"John Smith" insists that his version of using the apostrophe is
correct. Those pointing out his mistaken ideas are called morons and
imbeciles. Three seconds of Google search brings enlightenment.

For the apostrophe-challenged from:

http://www.write101.com/sample.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. To show OMISSION

What's a nice kid like me doing in a place like this?

We started with two words, what and is, but because this is informal
writing, we want to express it informally, so we omit a letter from the
word is. Because we're well brought up little Vegemites (remember?), we
let people know what we've done.

I could've danced all night ... (could have, not could 'of')

It's time for breakfast (It is time ...)

It's been raining all day. (It has been raining ...)

So, in future whenever you see an apostrophe, make a conscious effort to
work out what the original word was before the letter was omitted.
Sometimes, as in the case of could've and would've, more than one letter
has been omitted.

This will establish good habits and alert you to the role of the apostrophe.

2. To show POSSESSION

We went to Marmaduke's restaurant for dinner. (Marmaduke owns the
restaurant; it is the restaurant of Marmaduke.)

Notice how the apostrophe comes at the end of the noun (Marmaduke) and
is accompanied by the letter 's' - a bit like a chaperone.

We knew whom to blame for the missing pie; there was cream all over the
dog's whiskers!

We're only referring to one dog and it owns the whiskers (and the pie
and a very satisfied smile, no doubt).

Some words sound awkward when an apostrophe 's' is added:

Jesus's disciples.

The accepted form here is to just use the 's' apostrophe:

Jesus' disciples.

N.B. This only applies to names of Biblical or historical significance
e.g. Jesus, Moses, Zeus, Demosthenes, Ramses ... the rest of us whack in
the apostrophe and add an 's.'

Moses' followers, Zeus' priests, Demosthenes' teachings, Ramses' pyramid

Others don't have the same clumsy sound:

The princess's chair.

The important thing is to be consistent in your use of the form -
nothing is writ in stone!

Confusion arises when the apostrophe is used with a plural noun.

At the zoo, the children were most interested in seeing the lions' den.

More than one lion owns the den, so we add the apostrophe after the 's'
(this is the den of the lions).

So, the general rule is:

* if there's one owner - add an apostrophe and then 's'
* if there are two or more owners - add 's' then an apostrophe.

However, (and of course you're not surprised to hear this, are you?),
there are exceptions to this rule.



For words which form their plural by changing internal letters (instead
of adding 's'), the apostrophe comes before the 's'.

It was the children's turn to wash up.

Children is already a plural word, so we don't need to make it doubly
plural by adding 's' apostrophe; however, we do need to indicate the
idea of ownership, so we use apostrophe 's'.

Some other words which follow this rule a men, women, people.

When you have 'double possession' - when two or more people (or
subjects) own one item and both (or all) of their names are mentioned,
the apostrophe is applied only to the second (or last) name.

We had coffee at Ermintrude and Marmaduke's mansion.

When you're using names that end in -S, you follow the same rules as
with any other name and add apostrophe S:

Chris's car, Bridget Jones's Diary.



Plural names also follow the same rules:

Bill Thomas's car; the Thomases' new house (add -es to names that end in
S to indicate plural form).

The apostrophe is also used with many expressions of time (to show that
the time period owns the other noun):

an hour's time; a year's holiday

BUT notice that we do not use the apostrophe with possessive pronouns
(remember, these are the little guys who step in and lend a paw to nouns).

After dinner at Marmaduke's restaurant, we went back to his place for
coffee.

The bird's feathers were ruffled. (The bird owns the feathers.)

The bird ruffled its feathers. (The bird owns the feathers, but the
pronoun its is being used instead of the noun, so there is NO apostrophe.

You'll see it's and its used incorrectly nearly every single day and in
places where it should never happen. An easy way to make sure you never
confuse the two is to ask yourself (do this quietly, you don't want to
alarm those around you), if the words it is can be substituted in the
sentence- if the answer is yes, then whack in the old apostrophe.

If the answer is no, then sit on your hands so you won't be tempted.

The bird ruffled its (it is?) feathers. (NO)

It's (it is?) a lovely day. (YES)

To summarise, here is a good way to check if you need an apostrophe -
for future reference:

If you can substitute the use of "of" then you use the apostrophe.

e.g. This is Marmaduke's house ... it is the house of Marmaduke.

