"Grammar Question"

[JayDee]

Over on a somewhat quiet forum I occasionally check through, but won’t link because advertising, and because said forum has a policy that no other sites exist, the author LL asked this question:

Quote

Should "Snyder's Summers' Sexfest" have a possessive apostrophe after the Summers? *Summers as Joyce and Buffy, not the season

 

If it was "Snyder's Summers" he'd possess them (not literally, it is not a slavery story) so he'd have an apostrophe and if it was "Summers' Sexfest" it'd be their sexfest and there'd be an apostrophe after their name; but if he's having them are they also owning it or should it be "Snyder's Summers Sexfest"

Anyone enough of a grammar bunny to be able to give a view?

 

My initial reaction was that it should only be after Snyder as “Snyder’s Summers Sexfest” because it sounds like it’s really gonna be his sexfest with Mrs and Ms Summers taking part, but when I went to write this reply I found my grammar explanations have decayed to the point where I couldn’t explain this to my own satisfaction as I would be able to if the question were about, say, “Snyder’s House Party.” I checked my own grammar and english usage books (including such helpful tips as “english should have a capital”) and I still find myself unsatisfied. As such I was a) unable to give an answer to LL and b) bugged.

Can anybody give me an answer that satisfies me, and that I can then therefore take to LL (with appropriate credit)?

Edit: For the cock up in the first line.

Thanks for your time

 

Edited January 28, 2017 by JayDee

[BronxWench]

Think of the “Summers Sexfest” as an event. If it were to need an apostrophe and an appended “s” to denote possession, or reference to the event, it would correctly be placed at the end of the event title: Summers Sexfest’s location, for example. So, if the possession is on the part of Snyder, then “Snyder’s Summers Sexfest” is correct.

[CloverReef]

I’m with Bronxwench and you, JayDee, on this one. I can’t really articulate it any better than either of you, though. I’m about 80% confident it should be “Snyder’s Summers Sexfest”.

[JayDee]

Thank you to you both! BW’s suggestion of thinking of it as an event makes sense to me

[pippychick]

I think I agree with Bronx, but does the confusion stem from LL wanting to indicate that there is more than one Summers involved? Ugh… at first glance you know the answer, then it becomes weirder and weirder...

When saying “Snyder’s Summers’ Sexfest” we get the confusion over whose sexfest it is. While “Snyder’s Summers Sexfest” might only involve Joyce, Buffy, Dawn, all three, or any combination.

The only proper way to indicate possession by Snyder, while also indicating there is more than one Summers involved would be to say:

“Snyder’s Summerses Sexfest”

Example here is from grammarbook.com:

Quote

Rule 2d. Things can get really confusing with the possessive plurals of proper names ending in s, such as Hastings and Jones.

If you're the guest of the Ford family—the Fords—you're the Fords' guest (Ford + s + apostrophe). But what if it's the Hastings family?

Most would call them the "Hastings." But that would refer to a family named "Hasting." If someone's name ends in s, we must add -es for the plural. The plural of Hastings is Hastingses. The members of the Jones family are the Joneses.

To show possession, add an apostrophe.

Incorrect: the Hastings' dog
Correct: the Hastingses' dog (Hastings + es + apostrophe)

Incorrect: the Jones' car
Correct: the Joneses' car

In serious writing, this rule must be followed no matter how strange or awkward the results.

Wow… what happens when you say: “Snyder’s Summerses’ Sexfest”? It's like Inception or something…

(please do not look into the void, as it may look back into you)

[JayDee]

Sneaky little Summerses! That was exactly my issue. First glance, I knew the answer. Glances two through five I grew more unsure. Glance six, I was curled into a fetal ball babbling about the return of the kindly ones.

Thanks for this also! As further illumination goes, it’s pretty darn lit up.

Although, no matter how serious my writing, I’m gonna let beauty trump technicality. Actually, beauty is pushing it for mine. Readability, say.

[JayDee]

So I posted the info to LL on Jan 28^th, but they never said anything in reply. Leads me to believe either a) Didn’t actually care that much or b) didn’t want to be seen to be replying to a writer like JD, even when quoting/crediting others or c) Rude prick.

[pippychick]

31 minutes ago, JayDee said:

So I posted the info to LL on Jan 28^th, but they never said anything in reply. Leads me to believe either a) Didn’t actually care that much or b) didn’t want to be seen to be replying to a writer like JD, even when quoting/crediting others or c) Rude prick.

Well… It’s either (a) or (c) because the only way (b) could exist is if they were scared of you and your content… in which case, you win by default, being the only adult in the situation.

[JayDee]

Winning isn’t everything. Grammar may be!

[DirtyAngel]

sorry, I saw sexfest and missed everything else

 

[pippychick]

26 minutes ago, JayDee said:

Winning isn’t everything. Grammar may be!

Hehe… I submit as evidence the current President of the United States.

[DirtyAngel]

God, isn’t there like someone who is supposed to go “Sir, you’re being and idiot again...”

 

[JayDee]

Now I feel terrible because LL actually responded and said thanks to y’all. I feel like I’m in one of those “...he’s right behind me, isn’t he?” moments. Clearly a thoroughly decent and alright young man after all, and C) was completely wrong. One day LL will find this, if they haven’t already, and think JD is the needlessly offensive and rude one. Which is actually true, so fair enough there.

But thanks for helping ‘em, I mean I wouldn’t have asked here normally if it hadn’t been bugging me too after my initial assumption.

Edited February 19, 2017 by JayDee