This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. The result of the debate was option 2. —Silly Dan(talk) 21:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It has come to my attention that there are many cases on this wiki where a characters name ends with an S, and that in case such as these it is pretty much touch and go wheteher or not he punctuation following the name is correct.
For example, with Nihilus' name punctuation dictates that unlike names like Luke, another S is not required. If one was to say it was Luke's lightsaber that broke, would they also say it was Nihilus's; or would they say it was Nihilus'? Which is gramatically correct.
Simply put i want a consensus on which should be used on this wiki. The correct form, or the more common.
Without an extra "S"
As mentioned in my quote below. It is correct when the "S" is ommitted from the name. Jasca Ducato 11:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
With an extra "S"
As I said somewhere around here, having "Nihilus's" is the only (I repeat, ONLY) way of correct spelling. Having "Nihilus'" suggests there were multiple people called "Nihilu" and you are talking about their possession. Think into it logically, that a proper noun ends in a -s (in singular, of course) makes no grammatical difference. That there are tons of websites that might write "Nihilus'" doesn't mean a thing. Look at sources written by professional writers. You'll see omitting last the s is utterly wrong. It's something very common, yes, but that doesn't mean it is correct UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. - TopAce 11:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
This is the way it works. Havac 18:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
"If the singular noun is pronounced without an added s sound, do not add an extra s. (Supported by University of Delaware, The Guardian, Emory University’s writing center, and Bartleby’s American Heritage Book of English Usage.) Such sources permit possessive plurals like these: Socrates’ later suggestion; James’s house, or James’ house (depending on which pronunciation is used). Classical, biblical, and similar names ending in an s sound, especially if they are polysyllabic, do not take an added s in the possessive. (Among sources giving exceptions of this kind are The Times, which makes a general stipulation, and Vanderbilt University, which mentions only Moses and Jesus.) As a particular case, Jesus’ is very commonly written instead of Jesus’s, even by people who would otherwise add ’s in, for example, James’s or Chris’s (it should be noted that the form Jesus’ is referred to as “an accepted liturgical archaism” in Hart’s Rules)"
You will notice in this case that Jesus is not spelt with an extra "S" at the end. And this is from wikipedia. Jasca Ducato 11:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
And? Those are some abstract examples. I knew all this, but Star Wars characters aren't biblical figures like Jesus. Nihilus and Sidious are other things. And what about pronunciation? How do you know if you pronounce it as "Nihilus" or "Nihiluses?" - TopAce 12:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
because of the apostrophe. i'm not proposing we leave it out, we just don't need the extra "S". It does't matter if Jesus is a biblical figure, his name ends in an S just like Nihilus' and Sidious'. Jasca Ducato 14:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
That's no argument that those names end in an S. Nihilus and Sidious aren't biblical or historical figures, cases where the extra S could be omitted. They are imaginative characters in a fictional universe, which nobody considers to have happened, unlike anything written down in the Bible or myths. Also, they are UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE to be considered historical figures. That does make a difference. - TopAce 15:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
No it doesn't. It doesn't matter if they're biblical figures or made up, grammer is the same for both. Just because Sidious and Nihilus never existed doesn't mean we can screw up their names, does it? Thats like sayin that because Jesus didn't exist we have to do the smae. Why should grammer be any different for a fictional character for a possibly-fictional character? Jasca Ducato 15:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that Jesus and Socrates are exceptions, so if we stick to grammar, which we should do, it's Nihilus's and Sidious's. Simply because the -s' IS the possessive forms of plural common nouns, the tables' legs, the computers' keyboards. This is the case where the -s' is the correct form. That a singular noun ends in an -n, a -b, or an -s makes no difference, the +'s must be appended in every case, except when pronunciation demands it to be omitted. - TopAce 18:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
How are Jesus and Socretes expections? I was really confused when i read that part. Jasca Ducato 19:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me put it this way: the "s" after the apostrophe can be ignored at a) biblical figures b) some historical figures c) the pronunciation demands it. I'm not sure Nihilus, Sidious, or Grievous belongs to any of these groups. - TopAce 19:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
But why? What diffenece does it make. Wouldn't it be simpler just to have a set standard? Jasca Ducato 11:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Jesus was an exception as a "liturgical archaism" - that is, His name followed an old rule of English because religious wording tends to be very conservative and have unusual rules (see also the capitalization of a pronoun referring to Him, like was just done). However, even that peculiar possessive has gone by the wayside, as is discussed here. Of course, that article shows just how muddy this particular area of grammar has grown due to a lack of vigilance of pedants in the regular world . . . but there's no such shortage here. ;-) jSarek 07:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
According to The Little, Brown Handbook (1992) about grammar, the apostraphe plus an S is the more common thing to use, but also that "usage varies". The point of the Moses, Jesus thing is that some writers prefer to skip the extra S if there is another "s" sound in the word. In other words, the s may be dropped just because it sounds awkward, like you're saying "Moseses". But I guess neither is incorrect. Personally, I thought I was taught in school that you always drop the extra "S". But it seems that there's no correct way, and both could be "proper English". Crazy language we have here. Doesn't help much, does it? --JMM 16:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I was also taught to drop the S. It's not completely wrong, as some would like to believe. I see it both ways all the time, even in Star Wars media. Just check out the databank entry for Sidious: no S. -- Ozzel 22:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Even worse, it's handled both ways in that very article - "Maul would be Sidious' blunt instrument . . ." but "The Neimoidians never suspected Sidious's public persona . . ." jSarek 23:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It's probably because not one man wrote the whole article and the authors have different preferences for this issue. - TopAce 14:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
"Nihilus's is the correct form when it is a single person. However, if we are talking about a group (including family names) then you should say "Palpatine was secretly the Confederacy of Independent Systems' ruler" -- I know we wouldn't actually word it like that, but it was an example. --beeurdtalk 23:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.