Do you just pronounce it like “Travises” like we do colloquially? Or is there some way to do it.
The singular possessive is pronounced “travises.” It’s spelled Travis’s.
If you think I misspelled that, please review page 1 of Strunk & White’s The Elements of Style. The use of an s after an apostrophe does not depend on the letter preceding the apostrophe. Rather, the lack of an s after an apostrophe denotes a plural possessive.
Whether there’s an s after the apostrophe depends on style guide. Most do recommend using the s, though.
And I am declaring a certain one of those style guides to be correct!
TIL I guess.
I’m concerned that using the correct form will make me look like an idiot though.
I pronounce it like “Trav-is-his”
That was an excellent execution
Travisis
Oh Trav-ee.
I heard Travi are fun guys.
There’s a linguistics professor at MIT who I once heard say in a class (an Open Courseware class… I didn’t attend MIT or anything):
“We’ll speak no more of prescriptive linguistics except to mock it.”
However you want to say it, say it. Your particular style of speech is unique and beautiful and you should keep speaking that way.
I personally would pronounce it like “Travises”. As if pluralizing it. (“There are multiple Travises in the phone book.”) Makes it fairly clear. I guess that brings up the question what to do if there are multiple Travises who co-own something. “The Travises’ shared given name.” I think off the top of my head, I’d probably pronounce it like “Traviseses.” Cool!
I would, at the least, desire to egg that MIT prof’s house. Language is about communication, and if everyone has their own rules there can be no communication. If you spell it Travis’ I’ll be asking you what a Travi is.
And he and I can egg yours.
Round and round it goes~…
Recursive Travii
Travodes
“The Travises’ shared given name.” I think off the top of my head, I’d probably pronounce it like “Traviseses.”
I think the context in the quote is enough to know exactly what was meant without having to add an extra “es”
I think if someone referred to “the Travises shared given name” without adding the extra “es”, my brain would get stuck on that for a bit. I don’t know that that would be the case for most people or not. But if someone were talking to me about the name shared by multiple people named “Travis”, my brain would churn less, get " stuck" for a shorter time, and be less likely to have to catch back up to the conversation if the extra “es” was included.
Without the extra “es”, it feels like it could get a little “garden-path-y.” Like:
- “The Travis…”
- “The Travis” sounds like a pretty pretentious way to be referred to.
- “…es”
- Possessive. 'k. What does he have?
- “shared given name…”
- Oh, so “The Travis” was magnanimous enough to offer his name for consideration when it came time to decide the name of… maybe one of his relatives’ newborns…?
Right? Not to say I wouldn’t expect to catch on in a couple more words there. And also more realistically, my brain wouldn’t be stuck on this interpretation in the conversation, but more “suspending judgement” and holding both possibilities for interpretations in mind until something resolved the question. But speaking just for myself, I think my brain would have to go through all those machinations if the extra “es” wasn’t there. And that requires more wetware cycles than if the extra “es” wad there. If it was, it’d be unambiguous immediately after the second “es” that “Travis” was both plural and possessive.
(To be fair, after the second “es” another possibility would be that we were talking about multiple groups of people named “Travis”. Chapters of a club only open to people named “Travis” for instance. Kindof like the word “peoples” which is similarly “double-pluralized”. But it seems to me unlikely my brain would jump to that possibility the way it might jump to a possessive form of the title “The Travis.”)
Also, it’s very possible my brain works differently than most. I think I have a pretty “stilted” manner of speech. People occasionally poke gentle fun at me about it. (All in good fun, mind you.) And it’s possible my brain doesn’t process speech quite like most people’s do.
I like how you find this “cool”, as a non-native speaker :D
Right?!
I’ve dabbled in learning Japanese enough to know that learning a second language as an adult has a way of driving home to you how little I really understand about my own native language. And learning what little I have of a second language definitely has taught me more about English.
Travises for possessive; Travi if pluralizing.
Ackshually, the name “Travis” comes from the root word “traverse”, which is of Latin origin, not Greek. So it would actually be Travia.
LeviosA
Travodes
Unless they’re walking, in which case it’s Travodes.
edit: aw fuck I should read the entire thread shouldn’t i
What a travesty
Travissiz
avoid altogether. [object] belongs to Travis
If it’s a word that already ends in an s in its singular form, like Travis, I would pronounce it like “Travis is”.
It’s a word that only got an s at the end because it’s pluralized, like “Smiths”, I would generally just pronounce it like “Smiths”.Simple… just add worchestershire to get Travischestershire’s
deleted by creator
Yup, you pronounce a plural or possessive of a word that ends in S with the es or 's like Travises.
However, you don’t usually pronounce an 's after a plural. A single Travis that owns something would be pronounced Travises. If you are referring to a family with the surname Travis, as a group, it’s the Travises. However, if the Travises own something, it will be the Travises property, not the Traviseses property.
Whether or not you write the possessive plural as Travises’ or not seems to be a matter of debate. I do. Some rules dictate that you would write the singular possessive as Travis’ and say it Travises, others would have it written as Travis’s
The X of this group of people all of whom are named Travis.
or
The travises X.
I just say it the way it is - ‘Oh that is Travis’ shoe’
I added the apostrophe for writing it, but I don’t say the name any different.
Okay, so, first: It should also be written “Travis’s”.
Only if it is plural do you put the possessive apostrophe last.
Depends on the style guide.
I try to follow the Chicago Manual of Style, so for me it’s Travis’s. Generally that’s the style guide used in fiction.
The Associated Press Stylebook just puts an apostrophe at the end of a proper noun ending with “s,” however (although they will use an apostrophe-ess for common nouns, creating things like scissors’s).
Chicago, forever and always. Go Maroons!
To make any word possessive that ends with s you put the apostrophe after the s. So Travis’ is the correct way to say something like, “Travis’ shoes were muddy.”
Only for plural nouns, IMO.
Unless you’re in other countries, not the usa
The UK. Style guides say to be guided by pronunciation, not just always bang 's on the end
Like where? I’m curious to look at the style guides from there.
It’s a good rule of thumb, but it’s not a requirement.
