Q. I thought Chicago style used to say to use only an apostrophe for the possessive of a name like “Harris” that ends in “s.” Am I imagining things?
A. You’re not imagining things, but Harris’ hasn’t been Chicago style since the late 1960s. The first edition of CMOS (1906) advised using an apostrophe alone to form the possessive of “proper names of more than one syllable ending in s or another sibilant”; for one-syllable names, the rule was the same as for names that didn’t end in a sibilant—that is, add an apostrophe plus an s. In other words, you would write “King James’s Version,” “Burns’s poems,” and “Marx’s theories” (one-syllable names), but “Moses’ law,” “Demosthenes’ orations,” and “Berlioz’ compositions” (names with two or more syllables, a category that Harris belongs to). See paragraph 103 in the first edition.
Except for a couple of clarifications for names like Charlevoix and Horace (both of which would get an ’s), the original rule remained in place until 1969, when the twelfth edition was published. That edition eliminated all but a few exceptions to the ’s convention: “Exceptions are the names Jesus and Moses and Greek (or hellenized) names of more than one syllable ending in es”—as in “Jesus’ nativity,” “Moses’ leadership,” and “Xerxes’ army” (12th ed., ¶ 6.8).
The sixteenth edition (2010) then eliminated all remaining exceptions (including one for names ending in a silent s that had been added to the fifteenth edition [2003]), and that’s where CMOS stands today—that is, add an apostrophe plus an s to form the possessive of any person’s name, regardless of number of syllables or ancient pedigree.
So whether you’re referring to “Moses’s leadership” or (to bring things up to date) “Harris’s speech”—or, yes, “Walz’s speech,” though single-syllable names ending in z were never in question—Chicago’s rule for forming the possessive of a person’s name is now the same for all.
For more details, start with CMOS 7.17.
[This answer relies on the 18th edition of CMOS (2024) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Should a local geographic place-name retain the original apostrophe, such as Lund’s Gulch in Snohomish County, Washington?
A. The official name is Lunds Gulch (no apostrophe), which can be verified by entering either form of the name into the GNIS Domestic Names Search Application available from the US Board on Geographic Names (BGN). The BGN doesn’t normally allow such apostrophes in place-names—as we noted in our answer to question 5 in “Chicago Style Workout 65: Apostrophes” at CMOS Shop Talk. (One well-known exception is Martha’s Vineyard.)
If you’re concerned about using the correct spelling, leave the apostrophe out. But if, for example, you’re writing a novel and want to follow the local custom, the apostrophe seems relatively common for that local landform—for example, on this page for “Lund’s Gulch” at the website for Lynnwood, Washington. Just be sure to alert your copyeditor to any such preference.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. It is my contention as a longtime editor and writer (and avid amateur cook and baker) that the apostrophe in “confectioner’s sugar” should precede the “s” in “confectioners.” Yet in recipes throughout the US, for many years the apostrophe has typically followed the “s” of “confectioners.” I maintain that this is incorrect and a fairly recent (in decades) development. What do you think?
A. We agree that the spelling confectioner’s sugar makes sense—by analogy with, for example, baker’s yeast. With that placement of the apostrophe, the term refers to a type of sugar used by a confectioner (singular). But we have to side with common usage here. Not only is the spelling confectioners’ sugar more common than the alternatives (including confectioners sugar, where the plural noun is used attributively), it’s a lot more common.* The dictionary at Merriam-Webster.com doesn’t even list an alternative (as of October 2023). Neither does The American Heritage Dictionary.
So maybe just accept that the term confectioners’ sugar (with the apostrophe following the s) refers to a variety of sugar used by or typical of confectioners (plural) considered as a category or group as opposed to a type of sugar used by an individual confectioner, a relatively arbitrary distinction. Anyone who expects apostrophes to be consistent across similar terms may not be happy, but the farmers at the farmers or farmers’ or farmer’s market will probably understand.†
__________
* By way of comparison, baker’s yeast is the accepted spelling today, but that spelling was neck and neck with bakers’ yeast in published books until about 1950, after which it became the norm (or, you could say, rose to the top).
† Chicago prefers farmers’ market (see CMOS 7.27).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have a question about the possessive of a plural acronym, but where the plural is only evident in the term’s full name, not the acronym. The acronym in question is “HHS,” for (Department of) “Health and Human Services.” In the following sentence fragment, should one write HHS’s or HHS’?: “There was no better test of [HHS’s/HHS’] commitment to its mission than . . .” Thank you!
A. Treat an initialism like “HHS” as singular regardless of whether it has a plural or a singular antecedent. (Note that CMOS uses “initialism” for an abbreviation pronounced as a series of letters, like “HHS,” and “acronym” when it is pronounced as a word, like “NASA.”) To take a similar example, one would write “the United States’ allies” (following the rules for forming the possessive of a noun that’s plural in form but singular in meaning; see CMOS 7.20) but, using the initialism, “the US’s allies.” Likewise, it would be correct to write “the Department of Health and Human Services’ commitment” but “HHS’s commitment.”
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How would you make “news” possessive? It would seem that you would recommend just an apostrophe (as in CMOS 7.20), but that doesn’t quite make sense to me, since I would pronounce the possessive with an extra s, as in “the news’s problem” or “The Daily News’s new editor.” I’m sorry if you’ve covered this question already, but when I tried searching CMOS I didn’t find anything.
