In “Punctuation Points: Possessing the Apostrophe,” I outlined the three main uses for the apostrophe:
- It shows possession for a noun.
- It shows the omission of some letters in a word or numbers in a year.
- It shows plurality of single letters, single numbers, and abbreviations.
We discussed the different cases of using the apostrophe for plural and singular nouns and why pronouns are an exception. Today, I’ll review the remaining rules for using the apostrophe to show possession, as well as the rules for showing omission and plurality.
More Cases for Using the Possessive Apostrophe
- Double possessive (or double genitive): In some cases, use of and apostrophe in same phrase.
a cousin of Mary’s
a sister of mineThe double possessive is sometimes seen as a mistake, but it isn’t. The usage dates back to Middle English and has become idiomatic.
- Joint possessive: Use the apostrophe on the last item in a series of elements when the elements own something together.
Bill and Erin’s car (they share one car)
Bill, Dave, and Tim’s father-in-law (they have the same father-in-law)
Bill’s and Erin’s cars (they each have a car) - Possessives of possessive names: If the name of a company or other thing is already a possessive, you do not need to add another apostrophe s. You can either recast the sentence or use the original possessive name.
Sean and Duncan love going to Friendly’s. Friendly’s ice cream is the best, they say.
OR
Sean and Duncan love going to Friendly’s. The ice cream at Friendly’s is the best, they say. - Possessives of inanimate objects: Despite rumors to the contrary, an inanimate object can form a possessive.
The car’s engine is overheating.
The laptop’s hard drive is fried. - Set phrases: A couple of set phrases take an apostrophe s in an idiomatic way.
father-in-law’s truck, not father’s-in-law truck
anyone else’s room, not anyone’s else room (same holds true for other else phrases) - Units of measurement: The unit gets an apostrophe when it modifies a noun.
15 years’ experience
two weeks’ notice
5 yards’ worth of materialNote, however, that the phrase 7 months pregnant and the like do not take the apostrophe. In this case, pregnant is an adjective, not a noun, and the phrase means being pregnant for the stated time (e.g., 7 months).
Whew! Now that we have the massive possessive apostrophe out of the way, let’s quickly run through the two other apostrophe rules.
The Omission Apostrophe
The apostrophe is also used to make contractions:
The ’80s(this one is an omission, not a contraction)
don’t
shouldn’t
po’ boy
The Plurals Apostrophe
Finally, the apostrophe is sometimes used to make single letters, single numbers, and abbreviations plural:
Sean got all A’s on his report card.
Disco was popular in the 1970′s.
The CEO’s are meeting after the VP’s.
Whether you use the apostrophe to form plurals in these cases depends on your style guide. Here are some of the popular ones:
- CMS (16th ed.)
: For capital letters, numerals, and abbreviations, add s; for lowercase letters, add apostrophe s (7.14).
- AP (2010)
: For numerals, abbreviations, and multiple letters (e.g., VIP), add s; for single letters, add apostrophe s (“plurals”).
- APA (6th ed.)
: For single letters, numbers, and abbreviations, add s (except for p.; its plural is pp.).
- NYT Manual of Style (2002)
: Use apostrophe s to form plurals of single letters, single numbers, and abbreviations.
- Yahoo: For single letters numbers, and abbreviations, add s, unless the result would be confusing. In which case, use apostrophe s.
But you should never form a plural noun with an apostrophe s:
Wrong: The car’s are on the track.
Right: The cars are on the track.
That’s it. Did I answer all your questions on the apostrophe? If not, put your concerns in the comments below and I’ll try to answer them.
Update: Thanks to Danny Marcus for pointing out errors in this post.

Latest Tweets

Thanks for a great post and really great blog. Regarding possessives of inanimate objects, I wonder whether you’d agree it is also correct to say “The car engine is overheating” or “The laptop hard drive is fried.” Both these phrases sound OK to my ear.
Thanks, Sukaina. Yes, it’s correct to say “The car engine is overheating” and “The laptop hard drive is fried.”
You say: “Units of measurement: The unit gets an apostrophe s when it is modifies a noun.
15 years’ experience
two weeks’ notice
5 yards’ worth of material”
But, an “apostrophe s” would make these examples:
15 year’s experience
two week’s notice
5 yard’s worth of material
Good catch, Jillea! Even editors need editors. I’ve corrected it to “an apostrophe.”
