Martin Lewis's Money Saving Expert

caveatvenditor

Isn't the grammar on the website incorrect.

Shouldn't

Martin Lewis' Money Saving Expert

actually read

Martin Lewis's Money Saving Expert

Emma37

You're right, it should be Lewis's. It's a common mistake.

krisskross

No because his name ends in an S then you don't add a possessive S. But the possessive apostrophe comes before the possessive S that isn't there. There we are, clear as mud. Another instance is if a boy called James has toys. They will be James' toys, not James's toys.

MarkyMarkD

The BBC's website doesn't agree. It suggests that it should normally be s's except for ancient names (Moses' or Jesus') or names that are pronounced -iz like Geoff Bridges'.

You definitely say it "Lewis's" and that's how it should be written too.

*srjp*

krisskross wrote: »

They will be James' toys, not James's toys.

In the strictest gammar rules you are confusing plural and singular. If there is one James then it should be James's toys, if there are two Jameses then it should be the James' toys.

Thus, theoretically the site may be 'wrong' but it could depend on how you pronouce 'Lewis' and advice tends to to say that so long as you are consistent then do what you want..

If you have time to kill you might like the American Supreme Court debate over Kansas'(s) Constitution... I haven't read this article properly but it's the first on the subject that Google threw up and seems to carry the gist: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1161002121409

krisskross

*srjp* wrote: »

In the strictest gammar rules you are confusing plural and singular. If there is one James then it should be James's toys, if there are two Jameses then it should be the James' toys.

Thus, theoretically the site may be 'wrong' but it could depend on how you pronouce 'Lewis' and advice tends to to say that so long as you are consistent then do what you want..

If you have time to kill you might like the American Supreme Court debate over Kansas'(s) Constitution... I haven't read this article properly but it's the first on the subject that Google threw up and seems to carry the gist: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1161002121409

Oh i see what you are saying. If I have one boy it would be the boy's toy but if I have more than one boy then it will be the boys' toy. Yes?

withabix

caveatvenditor wrote: »

Isn't the grammar on the website incorrect.

Shouldn't

Martin Lewis' Money Saving Expert

actually read

Martin Lewis's Money Saving Expert

Been there, done that.

I mentioned this in the 'preview' thread about the new-look website weeks ago!

Like Lewis's department store, if anyone remembers them! (I think there are one or two left - and NO, I don't mean John Lewis!)

*srjp*

The point about this site may have been made already but I'll just respond to Krisskross while we're here:

krisskross wrote: »

Oh i see what you are saying. If I have one boy it would be the boy's toy but if I have more than one boy then it will be the boys' toy. Yes?

Even though boy doesn't end in s that is a good example as "boys's" doesn't even sound right in speech. The same concept applies to names, however, as with everything in English there are a few exceptions. For example, I work down near St Thomas' Hospital in London which using the theory should mean the Hospital of the St Thomases.. but apparently in the older parts of the building there are scripts making clear there was only ever one! To get their heads around this, people tend to rather awkwardly write about "St Thomas' Hospital" but then refer to anything belonging to it differently, eg, St Thomas's staff are underpaid.. Ah well!

Just to confuse things a bit more, if the noun already refers to a plural then you treat it as singular.. eg, the children's toys..

There's also quite a bit of argument about events, eg should a conference for accountants belong to them as an accountants' confererence or be composed of them, an accountants conference [omit the ' altogether']?

There's an adage for a lot of grammar that says if you're not sure just leave it out because leaving things out is often advocated by those that wish for a simplfied language and you will just be thought of as one of them, but putting too many things in just shows you don't know what you're doing.. ;-)

To get back to the point though, with names it boils down to personal preference and so long as you are consistent no one should really question it. Given this is Martin's site and it's Martin's name, he can do what he wants!

Running_Horse

I was told either is correct, and that to correct someone else's grammar on a website is a bit naff.

Lorian

As Lewis is not plural then the s' rule does not hold for the posessive form. it should be Lewis's (IMHO)