people's would should a groups ownership
peoples' would show a group of individuals ownership
i hope that helps. it makes sense in my mind, but not sure how it will sound to you!
The apostrophe goes between the "l" and the "s" in "girls. It goes and followed: Girl's cloakroom. The apostrophe is used to show ownership in this sentence. In this case the cloakroom belongs to the girls, this is why you must have the apostophe to show the ownership.
The apostrophe goes between the "l" and the "s" in "girls. It goes and followed: Girl's cloakroom. The apostrophe is used to show ownership in this sentence. In this case the cloakroom belongs to the girls, this is why you must have the apostophe to show the ownership.
The apostrophe in "rhinoceros" to show possession should go after the "s", making it "rhinoceros'".
If janitors is simply a plural word, then it doesn't need an apostrophe. Janitor's is a singular possessive (Janitor's responsibilities). Janitors' is the plural possessive (Janitors' responsibilities).
The apostrophe in "years" goes before the "s" to show possession, like this: "years'."
The possessive form of "sheriffs" is "sheriffs'." Just add an apostrophe after the final "s" to show ownership. Now go forth and impress your friends with your newfound knowledge.
If this is someone's name, as I suspect it is, the apostrophe will go as such "Vikas's"
The apostrophe goes before the "s" in "baby's bib" to show possession. This indicates that the bib belongs to the baby.
Yes, you can use an apostrophe s to show possession even if the name ends in Z.
An apostrophe is not required.
The correct way to write the sentence is: "The students' books are on his desk." The apostrophe is placed after the "s" in "students" to show that the books belong to the students.
There is no apostrophe. This is because "daughters" is being used as a plural noun, and is not being used to show possession.