This wiki is a XML full dump clone of "Heroes Wiki", the main wiki about the Heroes saga that has been shut down permanently since June 1, 2020. The purpose of this wiki is to keep online an exhaustive and accurate database about the franchise.
Talk:The Sanderses' home
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
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)
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)
- If the Chamber family has a new baby its the Chamber's new baby, if the Chambers have a new baby its the Chambers' new baby.Terrence12690 18:30, 8 October 2008 (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)
- 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 --Grammero (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- This article refers to the home of the family named Sanders. It's plural, not singular. (Admin 19:44, 14 October 2007 (EDT))
- Wrong. "Sanders" is their name. It is a singular proper noun. Adding the apostrophe makes it plural and possessive identifying the home as the one in which the Sanders family lives. Leave it incorrect if you want, but it looks silly when it is a very basic grammar issue. Just because something incorrect is repeated doesn't make it correct. If everyone started typing "irregardless" I'm sure you wouldn't let it stand.--Grammero (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- Yes, but Colonel Sanders is singular. Colonel Sanders's (or Colonel Sanders', depending on the style manual you're using) recipe is correct. If the recipe belonged to his family, it would be the Sanderses' recipe. One Sanders, two Sanderses. One Jones, two Joneses. One plus, two pluses. See here or here or here or here or here or here or pretty much anywhere. Sanders is not already plural--it's a singular noun that ends in "s". Bob Smith is one of the Smiths and lives in the Smiths' home. Niki Sanders is one of the Sanderses and lives in the Sanderses' home. If her name was "Niki Sander", you would be correct. It's not. Her name, in the singular, ends in an "s".
- Wrong. "Sanders" is their name. It is a singular proper noun. Adding the apostrophe makes it plural and possessive identifying the home as the one in which the Sanders family lives. Leave it incorrect if you want, but it looks silly when it is a very basic grammar issue. Just because something incorrect is repeated doesn't make it correct. If everyone started typing "irregardless" I'm sure you wouldn't let it stand.--Grammero (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- There's two separate questions here. The first--does a singular noun which ends in s take an apostrophe or an apostrophe and an s to become possessive--is a question of style and varies from style manual to style manual (i.e. is it D.L. Hawkins' car or D.L. Hawkins's car?) The second is does a family name which ends in s need to be made plural when referring to more than one family member? That's a question of grammar, and the answer is always "yes". "Sanders" is either singular (referring to a single person with the surname "Sanders") or plural (referring to more than one person with the surname "Sander"). The "Sanderses" refers to more than one member of the Sanders family. Now, their house could be "The Sanders home" (descriptive, not possessive--it's where the Sanders family live--compare "The Bennet home", not "The Bennets' home") or "the Sanderses' home" (possessive--more than one Sanders possesses the home), but not "the Sanders' home" (possessive--a home owned by more than one Sander)--Hardvice (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- Sanders is their last name, but the family is made up of multiple members. I would call Tony Romo a Dallas Cowboy, but he is a member of the Dallas Cowboys. Similarly, Micah is a Sanders, but the group of them is the Sanderses. When calling them the Sanders' family, then you are saying the family is possessed by a Sanders, whereas the Sanderses is not necessarily a family, but multiple people with the last name Sanders. So, you could say "the Sanders' family home", meaning it is the family home, whereas the Sanderses' home is a home possessed by multiple people with Sanders as their last name.--Bob 20:01, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- Well now you are just being silly. In reality, when speaking of a home, especially in this sense, you are not describing the home in terms of being owned by each individual family member. Even in this sense, "Sanders' house" still means the home of the Sanders family which includes each of the Sanderses. If they were the "Smiths" you wouldn't say the "Smithses'" house. It is redundant to add -es and have an apostrophe. You are basically combining both plural forms. Let me put it this way, you wouldn't say "Niki and Micah Sanderses' house." you would say "Niki and Micah Sanders' house." If you are wanting to be this technical then it should totally be renamed the "Sanderses/Hawkins" house since D.L. lived there too.
