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.
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’.
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.
If you read the story that accompanies these photo captions on Yahoo! Style (but really, why would you?) you’d learn that there was only one groom at this wedding. So, it looks like the writer had no idea where to put the apostrophe to show a possessive. It ain’t here:
and it ain’t here:
At least she was consistent, which is more than I can say when in comes to spelling the groom’s party attire — somehow it’s both bow ties and bowties.