surely not. The plural possessive form of a noun doesn't take 's it simply takes '.And to finish the series, Monteses's refers to things that the Monteses own: "The Monteses are having a baby. It'll be Mr. Montes's first child. We're going over to the Monteses's to celebrate
When I read this, my first reaction was "Why would one need to form the possessive of 'apostrophes?' Surely apostrophes can't own anything!"... isn't it funny that the word "apostrophes" itself ends in a difficult-to-apostrophize ending?
Of course. That is a good reason ALWAYS* to use "'s" after a singular possessive. Otherwise "Montes' house" might belong either to someone called "Montes" or to a family with the surname "Monte".The plural possessive form of a noun doesn't take 's it simply takes '.
Yes it isis it correct to use s after apostrophe in some cases?
Now, I am a bit confused as I knew that there should be no s after apostrophe in any case.
, the internet is not only a source of useful information. It is also a source of utter tosh (=complete rubbish).Here is another rule just recently changed. When you had a word that ended in s you used to just tack on the " ' " but now you need to add the s (just changed last year).
Some people are taught that if the word ends in -s it must be plural and therefore gets the same treatment as real plurals. You seem to have been taught this. I and many others feel that the addition of only an apostrophe after an - s is correct only when that s actually indicates a plural. A name ending in an s is not considered a plural.
I just thought I should comment that in this context, it would be written "Keeping up with the Joneses," assuming you are speaking of more than one person with the last name Jones. There is no cause to use an apostrophe; there is no possessive state or contraction involved. You are merely pluralizing a word that ends in "s." For example, more than one dress would be "dresses." This is no different from expressing more than one person named Jones.Another exception occurs - in plural surnames. Usually pronounced "iz" but sometimes not.
Keeping up with the Jones'(s) pronounced either "Jonez" or "Joneziz".