What is the proper grammar for this...?

Smiths. Just like “nerds”.

Smith’s implies ownership.

Smiths because Smith’s is either possessive or Smith is.

But “nerds” isn’t a proper noun – does that matter?

isn’t it “their” revenge, henve the possession?

(just playing devil’s advocate…)

Except that it isn’t Smith’s Revenge…it’s Revenge OF….that changes it

no. if it was “The Nerd’s Revenge” then yes, but that would be one nerd.

“The Nerds’ Revenge” would be plural nerds.

But the “revenge of the nerds” needs no implication of ownership.

k – thanks! Fluther – YAY!

@JonnyCeltics no problems. I taught ESL for several years and this is a difficult topic, even for native speakers.

I taught ESL also…..and grammar still gets to me like CRAZY in certain situations….!

@JonnyCeltics ha. ok.

Revenge of Smith – “Smith” is singular.
Revenge of the Smiths – “Smith” is plural.
Smith’s Revenge – “Smith” is singular and shows posession.
Smiths’ Revenge – “Smith” is plural and shows posession.
Revenge of the Smith’s Wife – “Smith” is singular and shows posession.
Revenge of the Smiths’ Wives – “Smith” is plural and shows posession.

I think that’s correct.

What is confusing is when to use s’ and when to use s’s.

Vinifera7 is correct. But – possession (two double-esses).

Sources generally agree that s’ versus s’s is a matter of pronunciation.

Well, if we are going to be perfectionists;

Revenge of Smith’s wife.
Revenge of Smiths’ wife (highly unlikely)
Revenge of the smithy’s wife
Revenge of the smithies’ wife (also highly unlikely).

The two latter take lower case because they are not proper nouns. Unless you are Mr. Smith, the smithy, with multiple wives.

The revenge of Smith the smithy’s wives?

Psst: The smithy is the place where the smith works.

Three choices from Longfellow;

The Village Blacksmith

Under a spreading chestnut-tree
The village smithy stands;
The smith, a mighty man is he,
With large and sinewy hands;

Some dictionaries give smithy as a synonym for blacksmith.
And smith as the workshop, forge, or the guy himself.

@gailcalled
“Smiths’ Wives” is capitalized in this case because it’s part of a title.

Hmm. Well, I verified with OED, big Webster’s, and Am. Her. IV. All agree that the smithy is the workshop. (The workshop stands under the spreading chestnut tree.) Am. Her. does give ‘blackmith’ as a second definition, and it defines ‘blacksmith’ as a person. But I think it’s safe to say that the common understanding is that the smith is a person who works in a smithy.

If you think of the apostrophe as a replacement for some missing letters it becomes easy.

“Smith his pen” is abbreviated as “Smith’s pen”

“Smith his pen” doesn’t make a lick of sense syntactically, but whatever helps you remember, I guess.

uh, “Smiths,” but “Jones” is “Joneses.”
ah, the English language.

That’s just an application of the rules for pluralizing a noun.

Swimming up out of the murk of memory is a recollection that “Smith his pen” is actually a correct construction in a much older version of the language, and “Smith’s pen” a legitimate contraction. I think you can find analogs in the literature of ?Chaucer’s time. However, I’m not giving a high certainty rating here because I haven’t verified this.

@Jeruba: Interesting that little Webster (Second College Edition -1979) uses smithy as 1) the forge or workshop and 2) as the brawny guy himself. So does my online dictionary in Apple’s Dashboard. My big Webster (1957 and with print I need a microscope to read) sticks with smithy as the forge and smith as the blacksmith.

I have always read those first two lines of the poem (it is so da dum da dum that it is too easy to memorize) as the guy standing under the tree. But you are right about WWL’s intentions. So funny to have an adolescent belief altered. I love this stuff.

@Jeruba
In German, one simply adds an s (no apostrophe) in order to show possession. But there’s not an extra possessive pronoun that gets tacked on, so I don’t know how “Smith his pen” makes any sense.

In the romance languages, there is no ambiguity…la plume de mon forgeron.
la vengeance de ma tante.

@Vinifera7, yes, that’s right about German (I studied it too). But English is not purely a Teutonic language. There are many past constructions in English that have atrophied or been replaced, and some linger in little ways and forms. Again, I am not making an assertion here because I haven’t checked it; just saying I remember something of the kind, and the absence of apparent sense in modern English is not in itself an argument against history.

It’s probably not true that the genitive apostrophe-s is derived from a contraction of “his”. One of the Old English genitive case markers was “es” and it’s probably derived from that.