Talk:The Sanderses' home

Where did 9734 show what episode?
~ ~ ~ ~ Red = 20:57, 31 January 2007 (EST)

I don't remember which episode (probably Genesis). IIRC, it was painted on the curb in front of the house. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Yeah, it was either Genesis or Don't Look Back.--Hardvice (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Plural Possessives

I know there are other discussions on this but I can't find them. Because of the recent edit and revert and because Sanderses' sounds kind of weird to me, I did a search on this again. I found a site that explains that when a last name ends in a hard "z" sound, you usually don't add an "s" or the "-es" and simply add an apostrophe: "the Chambers' new baby." Here and Here. Is this correct? -Lөvөl 15:22, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

• It's wrong anyway. They're the Sanders', OR Sanderses. Since their last name is Sanders, Sanderses' would be Sand-er-ses-ses. --Riddler 15:52, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
• "The Chambers' new baby" is correct if the last name is simply "Chamber". If the last name is "Chambers", then the plural would be "the baby that belongs to the Chamberses". The plural possessive would be "the Chamberses' baby". The title of this page is read "The Sand-ers-es home" -- an apostrophe does not add any extra sounds. RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

- The apostrophe adds the extra "es" sound o_O --Riddler 00:10, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

• • No, the apostrophe itself is not pronounced. The possessive of "dogs" (dogs') is pronounced "dogs", not "dogses" (although it's frequently mispronounced as such). In fact, it's pronounced the same as the possessive of "dog" (dog's). And an apostrophe is never used to make a plural; Sanders' would be the possessive of a group of people named "Sander". Since these people are named "Sanders" (ending in a sibilant), the plural is "Sanderses". Since it's plural and ends in "s", it takes only an apostrophe to become possessive, and it's Sanderses', and is pronounced the same as "Sanderses".--Hardvice (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
    • That's funny I knew that and you didn't :p It seems that's the only one grammar point I ever learned. (English teaching in France is so so lame...) -- FrenchFlo (talk)        09:59, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
• You are wrong, I'm sorry. To make a proper noun that ends in -s possessive you add an apostrophe. So the the "Chambers' baby" would mean a baby of the family Chambers, NOT the plural of Chamber, the possessive of a singular noun that does not end in s would be the "Chamber's baby". Since their name is a proper noun that ends in -s you simply add an apostrophe. Adding -es AND an apostrophe is redundant and incorrect. Using Sanderses would mean the home owned by each individual Sanders family member, but unfortunately Sanderses is incorrect. That's why "keeping up with the Joneses" is a funny catchphrase, because it is not possessive and means that you are trying to keep up with the individuals of the Jones' family. I don't know where you are getting that plural nouns or ones that end in -s never receive an apostrophe, that is not correct. Plural nouns or proper ones that end in -s always, always receive an apostrophe to make them possessive. [1] Example: The Wilsons' house (The Wilsons live in the house.) Their last name (Wilsons) is already a plural noun, it doesn't need -es to make it plural. Same with Sanders, it is already plural! It doesn't need -es to make it more plural before you add the apostrophe showing possession. [2]

You add -es to words like dress, not to proper plural nouns.

Plural nouns don't need to be made plural, they already are!!! [3]

Just to give another example: You wouldn't say, "Colonel Sanderses' secret recipe", you would say "Colonel Sanders' secret recipe".

Bottom-line, the rule here is If a singular proper noun ends in s, add an apostrophe. http://grammar.uoregon.edu/case/possnouns.html