Here's a good article: http://www.ariannaonline.com/columns/files/121602.html

Great column, Arnie, and I sent it along to our managing editor.
However, as you all know, I can empathize with that daughter because she is right that we in America all use apostrophes wrong. While the NY Times "Shooting of G.I.'s" is an obvious error that I would never have gotten wrong, I can understand the "ropes courses" question and probably would have used an apostrophe before I met the FOTA people. Richard still has me a bit confused about "ownership" (i.e. Massachusetts' State Board of Nursing), but I'll get over it.

However, I have to share an apostrophe story:

My daugher, a first-year law student at the U.of Chicago, handed in a paper regarding the "Williams' Case". Her professor corrected it to "Williams's. My daugther objected, and the law professor pulled out Strunk and White which supported the "s's" use. The professor admitted that 90% of the students did it the "s'" way, and most of these students were ivy-league educated. How do you FOTA people feel about "s'" versus "s's"?

[This message was edited by Kalleh on Fri Dec 20th, 2002 at 12:21.]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kalleh:
How do you FOTA people feel about "s'" versus "s's"?
[QUOTE]

Oh no...

...now CJ and Richard are going to have the duelling pistols out again. I think I'll take a few days off until the ensuing storm has blown itself out.

(I may hate puns but I never shrink from a mixed metaphor.)

Quid quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Read all about my travels around the world here.

Oh good...I love duels--especially between Richard and CJ! They each get so passionate. Can't wait to see their individual choices (after all, the books give both rules) and their rationale. I have to say, I am on the "s'" side. I wouldn't even know how to pronounce "Williams's".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh:
I wouldn't even know how to pronounce "Williams's".

---

It would most likely be pronounced "Williamses" by some, but I would probably pronounce it "Williams" unless I was trying to stress the possiveness. The "Williamses cat" doesn't sound right. The "Williams cat" sounds much better. I would spell it "Williams' cat", though I would find "Williams's cat" acceptable.

Apostrophe usage has changed considerably over the years and will continue to do so. At one time, the "greengrocers" apostrophe was considered acceptable, even "correct" (Oxford Companion to the English Language, under "Plurality"). Fowler notes that "From the 17c. onwards an apostrophe was often used in the plural number when the noun ended in a vowel, e.g. grotto's, opera's, toga's. Since the mid-19c., grammarians have condemned this use..." Apparently this use was acceptable before the mid-19th century.

Whether to use s' or s's is debated by the "experts". Even Fowler's says, "It is customary, however, to omit the 's when the last syllable of the name is pronounced /-Iz/, as in Bridges', Moses'. Jesus' is an acceptable liturgical archaism."

"Williams" ends in a "z" sound; therefore "Williams'" would be correct, according to Fowler's. Others are equally insistent that "Williams's" is correct. Both are "correct"!

Likewise with "CD's" or "CDs"; 60's or 60s. Read the following links. You will find that these "experts" will have differing opinions. They generally agree that "CDs and "60s" are preferable to "CD's" and "60's", but that either form is acceptable. They rarely use the words "correct" or "incorrect".

Read the links and decide for yourself. Decide if it's worth fighting over, or if you can accept both usages as "correct".

Tinman

The New Fowler's Modern English Usage, © Oxford University Press 1968
(http://w1.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=441020)
(http://w1.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=591370&secid=.-)

The Oxford Companion to the English Language, © Tom McArthur 1992 (http://w1.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=441020)

Jack Lynch, Assistant Professor in the English department of the Newark, New Jersey campus of Rutgers University
(http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/a.html)

(http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/possessives.htm)

Many US speakers defend their incorrect apostrophisation of words ending in "s" and even suggest that this useage is shown as accurate in various reference sources.

I have never yet seen one although I will look at the sites suggested. Oxford is quite clear on the matter - words ending in "s" are apostrophised as any other although an exception has traditionally been made for words ending in "s sounded vowel s" (such as Jesus).

