• Übersicht


    Apostroph bei Eigennamen auf -s (im Englischen)


    Apostroph bei Eigennamen auf -s (im Englischen)

    Ich muss gestehen, ich bin gerade ein bisschen zu faul um mich durch die tausend Apostrophen-Threads zu lesen... ;)

    Meine Frage ist folgende: Wenn ich einen Eigennamen habe, der auf -s endet, wie verhält es sich dann mit dem Apostrophen im Englischen?


    das Buch von Rüttgers
    = Rüttgers' book?

    = Rüttgerses book?

    Oder noch eine ganz andere Lösung?

    Vielen Dank für Tipps! :)
    Verfasseryallah (326677) 19 Jun. 08, 09:53
    Weder noch: Rüttgers's book.
    #1Verfassermarkus19 Jun. 08, 10:03
    "Ich muss gestehen, ich bin gerade ein bisschen zu faul um mich durch die tausend Apostrophen-Threads zu lesen... ;)"[/]

    Na, da hast du ja Glück, dass du jemanden gefunden hast, der nicht zu faul war, zum hundertsten Mal dieselbe Frage zu beantworten :-)
    #2Verfassereszett.de (374487) 19 Jun. 08, 10:26
    Ich weiß ich weiß ich weiß... ;-)

    Nächstes Mal wird wieder im Archiv gesucht - und für dieses Mal Danke an markus! :-)
    #3Verfasseryallah (326677) 19 Jun. 08, 10:35
    I don't agree with markus entirely, I'm afraid. It's a bit tricky, but either solution is acceptable. You can either add just an ' or an 's. It all depends on how the name in question is pronounced.

    In this case, "Rüttgers's book" would be pronounced "Rüttgerses book" which sounds odd. Rüttgers' book would be better, I think, although some may disagree. Hey ho - fun with English.
    #4VerfasserLolo (239708) 19 Jun. 08, 11:05
    @Lolo: Vielen Dank für die Ergänzung, gut zu wissen!

    Ja, das mit den Apostrophen scheint allgemein ein etwas kompliziertes Feld zu sein... Im Deutschen bin ich mir da auch oft latent unsicher (obwohl hier seltener in Gebrauch) - und im Englischen scheint es ja auch einen gewissen Interpretationsspielraum zu geben.
    #5Verfasseryallah (326677) 19 Jun. 08, 11:09
    Ruttgers's book sounds fine to me. I'd write it and pronounce it like that. But I agree that Ruttgers' book would be acceptable to most English-speakers.
    #6VerfasserSteve (BE)19 Jun. 08, 11:14
    I agree with Steve on this one, but since I was pretty sure I'd heard the "s's" version used, I decided to go looking.

    My Bloomsbury "good word guide" provided the answer:

    "In the possessive form of a name or singular noun that ends in s, x or z, the apostrophe may or may not be followed by s. The final s is most frequently omitted in names, especially names of three or more syllables that end in the sound z: Euripidies' tragedies, Berlioz'operas. For words of one syllable, 's is generally used, St. James's Palace, the fox's tail, Liz's house (I'm not so sure I agree with that example though), the boss's secretary. The presence or absence of the final s in other possessives of this group depends on usage, convention, pronunciation, etc.: the princesses's tiara, Jesus' disciples, the rhinoceros'(s) horn, Nostradmus'(s) prophecies."
    #7VerfasserRMA (UK) (394831) 19 Jun. 08, 11:46
    Mr Hudson has gone for Rüttgers's:


    The Elements of Style (Strunk, William) advocate the use of 's regardless of the preceding consonant. The only exceptions mentioned are ancient proper names ending in -es and -is + Jesus as well as fixed phrases (for goodness' sake).

    That's what my answer was based on. :-)
    #8Verfassermarkus19 Jun. 08, 11:54
    After over 20 years in Germany I may be out of date again here, (I missed the disappearance of the period in ie, Mr, etc. as well as the 'st, 'nd, 'rd, and 'th in dates), but I'm afraid Rüttgers's just sounds downright ugly to me.
    #9VerfasserRMA (UK) (394831) 19 Jun. 08, 12:03
    you won't go wrong, among the permissible options, by writing it as you'd say it - in these cases: Ruttgers' book, St James's Palace, the fox's tail, Aristotles' tall tales.
    #10Verfassergg19 Jun. 08, 12:11
    Maybe just write his book or the book by Rüttgers. :-)
    #11Verfassermarkus19 Jun. 08, 12:15
    Ummm, digging around a bit further turns up the fact that while "The Elements of Style" does seem to be a bit of a bible, it was published in 1918. My copy of Bloomsbury is from 1990 and my 1990 Oxford-Duden also agrees with Bloomsbury judging by the examples given:

    James's, Dickens', Socrates'.

    Despite the fact that Strunk claims his usage is that of the OUP, the Oxford-Duden goes against him with the explanations:

    "Der Genetiv Plural der Substantive, die im Plural die Endung -s bzw. -es haben, wird durch einen hinter dem Plural -s stehenden Apostroph gekennzeichnet." Strunk doesn't differentiate between singular and plural, at all.

    "Der Genetiv Singular eines auf -s ausgehenden Eigennamens wird oft nur durch einen Apostroph gekennzeichnet."

