A couple may consist of two people, but as a noun, it’s singular. Forget you saw this misplaced apostrophe on yahoo.com, which implies that there was more than one couple but only two people:
English is funny. And challenging. It provides lots of words for lots of circumstances. But it’s also missing a few words that would be of benefit to writers and readers. One of those missing words is a possessive form of the word that. (Make that two missing words; which doesn’t have a possessive form either.) But that didn’t stop the writer for Yahoo! Autos from trying to come up with one — and failing:
The writer might have used whose: a car whose value is beginning to soar. But that might have set off alarm bells among grammarians who feel who and whose cannot be applied to non-humans. What’s a writer to do? Recast the sentence. One of these might have worked:
Each of those options is slightly longer, slightly different in meaning, or slightly awkward. But none of those would have appeared in Terribly Write.
Based on based on this excerpt from Yahoo! Style, I’d said that this writer is uber imaginative in her creation of a possessive from nothing more than a parenthetical phrase, an apostrophe, and an S:
It’s a real first! I’m pretty sure no one in the English-speaking world has ever tried to put an entire parenthetical between ‘S and the noun it applies to. It’s brilliant! Imagine how dull this would be if she used the traditional “by utilizing the ad-buying interfaces of Facebook (which owns Instagram).” Booo-ring.
Yuk! That’s my reaction to the misplaced apostrophe on Yahoo! Style:
The word people is already plural; its possessive form is people’s (just like the possessive forms women’s, men’s, and children’s).
There’s one exception: If you mean peoples (a group of individuals sharing a common culture, religion, or language) like the peoples of North Africa, then the possessive is peoples’.
Lots of actors have played a role as challenging as Hamlet or Macbeth. But no one has played a role as challenging as Joan Smalls. Frankly, I never even knew there was a character named Joan Smalls. The only Joan Smalls I’ve ever heard of is a model. But who am I to question the genius writers at Yahoo! Style?
Of course, if the writer meant that Joan Smalls faced a challenging role, then that would require an apostrophe: a role as challenging as Joan Smalls‘.
Somehow Chris Brown (who I understand is sometimes referred to as “Breezy”) and Tyga (who is sometimes referred to as a “rapper”) have children together. Who knew? The writer for Yahoo! Celebrity knew:
Of course, it’s possible the writer is grammatically challenged and meant to refer to Breezy’s and Tyga’s kids. That would be Breezy’s kid and Tyga’s kid.
If two people together own something, you just need to give an apostrophe and S to the second of the two: Mom and dad’s home; Bill and Hillary’s daughter. But if they each own something separately, each gets the apostrophe and S treatment: Mom’s and dad’s jobs; Bill’s and Hillary’s careers.
Did the Cleveland Indians’ players read this on the Yahoo! front page? Is that why they’re laughing?
In the United States, team names are treated as plurals, so it makes no sense to form the plural of a team name by adding an apostrophe and an S. If the name ends in an S, we just add an apostrophe. That’s what we do in the U.S., but the style may be different in the country where this was written.