A. Merriam-Webster says that “news” is “plural in form but singular in construction, often attributive.” It’s that “singular in construction” that governs the answer—which agrees with yours: “the news’s problem.” In other words, the possessive follows the rule for singular nouns. Compare “politics,” which is “plural in form but singular or plural in construction.” That word not only looks like a plural (“plural in form”) but can also act like one (“plural in construction”), so an apostrophe alone is used: “politics’ true meaning.” We hope to cover this distinction in a future edition of CMOS.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My sister-in-law recently claimed that the card we get from the DMV that allows us to legally drive is supposed to be referred to as a “driver license” instead of a “driver’s license.” I would love to hear your input as this has been bothering me for a few weeks now!
A. In about thirty US states, from Alabama to Nevada to Wyoming, the term printed on the license itself is “driver license.” In about twenty others, from Arkansas to Maryland to West Virginia, it’s “driver’s license.” (The term is usually, but not always, in all capital letters.) But according to the entry in Merriam-Webster, each of these would be a “driver’s license.”
Incidentally, the DMVs in some of the states that issue a “driver license” refer to it on their websites as a “driver’s license”—and vice versa. Our editors would default to “driver’s license” in each case—including for Indiana, where the card itself says “operator license.” This advice isn’t universal, however. In the UK, for example, it’s usually called a “driving licence”—according to Merriam Webster, the OED, and GOV.UK.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. How do I refer to the burgers at McDonald’s, given that the name already has a possessive apostrophe ess in it? If I say “McDonald’s burgers” then that is just burgers belonging to McDonald, but “McDonald’s’s burgers” feels wrong to me.
A. A possessive name like McDonald’s applies not only to the business itself but to anything it produces and anyone it serves. So McDonald’s restaurants sell McDonald’s hamburgers to McDonald’s customers. And though double cheeseburgers are a thing, double possessives are not (except, technically, in a phrase like “a friend of mine”; see CMOS 7.26).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. George Wilkens is a character in my novel. (Yes, I know I should have named him something without an “s” as the last letter!) My question is, Which is correct: “George Wilkens’s house” or “George Wilkens’ house”? After a study of several different sections of CMOS, I think that the former is correct. Can you verify that for me? Thanks.
A. You are right. Chicago adds an apostrophe and an s to form the possessive of most singular nouns, including singular nouns that end in s—a rule that extends to proper names. Plural nouns, including plural names, add an apostrophe only. (See CMOS 7.16 and 7.17.) To clarify these rules, let’s compare two different Georges, one who spells his last name with an s and one who doesn’t:
George Wilkens: George Wilkens’s house [singular possessive]; the house where the Wilkens family lives; the Wilkenses’ house [plural possessive; Wilkenses is the plural of Wilkens]
George Wilken: George Wilken’s house [singular possessive]; the house where the Wilken family lives; the Wilkens’ house [plural possessive; Wilkens is the plural of Wilken]
Though Chicago’s rules are logical on paper, a name like Wilkens—which looks and sounds like a plural—can be confusing no matter how it’s treated. To avoid complicating things even more, maybe don’t give George a French pal named Georges (the possessive of which would be Georges’s; see CMOS 7.18).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. It just occurred to me that “Achilles’ heel” is wrong, according to CMOS 7.17. It should be “Achilles’s heel,” right?
A. Technically, yes: “Achilles’ heel” is contrary to Chicago style, which would call for “Achilles’s heel.” CMOS 7.19 addresses the issue directly: “Classical proper names of two or more syllables that end in an eez sound form the possessive in the usual way (though when these forms are spoken, the additional s is generally not pronounced).” For example, “Euripides’s tragedies.” But like Achilles’s mother, we failed to cover “Achilles’ heel,” a term that therefore remains vulnerable to stylistic ambiguity. Thankfully, Merriam-Webster is there to shield us from the arrows of editorial uncertainty. We defer to that resource and consider “Achilles’ heel” as an established exception to Chicago style.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. We are adding Indigenous Peoples’ Day to our company calendar. Is the apostrophe appropriate, as with Presidents’ Day, or no apostrophe, as in Veterans Day?
A. According to CMOS 7.27, “Although terms denoting group ownership or participation sometimes appear without an apostrophe (i.e., as an attributive rather than a possessive noun), Chicago dispenses with the apostrophe only in proper names (often corporate names) that do not officially include one.” So, absent any officially sanctioned spelling for the holiday, we would write “Indigenous Peoples’ Day.”
If you compare named days that involve an irregular plural, you’ll see that it’s not a simple matter of possession versus attribution. There’s a Children’s Day and a Women’s Day and a Men’s Day—but try that without the possessive (Men Day?). Hence Chicago’s preference for the possessive.
As for “Presidents’ Day,” according to Title V, section 6103, of the United States Code (which covers federal holidays and is usually cited as 5 U.S.C. § 6103), that holiday is still officially Washington’s Birthday but has been expanded to honor other presidents. “Presidents’ Day” demonstrates Chicago style, legal name or not. Veterans Day is also named in Title V, without the apostrophe, and because it’s official, that’s how we style it when referring to the national holiday in the United States.
Which brings us back to Indigenous Peoples’ Day. If you’re following Chicago style, use the apostrophe. If you’re following Associated Press style (and the AP Stylebook), leave it out. But where the holiday is official (as it now is in many states in the US), follow whatever the official style might be. For example, in North Carolina it’s Indigenous Peoples’ Day, but in Maine it’s Indigenous Peoples Day (no apostrophe).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]