MoneySavingExpert site has a major bug

RadoJo

In fairness there are sources which would support the view that it's correct either way and can depend on whether something is written or spoken - like the OP I prefer the consistency of the extra 's' as there's less room for ambiguity, and as I used to have a surname that ended with an 's' I always used a second 's' when referring to myself (not that I addressed formal correspondence to myself very often!).

For those of us who enjoy a little light learning on a Friday the wikipedia entry for this topic is quite interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe#Singular_nouns_ending_with_an_.E2.80.9Cs.E2.80.9D_or_.E2.80.9Cz.E2.80.9D_sound
:beer:

stevenhp1987

An extra S for plural is not required when the name ends in an S. Just the ' is required. Therefore Lewis' is correct.

williham

Strictly speaking it does require the extra s, but recently it has been considered ok to not add it. Martin believes it is clearer without the s, even though it looks !!!!.

Zazen999

williham wrote: »

Strictly speaking it does require the extra s, but recently it has been considered ok to not add it. Martin believes it is clearer without the s, even though it looks !!!!.

As recent as 30 years ago when I learnt it at school?

RadoJo

In terms of the history of the English language, 30 years is pretty recent, but it changes all the time and is subject to its own fashions and fads!

Zazen999

RadoJo wrote: »

In terms of the history of the English language, 30 years is pretty recent, but it changes all the time and is subject to its own fashions and fads!

Aye, but losing the s after a ' that follows another s is an old practice - not a new one...

fluffnutter

It depends how something is said... if a name is spelt with an 's' on the end, e.g. Louis (French pronunciation. i.e. 'loo - ee'), which is not pronounced, then the correct possessive would be Louis' i.e. pronounced 'loo - ees'. If the 's' is pronounced already in the non-possessive, i.e. Lewis ('loo - is') then the correct possessive will be Lewis's because people actually tend to say 'loo - is - is').

Similarly James's would also be correct because people say 'James - is'. I've seen that as James' many times, but it's wrong for the same reason as Lewis' is.

InaPickle

fluffnutter wrote: »

It depends how something is said... if a name is spelt with an 's' on the end, e.g. Louis (French pronunciation. i.e. 'loo - ee'), which is not pronounced, then the correct possessive would be Louis' i.e. pronounced 'loo - ees'. If the 's' is pronounced already in the non-possessive, i.e. Lewis ('loo - is') then the correct possessive will be Lewis's because people actually tend to say 'loo - is - is').

Similarly James's would also be correct because people say 'James - is'. I've seen that as James' many times, but it's wrong for the same reason as Lewis' is.

Surely that's a different point? What is written is correct, how people pronounce it incorrectly is another matter...

InaPickle

InaPickle wrote: »

Surely that's a different point? What is written is correct, how people pronounce it incorrectly is another matter...

...but an annoying one at that!

But reading what you have written (which is a bit confusing), I think you might be incorrect. Shout me down if I am wrong, but there is no rules stating that one writes the additional 's' after the apostrophe upon the basis of another 's' preceeding it. Louis' and Lewis' would both be correct, albeit the pronunciation of the Lewis' would be 'Lewis-is' with two 's' sounds, and the 's' in Louis, which as you correctly stated is not pronounced in the French, would be hardened and pronounced.

fluffnutter

InaPickle wrote: »

Surely that's a different point? What is written is correct, how people pronounce it incorrectly is another matter...

Nope, people are pronouncing it correctly. In this case, the punctuation is there to reflect usage, not the other way round.