4 ms·

This is exactly what I am trying to establish to improve my bumpy English. My best guess is that the correct form is "Brooks's" because (1) "Brooks" is a singul

by xpil 8y ago

This is exactly what I am trying to establish to improve my bumpy English. My best guess is that the correct form is "Brooks's" because (1) "Brooks" is a singular noun ending with an "s" and (2) it is not a classic neither religious name. If you claim it should be "Brooks'" I am ok with this as long as you give me a sensible explanation.

yathern 8y ago
There's not exactly a consensus these days on what is correct. Either is valid, but I generally prefer _Brooks' Law_ to _Brooks's Law_ since it looks more clean. Of course, Brook's Law is incorrect, as there is no "Brook" Here's an example of the lack of consensus: Either is acceptable: https://data.grammarbook.com/blog/apostrophes/apostrophes-with-names-ending-in-s-ch-or-z/ https://data.grammarbook.com/blog/apostrophes/apostrophes-wi... https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/apostrophe_introduction.html https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/apost... Chicago vs AP style: https://apvschicago.com/2011/06/apostrophe-s-vs-apostrophe-forming.html https://apvschicago.com/2011/06/apostrophe-s-vs-apostrophe-f... APA style suggests appending the extra 's': https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2013/06/forming-possessives-with-singular-names.html https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2013/06/forming-possessiv...
- xpil 8y ago
  So, the usual clusterf*k of opinions instead of a clear spec. People should be speaking SQL. Thanks for the links. Plenty of educational value there!
  - dllthomas 8y ago
    > So, the usual clusterf*k of opinions instead of a clear spec. People should be speaking SQL. Because that would be an improvement, or not much of a change?
    - xpil 8y ago
      Sorry, forgot to set the Sarcasm New Roman font again!
      - dllthomas 8y ago
        Honestly, it's more amusing for the ambiguity :)
Wildgoose 8y ago
Native English speaker, from England, and we were explicitly taught to use Brooks' rather than Brooks's. However that didn't stop the Beatles from using "In an Octopus's Garden" as a song title. (Note that the song is about a single Octopus). I would suggest that it depends on whether you intend to explicitly repeat the 's' when speaking. Plurals of words ending with an 's' are an occasional minefield. You sometimes hear people smugly insist that the plural of Octopus should be Octopi, only to have someone even more smugly point out that Octopus is from Greek, not Latin, and so it should be Octopodes. Meanwhile the rest of us just continue to use Octopuses....
- Izkata 8y ago
  In the US - I've always understood it to have something to do with pluralization, along the lines of: * One river's fish. * Jesus's fish. * Many rivers exist. * Many rivers' fish. The name "Brooks" unfortunately fits both the second and fourth of these examples, making it even weirder.

by xpil 8y ago

yathern 8y ago

There's not exactly a consensus these days on what is correct. Either is valid, but I generally prefer _Brooks' Law_ to _Brooks's Law_ since it looks more clean. Of course, Brook's Law is incorrect, as there is no "Brook" Here's an example of the lack of consensus: Either is acceptable: https://data.grammarbook.com/blog/apostrophes/apostrophes-with-names-ending-in-s-ch-or-z/ https://data.grammarbook.com/blog/apostrophes/apostrophes-wi... https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/apostrophe_introduction.html https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/punctuation/apost... Chicago vs AP style: https://apvschicago.com/2011/06/apostrophe-s-vs-apostrophe-forming.html https://apvschicago.com/2011/06/apostrophe-s-vs-apostrophe-f... APA style suggests appending the extra 's': https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2013/06/forming-possessives-with-singular-names.html https://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2013/06/forming-possessiv...

xpil 8y ago
So, the usual clusterf*k of opinions instead of a clear spec. People should be speaking SQL. Thanks for the links. Plenty of educational value there!
- dllthomas 8y ago
  > So, the usual clusterf*k of opinions instead of a clear spec. People should be speaking SQL. Because that would be an improvement, or not much of a change?
  - xpil 8y ago
    Sorry, forgot to set the Sarcasm New Roman font again!
    - dllthomas 8y ago
      Honestly, it's more amusing for the ambiguity :)

Wildgoose 8y ago

Native English speaker, from England, and we were explicitly taught to use Brooks' rather than Brooks's. However that didn't stop the Beatles from using "In an Octopus's Garden" as a song title. (Note that the song is about a single Octopus). I would suggest that it depends on whether you intend to explicitly repeat the 's' when speaking. Plurals of words ending with an 's' are an occasional minefield. You sometimes hear people smugly insist that the plural of Octopus should be Octopi, only to have someone even more smugly point out that Octopus is from Greek, not Latin, and so it should be Octopodes. Meanwhile the rest of us just continue to use Octopuses....

Izkata 8y ago
In the US - I've always understood it to have something to do with pluralization, along the lines of: * One river's fish. * Jesus's fish. * Many rivers exist. * Many rivers' fish. The name "Brooks" unfortunately fits both the second and fourth of these examples, making it even weirder.