Without going over the ground again (it is on the FOTA site still - and near to the top) my contention is that it is stupid to change a perfectly correct and phonetic pronunciation (boss's) into one that is incorrect and non-phonetic (boss'). And as for the supposed pronunciation difficulties - how do you cope with the plural of words ending in "s"? Don't you talk about "...having two bosses..."? You can all say that so where's the difficulty about speaking of "...the boss's office..."

Language will change and this useage may become accepted as correct. At the moment it is not - so why not set standards rather than following the ignorami?

After all, isn't that what we've been trying to do with beer appreciation?

Richard English

[This message was edited by Richard English on Sat Dec 21st, 2002 at 5:34.]

I have now read the suggested references and am quite unapologetic! They use expressions such as "...Traditional usage adds the apostrophe s if it is pronounced: the boss's explanation..." and then mention that it is becoming common for the second "s" to be omitted.

We could say the same thing about beer.

"...Traditionally beer has been made of malted barley and conditioned naturally. However, it is becoming common for beer in some countries to contain adulterants such as rice and to be conditioned by chemical methods such as the addition of heading compounds and commercially-produced carbon dioxide..."

Thank you. I'll stick to the traditional ways both in my beer consumption and linguistically! Just because a thing is happening it doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Richard English

quote:

---

Originally posted by BobHale:

Oh no...

...now CJ and Richard are going to have the duelling pistols out again.

---

Sorry to disappoint you B.H. but I'm going to give this subject a pass this time around. Frankly, the argument bores me.

As has been stated elsewhere, there are perfectly legitimate arguments for both sides and, as with so many other aspects of the English language, it comes down to:

1.) a difference in personal preference or writing style,

2.) a difference between what is acceptable in US vs. UK English,

3.) the fact that ours is a living, evolving language and, lastly and most importantly,

4.) each sub-group of English speakers has the right to decide on their own how they will see their language grow.

What aggravates me, however, is the superior airs and disparaging tone arguments to the contrary can take. I mean, give it a rest, please, R.E.! Why, oh why does this one particular subject set you off so? I write "the boss' desk," you prefer "the boss's desk." I write "the 1960's," you write "the 1960s." You take pride in the very many fine English ales and stouts, I feel that any beer served at room temperature is an affront to the brewer's art. (Note the great self-restraint there - that thought started out as a comparrison to urine.) Bottom line? You say poTAYto, I say poTAHto, and I say the hell with it!

I'm glad we agree. So do I.

The belief that Real Ale should be drunk at "room temperature" is just another error that many continue to perpetrate - the many being, of course, those who do not know about Real Ale.

Richard English

Sorry I started this.

What aggravates me is that in the U.S., anyway, the most accepted source for English usage is Strunk and White's "Elements of Style." This source clearly cites both uses. Yet, my daughter, and the other 90% of the people in that class, got points taken off because it was this professor's pet peeve. Are not there more important issues to teach in law school?

Richard, I can completely understand boss's, or other words that end in "s". However, what bothered me in this example was changing the spelling of somebody's last name. However, I agree with CJ that it is not something to fight over. I just wanted to know, and understand, both views on this. I do now, and thank you, CJ & Richard. Arnie, great column! My managing editor loved it.

I have a change of heart. I now agree with Richard about the use of an apostrophe with words ending in "s" (sorry, CJ!).
With Richard's logic, I wondered what he had to say about the possessive of "bosses"; would it be "bosses's"? That really didn't make sense. So, I read the recommended thread on the FOTA board. I found that the plural of words ending in "s" should be "es', e.g. "bosses'". Makes sense. The explanation on the FOTA board is cogent, and I highly recommend it.

We received a Christmas card this week. I will change the name to protect the innocent children in this family: "Love, the Smith's"

Love the Smith's what, I wonder? Their children? Their dog? Their family?

Certainly not their grammar!

Richard English

My question precisely! Interestingly, it was my law student daughter, the one with the question about plural possessive with words ending in "s", who pointed this out to me. We now have her hooked!

quote:

---

We now have her hooked!

---

And when will she be posting?