    "Griechische und lateinische Eigennamen auf -s haben im Genetiv stets nur einen Apostroph."

    "Dies gilt auch für auf -s endende Substantive in Verbindung mit for ... sake." Here, at least they are in agreement.

    Finally, Strunks' suggestion that "Achille's heel" should be rewritten as "the heel of Achilles" is just downright ludicrous!

    Does anybody have some more modern style guides that might throw a bit more light on this?
    #12VerfasserRMA (UK) (394831) 19 Jun. 08, 12:26
    Thanks for digging this up. Let me just add that I own the 4th edition of The Elements of Style, which was published in 1999. It doesn't have the Achilles' heel example.
    #13Verfassermarkus19 Jun. 08, 12:37
    @markus, does the 4th edition differentiate between singular and plural? That I find to be a major fault in the first edition.

    Does the 4th edition also claim that the OUP is in agreement?
    #14VerfasserRMA (UK) (394831) 19 Jun. 08, 12:44
    Liz's house (I'm not so sure I agree with that example though)

    Just out of curiosity, RMA, what don't you like about Liz's?
    #15VerfasserSteve (BE)19 Jun. 08, 12:49
    @Steve, I don't really know why but I find it to be a bit of a borderline case, purely on gut instinct.

    Actually, if I play around with both versions, in my head, I must admit it doesn't feel as odd as it did while I was typing it. In my case it may simply be habit. Being a bit of a pedant by nature, with the exception of common examples like "St. James's Palace", I probably tend towards using the apostrophe on its own wherever it's not obviously wrong. "the fox's tail", "the boss's secretary" fall into that category, but "Liz" was a borderline case for me.
    #16VerfasserRMA (UK) (394831) 19 Jun. 08, 13:07
    Belatedly (and even though I have answered this question in the archive a few times before), can I just mention that working with German is not the best way to reinforce good English apostrophe usage?

    Citing Oxford-Duden for English usage also seems a bit perverse. Please, please, don't be led astray by German usage. English is just different.

    I think markus and the 4th edition of Strunk and White are absolutely right. The BE style guides that now allow more variation (and not all do; see archive threads) have apparently just acceded to the sad truth that a lot of English speakers never really learned the rules, so they just go by gut feeling, with the result that dubious forms are now common.

    Rüttgers's sounds absolutely fine to me. So do Dickens's and (really the only thinkable choice) Liz's. That is the way you say them, or at least, the way you're supposed to say them. If you simply tell yourself they're right, then the more you say them, the better they'll sound. (-:

    #17Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 19 Jun. 08, 18:12
    "Keeping up with the Jones’ or Joneses?
    W. Harrop-Griffiths
    London, UK

    Editor—As a Welshman, I feel I must question the grammatical correctness of the title of your recent Editorial:1 Electronic manuscript submission to the BJA: keeping abreast of the times, or keeping up with the Jones’.

    The plural of Jones is Joneses, -es being added as an indicator of the plurality of a word of which the singular form ends in s, as in dresses or messes. The apposition of the much misused apostrophe to the word Jones does not pluralize it. Although apostrophes should normally be used to indicate possession, their use to indicate plurality is acceptable, but only under certain circumstances (e.g. for numbers or individual letters)."

    This is something I´ve recently read and wondered about.
    How do natives feel about this?
    How do you form the plural of names ending in -s?
    #18Verfassercandice (447114) 19 Jun. 08, 21:27
    I agree with the Welshman. The plural of Jones is Joneses, and the expression is 'keeping up with the Joneses.' Mr. Harrop-Griffiths and his family would be the Harrop-Griffithses (splutter splutter *g*).

    singular - bus
    singular possessive - bus's
    plural - buses (formerly also busses)
    plural possessive - buses'

    singular - Ms. Fuzz
    singular possessive - Ms. Fuzz's
    plural - the Fuzzes (= Ms. Fuzz and her kids)
    plural possessive - the Fuzzes'

    singular - Mr. Jones
    singular possessive - Mr. Jones's
    plural - the Joneses (= Mr. & Mrs. Jones)
    plural possessive - the Joneses'

    But, again, a lot of native speakers are confused about this, just as lots of German speakers are confused about apostrophes. There are as many nice little carved signs over people's front doors or mailboxes that read The Wilson's (correctly, something that belongs to one Wilson) as there are grocery store signs that read apple's (correctly, something that belongs to one apple).

    That is, the Welshman is also right that apostrophes are wrong in plurals except in special cases such as single letters or numerals: p's and q's, 1's and 2's.

    #19Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 19 Jun. 08, 21:56
    Citing Oxford-Duden for English usage also seems a bit perverse. Please, please, don't be led astray by German usage. English is just different.

    Sorry, perhaps I should have been a bit clearer, that was the advice, presumably in German for native German speakers on English usage. As such, I assume it was written by, or at least subsequently checked by, OUP personnel.

    #20VerfasserRMA (UK) (394831) 20 Jun. 08, 12:05
    Well, apparently not, if they got it as wrong as that.
    #21Verfasserhm -- us (236141) 20 Jun. 08, 23:25
  • Pinyin
  • Tastatur
  • Sonderzeichen
  • Lautschrift
:-) automatisch zu 🙂 umgewandelt