- You are totally missing the point. If they were the ""Smiths" it would be the "Smiths' home"--but "Smiths" is the plural of "Smith". Just because a proper noun ends in "s" doesn't mean you don't have to make it plural when referring to more than one. Two girls named Jess are "the two Jesses", NOT "the two Jess". Two swords, each called "the Vampire's Kiss" are "the two Vampire's Kisses", not "the two Vampire's Kiss". Two castles called "Caer Ross" are "the two Caer Rosses", not "the two Caer Ross". And two people with the surname Sanders are "the two Sanderses", not "the two Sanders". Sanderses' is exactly like Smiths'. Both are possessive plurals.--Hardvice (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- And saying "Niki and Micah Sanders' house" is like saying "Claire and Noah Bennet's house", not "Claire and Noah Bennets' house".--Hardvice (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- Not that anything about Google results imply gramatical correctness (instead just frequency of appearance), if you search for Sanderses' you'll find a pattern. Sanderses is used as a subject/object when referring to multiple people in the Sanders family. Sanderses' is used as a possessive when referring to an object that belongs to the family. (Admin 20:21, 14 October 2007 (EDT))
- And saying "Niki and Micah Sanders' house" is like saying "Claire and Noah Bennet's house", not "Claire and Noah Bennets' house".--Hardvice (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- You are totally missing the point. If they were the ""Smiths" it would be the "Smiths' home"--but "Smiths" is the plural of "Smith". Just because a proper noun ends in "s" doesn't mean you don't have to make it plural when referring to more than one. Two girls named Jess are "the two Jesses", NOT "the two Jess". Two swords, each called "the Vampire's Kiss" are "the two Vampire's Kisses", not "the two Vampire's Kiss". Two castles called "Caer Ross" are "the two Caer Rosses", not "the two Caer Ross". And two people with the surname Sanders are "the two Sanderses", not "the two Sanders". Sanderses' is exactly like Smiths'. Both are possessive plurals.--Hardvice (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- Well now you are just being silly. In reality, when speaking of a home, especially in this sense, you are not describing the home in terms of being owned by each individual family member. Even in this sense, "Sanders' house" still means the home of the Sanders family which includes each of the Sanderses. If they were the "Smiths" you wouldn't say the "Smithses'" house. It is redundant to add -es and have an apostrophe. You are basically combining both plural forms. Let me put it this way, you wouldn't say "Niki and Micah Sanderses' house." you would say "Niki and Micah Sanders' house." If you are wanting to be this technical then it should totally be renamed the "Sanderses/Hawkins" house since D.L. lived there too.
- You would NEVER say Bennetts' because their name does not end in an -s. You basically do not understand what to do with proper nouns that end in -s. The name Sanders is not plural, it is a singular proper noun. You had it right in the first line up there, "Smiths" would be the "Smiths' house" in the same manner "Sanders" is the "Sanders' house", you are not referring to more than one member of the family, youa re referring to the family house as it is occupied/owned by the family. So the house where the Sanders' live is the Sanders' house. My point is Sanderses with an apostrophe is redundant and wrong, it conveys that it is a house that belong to a family named Sanderses not a family named Sanders. If the family's name was Sanderses than Sanderses with an apostrophe would be correct, but their name is Sanders so to most people the correct form is Sanders'.
I see you are going to leave it as is because you think you are correct, but I assure you that it is not.--Grammero (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- I assure you that the Chicago manual of Style, the AP Manual of Style, and Strunk & White all say that you always refer to more than one member of a family, or to their communal possessions, using the plural form of their surname. The plural form of the singular "Sanders" is "Sanderses". The possessive of that plural is Sanderses'. It's exactly the same as referring to more than one Petrelli as the Petrellis, and their home as the Petrellis' home. I'm sorry you can't be persuaded--if I had a functional scanner, I'd scan my style manuals for you. They even show examples exactly like this, using surnames which end in s in the singular. Fortunately, it's not my job to persuade you that you;re wrong.--Hardvice (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- I know for a fact that Strunk & White says: "Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's." What I am trying to convey is that when you talk of a home, you do not speak in terms of it belonging to each individual member of the family. The family as a whole, every member, is represented by the proper noun Sanders's, which is what Sanders' represents. Now, you can argue about whether it should be Sanders' or Sanders's, but they are both the same thing. The idea that is being conveyed is that it is the home of the entire family, the family as a whole. The family known as the Sanders live in this home, the Sanders's or Sanders' home. Some of this is gray or debatable territory, but I'm very confident that the form of Sanderses' is at worst incorrect and at least very awkward and could be better conveyed. Sanderses' like that, with the apostrophe, is redundant. Just as you say up there you would not say the Petrellis' because that is redundant, you already make Petrelli plural with the -s. Just like you are already making Sanders plural if you add -es, therefore adding an apostrophe is redundant. This is what that says, The Sanderses's house. As this is a written document for public consumption a more readable and understandable transcription would be the form of Sanders's or Sanders'. At the very least it is a more contemporary way of conveying the idea of the home occupied by the Sanders family and does not distort their name.