[...] Plurals Possessives Apostrophes… Oh My! by Erin Brenner of The Writing Resource Sometimes an article comes along that I’m excited to share with my readers. Here’s one of them by Erin Brenner on how to create proper plurals and possessives. Please read this if you’ve ever been tempted to use an apostrophe to make plural word’s!!! (That was an intentional error.) Happy reading! The Apostrophe: Beyond the Basics [...]
Can’t, generally, agree on units of measurement I’m afraid and I see no grammatical logic there. It’s not a possessive apostrophe; the two weeks do not own the notice. It’s not signifying an omission . And it’s certainly not a pluralisation apostrophe.
Love it.
“OF” XIV. In the sense belonging or pertaining to; expressing possession and its converse: “the owner of the house”, “the house of the owner”.
Formerly expressed by the genitive, and still to some extent by the possessive case (with transposition of order). The use of “of” began in Old English with senses 47, 48, expressing origin. After the Norman Conquest the example of the French “de”, which had taken the place of the L. genitive, caused the gradual extension of “of” to all uses in which Old English had the genitive; the purely possessive sense was the last to be so affected, and it is that in which the genitive or “possessive” case is still chiefly used. Thus, we say the King’s English, in preference to the English of the King; but the King of England in preference to England’s King, which is not natural or ordinary prose English.
Could you please explain this OED definition to me?
Rob, I’ll certainly try. And I’ll assume that you understood the actual definition of of listed in your first paragraph.
The second paragraph you give tells very briefly how of came to mean belonging to something or possession. Before of came to show that belonging or possession, which would be sometime in the Old English period (450-1350 AD), English showed belonging or possession through a genitive case. That is, the noun would have a case, a version, with a specific ending (prefix) that told you a sense of belonging or that it possessed something. We still see this today with the use of the apostrophe s to show possession. Our of came about because of the French’s use of de to show that belonging or possession. English is heavily influenced by French because of the Norman Conquest. The conquerers got to control and influence the language, which is what happened here.
For a reason OED doesn’t go into here, that possessive sense of of was the last sense to be affected by French’s de. I’d have to gather that the slow adoption of of to show possession allowed another way to show possession to grow — that is the use of what is now the apostrophe s. The result is two ways to show possession and a preference to show certain kinds of possession one way (with apostrophe s, as in King’s English rather than the English of the King, which sounds stilted to my ear but still understandable) and other kinds of possession or belonging another way (with of, as in King of England instead of England’s King, which is also understandable but sounds a little unnatural).
Does that help?
Dear Miss,
Thank you for your explanation, it was very helpful. The definition that I sent you was from the 1989 edition of the OED, I went on-line and found the September 2010 revision:
X. Expressing possession and being possessed
Eg ‘the owner of the house’, ‘the house of the owner’. Generally
regarded as one of the central uses of the word.
Formerly expressed by the genitive case, and still to some extent by
the genitive of nouns (especially proper names) and possessive
adjectives (with transposition of order). The use of ‘of’ began in Old
English with senses 33, 34, expressing origin. After the Norman
Conquest the example of the French ‘de’, which had taken the place of
the Latin genitive, caused the gradual extension of ‘of’ to all uses in
which Old English had the genitive; the purely possessive sense was
the last to be so affected, and it is that in which the genitive or
‘possessive’ case is still chiefly used. Thus, we say the King’s English,
in preference to the English of the King; but the King of England in
preference to England’s King, which is not natural or ordinary prose
English.
The ‘pertaining to’ condition has been removed and the choice of
words condensed to ‘Expressing possession and being possessed’
along with the comment: ‘Generally regarded as one of the central uses
of the word.’ Why this comment was not included in the 1989 edition is, in my opinion, significant. Are we not taught that the central uses of a word are the uses that we should study the most? but this, it could be argued, is a matter of grammar and not of definition.
Could you please help me interpret the difference between:
#1) Formerly expressed by the genitive, and still to some extent by the
possessive case (with transposition of order).
#2) Formerly expressed by the genitive case, and still to some extent
by the genitive of nouns (especially proper names) and possessive
adjectives (with transposition of order).
