As I understand it, the rule for apostrophe-s vs. s-apostrophe is as follows:
A singular noun normally ends without an s-sound. Its posessive adds 's: girl/girl's. In the odd case where the singular ends with an s-sound, generally follow the same rule (princess/princess's), but sometimes treat it as if plural, adding ': Jesus/Jesus'.
A plural noun normally ends with an s-sound. Its posessive adds ': girls/girls'. In the odd case where the plural ends without an s-sound, treat it as if singular, adding 's: children/children's.
Great. But what about the case where the singular ends with a letter s, but the s is not pronounced, as in Arkansas and Illinois? The newspaper reports thus (I'll replace this with a non-subscription link if one becomes available), and gives a history of how the apostrophe got into our possessives:
Last month, the Arkansas State Legislature passed a non-binding resolution declaring that the proper way to punctuate the possessive form of the state's name ends with apostrophe-S: "Arkansas's," and not apostrophe-only, as many newspapers write it.
It seems that the various style-books have varying views on the matter.
What do you think?This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,
April 06, 2007, 10:33
Richard English
I agree with the rules as stated. The exception for historic names like Jesus and Xerxes seem to be those where the final syllable is unstressed - but I don't know whether that's an invariable rule.
Richard English
April 06, 2007, 11:25
wordmatic
quote:
Last month, the Arkansas State Legislature passed a non-binding resolution declaring that the proper way to punctuate the possessive form of the state's name ends with apostrophe-S: "Arkansas's," and not apostrophe-only, as many newspapers write it.
Oh, right! Newspaper copy desks are famous for folding when their stylebooks are overruled by acts of a legislative body! That's got to be a first.
Actually, that's not what they said in the article. I love this quote from the editor of the Chicago Manual of Style:
quote:
"Although the collective heart of CMOS lept for a moment at the idea that punctuation might be legislated, ultimately we must endorse a pro-choice position on the matter," Carol Saller, an editor at the University of Chicago Press, which publishes the CMOS, wrote
and some other editors' comments from the article:
quote:
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the state's largest newspaper, uses the apostrophe-only form. So does Kathleen Shurlds, who teaches journalism at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville and hosts "The Militant Grammarian" on her local public radio station.
"There are too many S's and it just looks silly," Shurlds said about the apostrophe-S form in a University of Arkansas news release.
Outside Arkansas, opinions are just as divided. The Associated Press opts for apostrophe-only Arkansas'. So does the Chicago Tribune.
The New York Times uses apostrophe-only when a name ends in S-vowel-S -- such as Pegasus and Jesus. But the Times switches to apostrophe-S when the word's final S is silent. So last month the Times wrote about "Arkansas's Gary Ervin" but "Kansas' Russell Robinson."
"I don't think any self-respecting editor will make a style change based on a non-binding resolution by a state legislature, but I do agree with Arkansas's over Arkansas'," Bill Walsh, copy chief of the national desk at The Washington Post and author of two books on usage, wrote me by e-mail. "With the apostrophe alone, there's no letter to represent the 's' that's pronounced in the possessive."
I'm afraid I agree with Shurlds: too many "s's" does look silly. Such a temptation to say "Arkans-Ass."
Wordmatic
April 06, 2007, 12:00
Richard English
quote:
I'm afraid I agree with Shurlds: too many "s's" does look silly. Such a temptation to say "Arkans-Ass."
And too few looks wrong. Take your pick.
Richard English
April 06, 2007, 20:13
Kalleh
I recently brought this subject up in our apostrophe thread. What a waste of legislators' time!