The children's mother phoned ... the mother of the children phoned.

Three months' work ... the work of three months.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If "John" likes, he can print this and keep it near his computer.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:

John Jones is the man.

John Jones' car is in the shop.

The Jones's car is in the shop.


Bill Smith is another man.

Bill Smiths' car is in the shop too.

The Smiths' family car is in the shop also.

Bill Smith's an avg. joe.

JS

John Smith I wrote:

...
JS


However, both jesse jackson and al-not-too-sharp-sharpton tend to speak
in such a manner as to mimic heils' use of apostrophes.

JS

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
John Smith I wrote:

...
JS


However, both jesse jackson and al-not-too-sharp-sharpton tend to speak
in such a manner as to mimic heils' use of apostrophes.

JS

Of course that is just one bunghole's opinion. Those of other bungholes may
vary.

John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

...
JS


However, both jesse jackson and al-not-too-sharp-sharpton tend to speak
in such a manner as to mimic heils' use of apostrophes.

Then they have it right.

March to your own drummer, "John", but don't be surprised if someone
laughs at you or points out your mistakes.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:

[more of the same old chit Len tires of ...]

Dave:

Yer' a moron ... end of story. You've worked hard for that title, you
deserve it; wear it with pride!

JS

John Smith I wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

[more of the same old chit Len tires of ...]

Len tires of being wrong and of receiving what he dishes out.

Dave:

Yer' a moron ... end of story.

Except that your statement isn't the end of the story. The moron would
be the guy who made the statements on punctuation which you made and, in
the face of facts to the contrary, continued to bray that he's right.

You've worked hard for that title, you
deserve it; wear it with pride!

Your actions and reactions of today ensure that the title is yours.
There's no shame in it, "John." After all, you're anonymous. You can
simply choose another pseudonym if you're embarrassed.

Dave K8MN

On Apr 15, 12:59 pm, Dave Heil wrote:
"John Smith" insists that his version of using the apostrophe is
correct. Those pointing out his mistaken ideas are called morons and
imbeciles. Three seconds of Google search brings enlightenment.

For the apostrophe-challenged from:

I'm reminded of Hans' story of the new ham being corrected by someone
who supposedly knows better, wearing the artificial cloak of well-
meaningness.

You remain the smuggest of hams.

wrote:
On Apr 15, 12:59 pm, Dave Heil wrote:
"John Smith" insists that his version of using the apostrophe is
correct. Those pointing out his mistaken ideas are called morons and
imbeciles. Three seconds of Google search brings enlightenment.

For the apostrophe-challenged from:

I'm reminded of Hans' story of the new ham being corrected by someone
who supposedly knows better, wearing the artificial cloak of well-
meaningness.

That's fine, hot-ham-and-cheese. Was it the numerous examples of the
proper use of apostrophes--almost all wrong--provided by "John", which
reminded you?

You remain the smuggest of hams.

You might have forgotten the fellow who suggests that someone who uses
an apostrophe correctly is an imbecile or moron. Now *that's* smug.

Dave K8MN

On Apr 16, 8:39 am, Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 15, 12:59 pm, Dave Heil wrote:
"John Smith" insists that his version of using the apostrophe is
correct. Those pointing out his mistaken ideas are called morons and
imbeciles. Three seconds of Google search brings enlightenment.

For the apostrophe-challenged from:

I'm reminded of Hans' story of the new ham being corrected by someone
who supposedly knows better, wearing the artificial cloak of well-
meaningness.

That's fine, hot-ham-and-cheese. Was it the numerous examples of the
proper use of apostrophes--almost all wrong--provided by "John", which
reminded you?

Come to think of it, it was your thread hi-jacking which drew my
attention. I probably wouldn't have noticed it otherwise. There's
only so much of your nonsense that I'm going to read, so this one
squabble of the many squabbles that you've gotten yourself into would
likely have been missed.

You remain the smuggest of hams.

You might have forgotten the fellow who suggests that someone who uses
an apostrophe correctly is an imbecile or moron. Now *that's* smug.

Dave K8MN

Or I might have forgotten the fellow who says that people who misspell
words are incapable of leadership. Smug? Youbetcha.