Yours respectfully,
Rob
Hi, Rob. I’d say that #2 is more specific about uses of of. The genitive case of nouns would be the possessive case, so up to that point the two sentences say the same thing. The second one includes possessive adjectives (e.g., my, your, his, etc.). It could be the rewrite was to exempt other possessive cases, but I don’t know if there are any. And it could be that the editors just wanted to be more specific, perhaps for more clarity.
Dear Miss,
Regarding the ‘pertaining to’ condition has been removed and the choice of words condensed to ‘Expressing possession and being possessed’
along with the comment: ‘Generally regarded as one of the central uses
of the word.’ The OED has gone from:
In the sense belonging or pertaining to; expressing possession and its converse: “the owner of the house”, “the house of the owner”.
to the more condensed:
Expressing possession and being possessed
Eg ‘the owner of the house’, ‘the house of the owner’. Generally
regarded as one of the central uses of the word.
I don’t know why they dropped the part “in the sense belonging or pertaining to”. Maybe it’s because they think that “the owner of the house” can’t be paraphrased as either “the owner belonging to the house” or as “the owner pertaining to the house” (whereas “the house of the owner” is something like “the house belonging/pertaining to the owner”).”
I agree that “the owner of the house” can’t be paraphrased as “the owner belonging to the house” or even “the house’s owner,” but, in my opinion, the second construction, “the owner pertaining to the house” is needed to answer questions about the owner; such as “what is the ownership pertaining to?” and if the articles are changed, a more acceptable phrase can be constructed such as “an owner pertaining to a house.”
The removal of this extension of the definition is probably an attempt to unify meanings and thus stress the semantic core. But the relationship between ‘of’ and ‘pertaining to’ is at the semantic core of certain uses, such as questions about the owner, or more to the point, the nature of the ownership ie. “What is it that the owner owns?”
The other comment “(whereas “the house of the owner” is something like “the house belonging/pertaining to the owner”)” illustrates perfectly why they should have not dropped the entire part “in the sense belonging or pertaining to” but retained the “pertaining to” part for the above mentioned case. The valuable information that has been lost concerning the intricate nature of the relationship between this word and the thought it is intended to convey in that context, is in my opinion significant, though as I mentioned it could be argued that this is a matter of grammar and not one of definition. My opinion about the “pertaining to” part of the definition is best expressed by a quote from the Hyper Dictionary which reads:
Note: From is the primary sense of this preposition; a sense
retained in off, the same word differently written for
distinction. But this radical sense disappears in most
of its application; as, a man of genius; a man of rare
endowments; a fossil of a red color, or of an hexagonal
figure; he lost all hope of relief; an affair of the
cabinet; he is a man of decayed fortune; what is the
price of corn? In these and similar phrases, of denotes
property or possession, or a relation of some sort
involving connection. These applications, however all
proceeded from the same primary sense. That which
proceeds from, or is produced by, a person or thing,
either has had, or still has, a close connection with
the same; and hence the word was applied to cases of
mere connection, not involving at all the idea of
separation.
Could you please explain to me why you think they completely removed the “pertaining to” condition.
Yours respectfully,
Rob
Dear Miss,
Could you please explain to me why you think they completely removed the “pertaining to” condition and the grammar behind the specific usage: we say the King’s English, in preference to the English of the King; but the King of England in preference to England’s King, which is not natural or ordinary prose English.
Yours respectfully,
Rob
Rob, I wish I knew, but I don’t. Moreover, I wish I had a contact at the OED to ask. Sorry!
Dear Miss,
Thank you for your insightful and perceptive comments, you have been most helpful.
Yours gratefully,
Rob
Dear Rob,
Can’t find a site that answers WHY the apostrophe s is used to show possession with nouns. Somewhere I have seen an old usage that goes:
Mr. Smith his dog; in other words, the apostrophe came to stand for “his.” That makes sense to me. In all other constructions, I can figure out what an apostrophe is taking the place of (as in ten o’clock), but the possessive stumps me. I’m not worried about what happened to “of” to show possession, but I’d like to know about the choice of ‘s. Any clue?
Ann
According to the Oxford English Dictionary and the Online Etymology Dictionary, the apostrophe + s combination was first used to indicate an omission of an e, as in fox’s, in the genitive (or possessive) case. By the 1700s, apostrophe + s was applied to all possessives and became the standard way to show possession.