--Grammero (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- Were you referring to the family as a family, then yes, the singular possessive would be acceptable. "The Bush family is coming over for dinner" vs. "The Bushes are coming over to dinner", for example. Either is acceptable--the first refers to the family as a single entity, the second refers to multiple members of the family collectively. "The White House is the Bush family's home" (singular possessive) would be acceptable, as would "The White House is the Bushes' home" (plural). What would not be acceptable is "The White House is the Bush's home", because that refers to the members of the family as "the Bush". The exact same thing applies to the Sanders family, or the Sanderses (particularly since "Sanders", like "Bush", ends in a sibilant and forms a plural exactly the same way).--Hardvice (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- I can't believe this is still being argued, lol, but for emphasis, The Sanders own the Sanders'/Sanderses home. :D--Riddler 21:22, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- Actually, that brings up a good point: why is it either the Bennet home or the Bennets' home (or the Sanders home or the Sanderses' home)? In the first case of each, the name is a proper adjective, not a proper noun. "The Bennet home" or "The Sanders home" answers the question "which home?"--and thus neither is possessive, and neither takes an apostrophe. Conversely, "The Bennets' home" and "the Sanderses' home" answers the question "whose home?" In each case, it is plural possessive (belonging to more than one member of each family collectively) and takes an apostrophe. It's the same as "the Kensei sword" (proper adjective, not possessive) versus "Kensei's sword" (possessive).--Hardvice (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- "Were you referring to the family as a family, then yes, the singular possessive would be acceptable." -- Are you serious? This statement implies that you are, for some reason, totally discounting the purpose of what this page is being written for. Most everyone who reads this page when they see something referring to the Sanders' home will be thinking that you are referring to the family as a family and not a group of individuals. Especially when speaking of their place of co-habitation. Does anyone have a copy of a script? Why don't we use the form they use when describing scenes that take place at/in the Sanders'/Sanderses' house?--Grammero (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- There is a difference between referring to the family as a family (The Bush family), which is singular, and referring to the members of that family collectively (The Bushes), which is plural. Note that you can't just say "The Bush" any more than you could say "The Sanders". Like I said, if you want to refer to the family as a family, then use the word "family" and the singular (The Bush family's home--and Bush in this case is a proper adjective, not a noun), but you can't just use the singular form of the family name as a possessive (The Bush's home). This page could be "The Sanders family's home", but "the Sanders' home" is simply ungrammatical.--Hardvice (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- If it is ungrammatical then why is it heavily used, accepted, and taught in this manner? It is listed as the preferred form in many sources. You are incorrect in assuming that Sanderses's and Sanders's are so vastly different. Someone else thought so too apparently, for it is used on the Niki Sanders page [4] as her residence. I know you will say "because it is just her, it's singular" and what I have been trying to say is that when you are talking about the family unit that lives in the home, in this manner, that it is singular because it is one unit of people, the Sanders family. Are there not copies of the season one script out there somewhere? I am very interested to see what form it takes there.--Grammero (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- You are exactly correct. Niki Sanders lives in Niki Sanders's (or Niki Sanders') home. The Sanders family (A.K.A. the Sanderses) live in "The Sanders family's home" or "The Sanderses' home". The Sander family, or the Sanders, would live in "The Sander family's home" or "The Sanders' home".--Hardvice (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- Here is a transcript form for Genesis: " [INT. SANDERS’ RESIDENCE -- BEDROOM -- DAY] (Niki is on the bed performing for the Internet camera set up in the bedroom.) LYRICS: "Mustang Sally" CAPTION: LAS VEGAS, NEVADA" @ http://www.kilohoku.com/transcripts/heroes/heroes-1X01.html--Grammero (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- Ah yes. The same source as "Bill Linderman". It must be so.--Hardvice (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- Well does anyone have a copy of a season one script? Seems the most appropriate source to consult. Grammero 22:28, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- Would that change the way grammar works?--Hardvice (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- According to your own example, you would say "the Bennets' home" to describe the home belonging to the Bennet family as opposed to just "the Bennet home" where Bennet is an adjective. This is because it is singular and does not end in an -s, so you add s's. Alternatively, because Sanders is singular but ends in an -s already, you simply need ' or 's. Also in the same manner you could simply say "the Sanders home", but it doesn't convey possession of a home/house/building. I do not see what is wrong with taking a look at the script of the show and seeing which form they use. That has to be one of the most definitive sources there could be concerning this, specifically. Even above I mistakenly discounted using the form of Bennets' in a rush to respond, so I don't see how talking in circles is solving anything. You obviously believe you are correct and I obviously believe I am correct. The fact remains that using Sanders' is not ungrammatical, and as I have said, is a more readable and understandable form. The previous example of Bennet+(s's) and Sanders+('s) seems the most relevant. I'm going to look for the script at the local bookstore.