Apostrophe hell.

[marshmallowfinder]

I keep seeing the incorrect use of apostrophes in dates, for example 'the 90's.'

It should be '90s. The apostrophe indicates the missing characters. It does NOT have one before the letter s. The apostrophe is so misused...sob! Can we do anything?

If there were an actual apostrophe hell, it should be called Hade's.

Ha ha 😂

I much prefer James’ book than James’s book - the second one looks wrong!

The rule I was taught for possessive apostrophes for names ending in an s is that you do "s's" unless it is a biblical or classical name. So James's t-shirt, Jess's money, but Jesus' sandals, Zeus' power. Works for me!

That's what i was taught too. And it included saints... So St. James' . But if it was your mate James then James's.

Do names need apostrophes? eg is Shepherds Bush fine or should it be Shepherd's Bush or even Shepherds' Bush? I'm sure there's a rule about it

Officially, it is Shepherd’s Bush.

Anyone remember this?

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/apr/03/banksy-of-punctuation-puts-full-stop-bad-grammar-bristol

I sometimes look around my local shopfronts etc. and long for an apostrophiser and also the energy to roam about in the early hours wielding it.

Meanwhile, I just wince!

Not the Scotts' car...?

Exactly! I think OP has got that wrong - the irony!

No, the surname is Scott. It is their car. If their actual surname WAS Scotts (with an s on the end) then of course the apostrophe would come after. Always turn it round to check. (Scott was a bad example to use, agreed!)

No, the surname is Scott. It is their car. If their actual surname WAS Scotts (with an s on the end) then of course the apostrophe would come after.

I don't believe you are correct. Scott's car implies one person called Scott (so Mr. Scott's car)

Scotts' car implies the car that belongs to more than one Scott (as in both Mr. and Mrs Scott) so it is the car belonging to the Scotts, hence Scotts'.

St Andrews University throws me... because St Andrews was apparently named before the invention of the apostrophe?

OP I'm sorry but you're wrong with regards to the apostrophe added to a family name.

The Scotts' car = the car belonging to the Scotts, ie the family whose name is Scott. "The Scotts have three children." You would not say "The Scott have three children."

Mr Scott's car = the car belonging to Mr Scott (singular)
Mrs Scott's car = the car belonging to Mrs Scott (singular)
The Scotts' car = the car belonging to the people of the Scott family (plural).

Exactly this!

It depends how you are treating the word Scott. I was treating it as in the car of the Scott family. In your example above, then yes, it certainly would be Scotts' if you treat them as individuals.

Ye I thought:
Car of the Scotts = the Scotts' car 🚔
Car of the Scott family = the Scott family's car 🚗

@SnakesAndArrows but the Liz example which you have given is not the same as James.

The rule is that where there is an S before and after the possessive apostrophe, the second S can be omitted. So James's becomes James'

But Liz's will always be Liz's as that's a regular interpretation of the rule.

Sorry OP - it's either
The Scott family's car or
The Scotts' car.

The Scott's car would only be right if it was one person called The Scott.

But how do you say it? James or Jameses?

I know either is OK according to the grammar books, and you are not wrong, but it makes no logical sense.

I get that, but I have friends called Liz and Lis. Insane to write Liz’s and Lis’, especially as you’d pronounce them both “Lizzes”.

The English language is endlessly fascinating!

I think James’ is very much correct

James' book is correct.

The use of James's is still correct but I guess due to it being a bit cumbersome, it's gradually been accepted to use the former.

No OP is correct. (Though using Scott is confusing, as it's also a first name!)

Her explanation is right. She's referring to the car that belongs to the family called Scott (a single entity).

She's not talking about a car which several people called Scott (ie multiple entities) own.

As many others have said, James' is correct as is James's