“You don’t know my friend! I don’t even know the full extent. Yet the Saken are a threat against the entire species, even themselves! House Soliter knows and will fight but it must be to their tune, not ours, nor Oakleys.” Just wondering if 'Oakleys' should have one?
Because Oakely or Oakleys isn't clear, I'd need to know a bit more. But yes, an apostrophe is called for, because this is a possessive use of the name. The tune belonging to Oakley/Oakleys. If Oakley is the name of a single person, then you'd write "Oakley's." Because it's singular. If Oakley is the name of a family in which there are several members, then you'd write "Oakleys'." Because it's plural.
Agreed. Though if it were a whole, multi-member family, you'd more likely write, "the Oakleys'" or "that of the House of Oakley." And watch the punctuation problem in the first sentence of your quotation, @Tyler Danann. It reads, "You don't know my friend," leading me to believe the speaker is defending someone he or she is close to. But reading on, I suspect it should be, "You don't know, my friend," the friend being the one he's speaking to.
Also, I think a period needs to replace the comma after "tune" for a cleaner read. The focus shifts from whose tune it must be to whose tune it won't be. Also also, I'd put a period after "ours", as well. There's a certain punctuality at the end of this statement that appeals to me when "nor" is replaced in this manner. Provides the emphasis the speaker seems to be using here, as if they were hitting a table or something. As in... "...tune. (slap!) Not ours. (slap!) Not the Oakleys'." Anywho, my .02.
So let me pick on the second sentence! I think that it should be "Even I don't know the full extent" - if it's not, then the "even" is redundant.
In this case, where he's talking about family names in terms of a noble house, then even though there are multiple Oakleys, the House itself as a collective entity would be considered singular. So the correct placement of the apostrophe here is "Oakley's." If he were referring to Oakley as a family and not a house it would be written as "The Oakleys" the same way as we would say "The Smiths, The Jetsons," and then the apostrophe would have to come after the S at the end. But since it's a house, a collective, then it would be written "Oakley's".
You can see a lot of this type of talk in the GoT series, and the books have lots of examples of the apostrophe issues and how to deal with a noble house as a collective individual. I.E., 'We can't hold this position with Frey to the East and Lannister's cavalry moving up from the south.' In the case of Frey you're using a singular name to mean the house, their properties and troops, and the Lord at the head of the family. In the case of Lannister you're only using the word to mean the house and then you're specifying the cavalry in particular.
Yes. If you're using Oakley's to mean House of Oakley—an official or semi-offical dynasty, and consequently referred to as a single entity—then that's the correct position for the apostrophe. "Oakley's land extended to the border with Smith's." It would also probably not be preceded by the word "The." The apostrophe would be in the same place in the word, if one single fellow was named Oakley, and this was a handkerchief belonging to him. "Oakley's handkerchief was red with an orange border." If a car was owned by an ordinary six-member family whose surname was Oakley, however, then the correct position of the apostrophe to show the possession would be Oakleys'. As in "The Oakleys' 4x4 was more powerful than the one owned by Jacob Smith, who lived next door." This shows the possession belongs to more than one person with the same last name.
Oakley is both one person AND the name of his faction. Plural apostrophe for a singular possession? Very strange. I thought it would be more like 'The Oakleys' vehicles...' in such an instance.