--Grammero (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- I really don't see how you can't understand what I'm saying. "The Bennets' home" is plural possessive (the home belonging to the Bennets). "The Sanders' home" is only plural possessive if the last name is "Sander", not "Sanders". "Sanderses" is the plural of "Sanders", just like "Bennets" is the plural of "Bennet". In neither case does it matter how you treat singular possessives of nouns ending in a sibilant because neither is singular. In both cases, the possessive adds an apostrophe only to the plural family name (Bennets' and Sanderses'). You have to make "Sanders" plural before you make it possessive just like you have to make "Bennet" plural before you make it possessive. If these names were singular, you would have, for example, "Noah Bennet's home" and either "Niki Sanders' home" or "Niki Sanders's home", depending on how you treat singulars ending in sibilants. But the home belongs to the members of the family collectively, so the plural is used in both cases. The Bennets' means "belonging to more than one Bennet", the Sanderses' means "belonging to more than one Sanders", and the Sanders' means "belonging to more than one Sander". The script will not change this. And not to beat a dead horse, but I should add that the link you posted actually agrees with me. From this one, the example is Wilsons' (the plural possessive of Wilson). And this example says only that adding an apostrophe to a single proper noun ending in "s" makes it possessive. It does not claim that the apostrophe makes it plural--nor would you want it to. In their example (Chris'), if the apostrophe made the noun both possessive and plural, there would be no way to say "belonging to just one Chris". Unless you are going to argue that the plural of "Sanders" is "Sanders", I don't see how any of the links you posted support your position. None of them claims that adding an apostrophe makes a singular noun (like Sanders) both plural and possessive. And every single example using a family name first makes the family name plural and then adds an apostrophe to make it possessive.--Hardvice (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- There is a PDF file of the unaired pilot which you can peruse. But there are spelling mistakes throughout. Just because Tim Kring might spell something a particular way does not make it grammatically correct. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- According to your own example, you would say "the Bennets' home" to describe the home belonging to the Bennet family as opposed to just "the Bennet home" where Bennet is an adjective. This is because it is singular and does not end in an -s, so you add s's. Alternatively, because Sanders is singular but ends in an -s already, you simply need ' or 's. Also in the same manner you could simply say "the Sanders home", but it doesn't convey possession of a home/house/building. I do not see what is wrong with taking a look at the script of the show and seeing which form they use. That has to be one of the most definitive sources there could be concerning this, specifically. Even above I mistakenly discounted using the form of Bennets' in a rush to respond, so I don't see how talking in circles is solving anything. You obviously believe you are correct and I obviously believe I am correct. The fact remains that using Sanders' is not ungrammatical, and as I have said, is a more readable and understandable form. The previous example of Bennet+(s's) and Sanders+('s) seems the most relevant. I'm going to look for the script at the local bookstore.--Grammero (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- Would that change the way grammar works?--Hardvice (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- Well does anyone have a copy of a season one script? Seems the most appropriate source to consult. Grammero 22:28, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- Ah yes. The same source as "Bill Linderman". It must be so.--Hardvice (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- "Were you referring to the family as a family, then yes, the singular possessive would be acceptable." -- Are you serious? This statement implies that you are, for some reason, totally discounting the purpose of what this page is being written for. Most everyone who reads this page when they see something referring to the Sanders' home will be thinking that you are referring to the family as a family and not a group of individuals. Especially when speaking of their place of co-habitation. Does anyone have a copy of a script? Why don't we use the form they use when describing scenes that take place at/in the Sanders'/Sanderses' house?--Grammero (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- Actually, that brings up a good point: why is it either the Bennet home or the Bennets' home (or the Sanders home or the Sanderses' home)? In the first case of each, the name is a proper adjective, not a proper noun. "The Bennet home" or "The Sanders home" answers the question "which home?"--and thus neither is possessive, and neither takes an apostrophe. Conversely, "The Bennets' home" and "the Sanderses' home" answers the question "whose home?" In each case, it is plural possessive (belonging to more than one member of each family collectively) and takes an apostrophe. It's the same as "the Kensei sword" (proper adjective, not possessive) versus "Kensei's sword" (possessive).