Iris' Iris's ..

[tulipsunday]

Which is correct or both?

Iris' hat

Iris's hat

Thanks. Did google it but read different answers so still not completely sure.

This is what I was taught

You won't go wrong with that method so it's not harm teaching it, but in standard English you have a genuine choice between Thomas' and Thomas's.

Here's the University of Cambridge guide on the subject

When a first or second name ends in -s, we can either add ’ or ’s. It is more common to use ’ than ’s. When we speak, we usually pronounce the final part of the word as /zɪz/ or /sɪz/:

Is that James’ car? (or Is that James’s car?) (both usually pronounced /ˈdʒeɪmzɪz/)

I love Keats’ poetry. (or I love Keats’s poetry.) (both usually pronounced /ˈki:tsɪz/)

dictionary.cambridge.org/us/grammar/british-grammar/possession-john-s-car-a-friend-of-mine

I’m an editor and I agree with@Looksgood — there is no universal rule. There are options.

Editors are constantly adapting to different style preferences depending on the client. Authoritative guides (Chicago etc.) differ on this apostrophe-s business and many other points. Individual writers often have their own views and within reason, that’s fine too. Publishers are often pretty flexible about this kind of thing as long as there’s a sensible system in use and it’s not so unconventional that it distracts the reader.

No, the ‘ancient names exception’ was some style guides and style sheets’ convention, not some universal rule. Turabian and Strunk said Jesus/Moses/Euripides got special treatment, Chicago, and I think MLA now certainly prescribe ‘Jesus’s’

I'm not proscriptive when it comes to language, grammar, and punctuation. But chaos reigns when people go about pronouncing it "Thomas coat" "James car" or "Jesuses disciples".

And people do. Because they don't know how to write it and get themselves twisted up.

It was taught in school as Thomas's and Jesus'. If style guides follow what people do when they're let loose in the wild, well there we are. But I can't get on board with Jesus's being acceptable (My phone's autocorrect couldn't handle it either and typed "jesuss", whereas if I type "Thomass" it autocorrects to put the ' in for me)

Strunk ✅

It's not difficult and yet this topic comes up a lot

It's not difficult, you say? People find it difficult distinguishing between there, they're, their.... two, to, too.... it's not difficult 😆🤣

Is there a list of these ancient names that we've to follow your rule for?

It's not difficult, you say? People find it difficult distinguishing between there, they're, their.... two, to, too.... it's not difficult 😆🤣

Yes, these are not difficult rules either.

Exactly. Things come up for discussion even though they are not difficult to some people, because they are difficult to others.

I was taught at school that both options are correct.

I'd always go with the version that aligns with common usage if the name didn't end in s. So Iris's hat. In speech I'd never say 'Iris hat is on the table.' That would sound really sloppy. I'd say 'Iris's hat is on the table'.

Pedantically, I think s' refers to plurals, not names that end with s.

If style guides follow what people do when they're let loose in the wild, well there we are.

Dictionaries do that, but not style guides. A style guide sets out a preferred approach that (if you are following it) overrides what you might do in the wild. And some style guides definitely do recommend the ‘s should always be added.

Fair enough if you don’t like it though — you’re not alone. I think it was the 16th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style that brought in the ‘s change (we’re now on the 18th), so it’s a relatively recent update. There was some mild consternation.

But you don’t really get to pronounce it unacceptable or say it’s objectively wrong when it’s a rule that has been carefully applied in thousands of professionally edited texts.

From the Chicago Q&A (just because it’s interesting, not because I’m suggesting we should all be following Chicago):

Q. I thought Chicago style used to say to use only an apostrophe for the possessive of a name like “Harris” that ends in “s.” Am I imagining things?
A. You’re not imagining things, but Harris’
hasn’t been Chicago style since the late 1960s. The first edition of CMOS (1906) advised using an apostrophe alone to form the possessive of “proper names of more than one syllable ending in s or another sibilant”; for one-syllable names, the rule was the same as for names that didn’t end in a sibilant—that is, add an apostrophe plus an s. In other words, you would write “King James’s Version,” “Burns’s poems,” and “Marx’s theories” (one-syllable names), but “Moses’ law,” “Demosthenes’ orations,” and “Berlioz’ compositions” (names with two or more syllables, a category that Harris belongs to). See paragraph 103 in the first edition.
Except for a couple of clarifications for names like Charlevoix and Horace (both of which would get an ’s), the original rule remained in place until 1969, when the twelfth edition was published. That edition eliminated all but a few exceptions to the ’s convention: “Exceptions are the names Jesus and Moses and Greek (or hellenized) names of more than one syllable ending in es”—as in “Jesus’ nativity,” “Moses’ leadership,” and “Xerxes’ army” (12th ed., ¶ 6.8).
The sixteenth edition (2010) then eliminated all remaining exceptions (including one for names ending in a silent s that had been added to the fifteenth edition [2003]), and that’s where CMOS stands today—that is, add an apostrophe plus an s to form the possessive of any person’s name, regardless of number of syllables or ancient pedigree.
So whether you’re referring to “Moses’s leadership” or (to bring things up to date) “Harris’s speech”—or, yes, “Walz’s speech,” though single-syllable names ending in z were never in question—Chicago’s rule for forming the possessive of a person’s name is now the same for all.
For more details, start with CMOS 7.17.

But you don’t really get to pronounce it unacceptable

Well, I absolutely do get to do that. And you get to disregard it if you want.

If in doubt, “the hat belonging to Iris” 🤭

Then what of you had two people called Iris and you were talking about all of the eyes, not just one each?

The Irises' irises?

Or the Irises' irises' colour?

Or the Irises's irises's are iridescent?

I'm going to stop there. It's making my eyes (not the irises, though) go a bit funny.

Irises' irises' colour(s);

When it's more than one thing / person ending in s, you only have the s' option!

The problem with people saying, the way I learned it at school is the rule and anything else is unacceptable is that people learn different things at school when the rule allows for variation. So you have two sets of people looking down on each other for writing perfectly correctly.

The rule in standard English is, add either ' or 's.

Of course you can have a preference. But criticising people for doing either of these things isn't sensible or fair: neither is more right or wrong than the other.

Yes, I should have been clearer. Of course you can 100% say it’s unacceptable to you. I meant you’d be mistaken to suggest it is objectively wrong, or generally regarded as unacceptable.

One can be more logical than the other. A sensible and logical use of s' or s's lends itself better to how these words are pronounced.

Yes, it's absolutely fine to have a preference for a reason like that and I get it. I prefer the modern / ancient convention myself, with a bit of wriggle room where something just "sounds" better.

The Irises' irises' colour's blue...

But Iris's irises' colours're dark blue and the other Iris's irises' colour's lighter...

If the Irises' irises' colours're blue, what colour's the irises in Iris's eyes when they're reflected in Iris's iris?

<staggers off, muttering about the vessel with the pestle containing the brew that is true>

I think they are both technically correct - though I would use Iris'

Both are correct, but Iris' hat is cleaner.

This is what I was taught.