Grammar Question

[John Smith]

If there were two guys named Jesus Christ, how would one address them both, "Jesuses Christs"?

[Bear Bibeault]

"Hey, you guys!"

[Vikas Kapoor]

"Oh! my Lord"

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

In the event this is a serious question, just the last name would be made plural not both. For example "Both John Smiths went to get coffee."

[John Smith]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:In the event this is a serious question, just the last name would be made plural not both. For example "Both John Smiths went to get coffee."

What if the last name ends with an "es", such as Chaves? Would that be "Both Chaves' went to get coffee?"

[Muse Ran]

another 'es'

[Jesper de Jong]

John Smith wrote:What if the last name ends with an "es", such as Chaves? Would that be "Both Chaves' went to get coffee?"

As far as I know (English is not my native language) the s' (apostroph at the end) is only used to indicate ownership of something - not for multiples.
For example: "That is Chaves' coat". Or maybe it should be "That is Chaves's coat".

[Muse Ran]

so, for example, if the name is Robinson means... Robin owns on.. hi...hi ....

[Campbell Ritchie]

Jesper is correct about not using apostrophes in plurals. For example, the grammatically correct way to have the letter A twice is "two As". And I am pretty sure the origin of the surname Robinson is from Robin's son.


As for Chaves' coat and Chaves's coat: it depends which grammar book you read. Some people say Chaves' is correct, others Chaves's.

[Greg Charles]

The 's or s' for possession follows pronunciation. I would spell it, "Chaves's coat" because I would pronounce Chaves's as three syllables. On the other hand, I'd say, "for goodness' sake', not "for goodness's sake".

You can use 's for pluralizing numbers written as digits and abbreviations. Style guides vary on this point. I prefer no apostrophe, but the New York Times, for example, will always write, "the 1980's".

cf. Bob the Angry Flower's guide to the apostrophe.

Greg


A side question: are there any languages besides English that use 's or anything similar to indicate possession?

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

John Smith wrote:What if the last name ends with an "es", such as Chaves? Would that be "Both Chaves' went to get coffee?"

Chaveses. At that point, I would reword the sentence to avoid the scenario entirely - just to avoid confusion.

[Raghavan Muthu]

John Smith wrote:

What if the last name ends with an "es", such as Chaves? Would that be "Both Chaves' went to get coffee?"

Even otherwise, the term 'Both' indicates that there are two people bearing the same name. Right? would not that suffice? However, adding 'es' invariably seem to sound good for this plurality aspects.

[Raghavan Muthu]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:In the event this is a serious question, just the last name would be made plural not both. For example "Both John Smiths went to get coffee."

Sounds good and reasonable as far as I know! That's how having been using the terms so far!

[fred rosenberger]

Back to the original question, though.

"Christ" is a title, not a surname - if you are referring to the biblical person. I think the proper term would be "Jesus the Christ".

[John Smith]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:

John Smith wrote:What if the last name ends with an "es", such as Chaves? Would that be "Both Chaves' went to get coffee?"

Chaveses. At that point, I would reword the sentence to avoid the scenario entirely - just to avoid confusion.

I did some research, and I can confirm that there is no special treatment of words ending with an -es when making plural forms. So, if we have two persons with the first name is "Emeses" and the last name is "Parentheses", and follow the rules we've established so far, we would have this:

Both Emeses Parentheseses went to get coffee.

Right?