--Hardvice (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- I can't believe this is still being argued, lol, but for emphasis, The Sanders own the Sanders'/Sanderses home. :D--Riddler 21:22, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- Were you referring to the family as a family, then yes, the singular possessive would be acceptable. "The Bush family is coming over for dinner" vs. "The Bushes are coming over to dinner", for example. Either is acceptable--the first refers to the family as a single entity, the second refers to multiple members of the family collectively. "The White House is the Bush family's home" (singular possessive) would be acceptable, as would "The White House is the Bushes' home" (plural). What would not be acceptable is "The White House is the Bush's home", because that refers to the members of the family as "the Bush". The exact same thing applies to the Sanders family, or the Sanderses (particularly since "Sanders", like "Bush", ends in a sibilant and forms a plural exactly the same way).--Hardvice (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- I know for a fact that Strunk & White says: "Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's." What I am trying to convey is that when you talk of a home, you do not speak in terms of it belonging to each individual member of the family. The family as a whole, every member, is represented by the proper noun Sanders's, which is what Sanders' represents. Now, you can argue about whether it should be Sanders' or Sanders's, but they are both the same thing. The idea that is being conveyed is that it is the home of the entire family, the family as a whole. The family known as the Sanders live in this home, the Sanders's or Sanders' home. Some of this is gray or debatable territory, but I'm very confident that the form of Sanderses' is at worst incorrect and at least very awkward and could be better conveyed. Sanderses' like that, with the apostrophe, is redundant. Just as you say up there you would not say the Petrellis' because that is redundant, you already make Petrelli plural with the -s. Just like you are already making Sanders plural if you add -es, therefore adding an apostrophe is redundant. This is what that says, The Sanderses's house. As this is a written document for public consumption a more readable and understandable transcription would be the form of Sanders's or Sanders'. At the very least it is a more contemporary way of conveying the idea of the home occupied by the Sanders family and does not distort their name.--Grammero (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
- I don't know if I want to get in to this, but after the first few times this came up, I decided to make some observations, using families that I know. Something belonging to the Jones family is the Joneses', Something belonging to the Reece family is the Reeces', Something belonging to the Chambers family is the Chambers' (I never heard Chamberses'), Something belonging to the Rodgers family is the Rodgers' (I never heard Rodgerses'), for an explanation why see the links from my first post (which is the same site as the first one Hardvice listed). I have also been told by a Nuñez that you never add es, instead it should be Los Nuñez:). Something belonging to the Ralfs family was the Ralfs' (I never heard Ralfses', but I don't know a rule as to why). A way to avoid this argument would be to rename this to "the Sanders family's home". -Lөvөl 17:19, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
- Only thing is, it's not really an argument at all. It's a grammatical fact, albeit a somewhat complicated one. Sure, "the Sanders family's home" is correct, but it's no less correct or more correct than "the Sanderses' home". No debate....Now bliss and horror, that's a debate. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
- The best argument I've seen so far is that it's "common practice" not to make a family name ending in s plural when using the possessive. That said, it's also "common practice" to say "ain't", "y'all", "excetera", and "supposably". There is no way in which the plural of "Sanders" is "Sanders", and there's no way the possessive of "Sanderses" is "Sanders'". Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to rewording our names to avoid the issue, because "Sanderses" does sound awkward. But it's still correct.--Hardvice (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
- I normally go for practicality over technicality, but in the case of language, you have to favor the proper way versus the common way. I know we're not a dictionary like Wikipedia, but I think using proper English just solidifies this site as reputable versus a regular fan site with a multitude of spelling errors. And I'll still use y'all.--Bob 18:06, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
- The best argument I've seen so far is that it's "common practice" not to make a family name ending in s plural when using the possessive. That said, it's also "common practice" to say "ain't", "y'all", "excetera", and "supposably". There is no way in which the plural of "Sanders" is "Sanders", and there's no way the possessive of "Sanderses" is "Sanders'". Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to rewording our names to avoid the issue, because "Sanderses" does sound awkward. But it's still correct.--Hardvice (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
- Only thing is, it's not really an argument at all. It's a grammatical fact, albeit a somewhat complicated one. Sure, "the Sanders family's home" is correct, but it's no less correct or more correct than "the Sanderses' home". No debate....Now bliss and horror, that's a debate. :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:43, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
Re: Producers' Grammar
Grammar and spelling are basically the only things we can correct the producers on, unless it is used for a proper name or title. A good example is that the movie Honey, I Shrunk the Kids should be Honey, I've Shrunk the Kids or Honey, I Shrank the Kids, but since it's a title, it doesn't get corrected. Also, some cities and towns used in Heroes are named slightly differently than irl but they don't get corrected cause we know it is an intentional error. However, the Sanderses' home being misspelled in a transcript written by a fan doesn't count as an intentional misspelling.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2007 (EDT)