plural or not

[boobesque]

Billys wife was stupid. on word this tries to plural the s to Billy's. surely this would be read as Billy is wife was stupid?

[marwel7]

The apostrophe s signifies something belonging to or attached to the object,therefore it would read the wife of Billy was stupid.

[saxy_jag]

I can confirm Marwel is quite correct.

'Billy's' can mean 'Billy is' and also 'Billy has', as in "Billy's stupid" and "Billy's got a stupid wife.

If it was more than one Billy, then it would be 'Billies' or 'Billys', without the apostrophe. The use of 'Billy's' as a plural is to use what Lynne Truss calls the 'greengrocer's apostrophe' (supposedly because it's most commonly found on greengrocer's price boards). It is the most infuriating misuse of English pronunciation that I can think of.

[boobesque]

thanks both :-)

[Hammond Egg]

Don't you mean "greengrocers' price boards," saxy_jag?

[rojash]

What's it got to do with pronunciation?

[jno]

it seems the Old English way of saying this was 'Billy his wife'. This got shortened to 'Billy's wife'.

So 'Billy's' may be possessive - Billy's wife - or be short for Billly is or Billy has.

As saxy_jag says, the plural would be Billys or Billies. (Probably Billys because although y usually turns into ie in plurals, proper names like Billy more usually keep their spelling.)

[saxy_jag]

Hammond - OK, you're right. If I say it was a typo, will you believe me.

Rojash - of course, pronunciation has nothing whatsoever to do with it. However, punctuation has. Can I get away with saying it was anohter typo ( was multitasking at the time)? :-)

[saxy_jag]

Aw, jeez! Just reread my last post. I'm going home!! :-?

[Peter Pedant]

Hi jno - apparently your idea
jno his book became jno's book - was common in the C18 but is not what happened.

and that was because Emma her book, also became Emma's book...

Chaucer sometimes uses the old genitive, the Kingis grace springs to mind, where as we would say, the King's grace.

SInce the old anglo saxon has possessives, his her that agreed with the possessed, as we learn in French, and English has possessives that agree with the possessor, he or she what has got it, there must have been a period when anglo saxon passed through having unified genders (or no gender) but that period has not been identified.

[jno]

that makes sense, PP... my Cambridge encyclopedia of English quotes Chaucer: the man of law his tale. But it actually says in Chaucer 'here beginneth the man of law his tale', which isn't quite the same thing. So better disregard my first paragraph, boobesque!