More than anything, this board has taught me to be skeptical...Bob especially. So today I read a Dear Abby type of letter, which said:

"Early in my senior year of high school, I was summoned to the counselor's office to discuss my future. She asked me what type of job I'd like. I had no idea. I told her that I wanted to work at night. I said that I'm not a morning person, and I'd like to have fun and make good money. In what appeared to be all seriousness, she told me I was an ideal candidate to become a prostitute. I sat there in shock. Perhaps she was using sarcasm (lost on a 17-year-old), but after a minute of silence, she ushered me out of her office and welcomed in the next student for her 'advice'."

At first I believed it. However, Shu said it was probably an urban myth, and I suppose so. It surely would be malpractice if it were true.

My question is...how do you decide to believe something like this...or not to? How do you learn to become skeptical enough? Ideas?

[Edit: added "not" to "I am not a morning person." It was inadertently left out.]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

Scepticism is a good thing but it can be taken to extremes. How do you decide? I do so by getting as many facts as possible before amking a judgement.

The instance cited would ring alarm bells with me simply because the career counsellor seems to be recommending a criminal career (prostitution being illegal in most US States). I feel that it is highly unlikely that any career counsellor would recommend anything illegal and that, not any moral argument, would lead me to suspect the veracity of the "letter".

The phrase about wanting to work at night also rings alarm bells with me. Would a student who had no real idea what she wanted to do in the future really stipulate that she wanted to work at night? I'd say it was highly unlikely. Added to the highly unlikely recommendation of prostitution as a career, the whole thing seems impossible to believe.

I usually have a good sense of such things. If such a conversation actually occured, the counselor would quickly be fired, and the school probably sued for "emotional damage".

Plus, most 17-year-olds have no idea what they want to do with their lives. Those random generic "make money, have fun" type of statements are indicative of this. Counselors are used to this kind of thing and should be trained to know how to ask the right questions.

Furthermore, there is no discussion of colleges in here. Typically, meeting with a counselor "early senior year of high school", college would come up as a major point of discussion.

How do I know this is fake? Obviously prostitution is a clearly absurd career suggestion. After that, I question everything else about the letter, and the other pieces seem to be in disarray as well. If everything else made complete sense, then I would have to judge on the likelihood of that creer suggestion alone, which in this case, is still absurd.

In this case I'd probably discount it right away. There are quite a few urban myths that started life as deliberate spoofs or just plain old-fashioned jokes. This looks like the latter.

As a rule of thumb if it looks like it might have been a joke then there's a good chance that it was.

My favourite schools one is the urban myth that the Alabama state lagislature wanted redifine pi as 3 to bring it into line with "biblical precepts".

You can find it here.

Saranita, that was a typo. I missed the "not." Sorry! I will edit it.

Well, I am glad you all would have known. I hope it's true! Geez.

Below is Amy's answer, and I am going to email her and tell her about your comments. Arnie, I do disagree with you that 'wanting to work at night' is impossible to believe, unless kids in the U.K. are different from American kids. There have been lots of studies here about kids being nightowls and not morning people. I'd totally believe that.

"Oh. My. God. By my reckoning, every single 17-year-old on the planet wants what you say you wanted at that age. Goodness knows how many young prostitutes that one counselor unleashed on the streets. I notice you chose to be a teacher. It seems that that 17-year-old who likes to sleep in, have fun and makes lots of money grew up."

I will let you know what she says back to me.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:

Well, if there is a moral to this sad story, it is keep clear of consellors. So many, in different walks of life, are self-appointed, and self-designated, without adequate experience, or more importantly, understanding of the vagaries of human existence. Training in some third rate course, or in more elevated academia, is no foundation for guiding others. Pity that Mums, Dads, Grandparents, the local priest or doctor have fallen largely into disuse. Perhaps they are all too busy attending postgrad courses, or upgrades to credit their financial entitlements?
Bitter??? Not me, just sad at some aspects of the modern modus vivendi.

Kalleh,

I didn't say it was impossible to believe; I said it was highly unlikely. Coupled with fact that she doesn't know what she wants to do with her life it seems unlikely that she'd offer the fact that she's not a morning person. Along with the also highly unlikely event that the advisor would give such advice, that makes the whole story impossible to believe.

Snopes's classification system for urban legends includes "identifies a legend of indeterminate origin or unclassifiable veracity" and I think this one falls in that category.

kalleh, coincidentally I often wonder what proportion of Dear Abby are spurious

I did write to Dear Amy to see if she had some other information that she hadn't reported that would perhaps make it more likely to be true. I always thought Dear Abby/Dear Ann Landers were very good at ferreting out the phony letters from the real ones. Remember Ann Landers' Yalies? (Or was it Dear Abby's?)

I suspect either Amy will have other information to validate it as a real letter...or she will get lots of skeptics writing in saying she has been duped. I will report back.

[BTW, should it be Ann Landers's?]

Abby's and Ann Landers's (yes, Kalleh) columns are defunct. Producers of "Dear Amy," in need of publicity, published a mythical letter that has stirred up comments on both sides of the Atlantic. I'll bet even "Amy" is surprised.

If it's okay to use seduction and deception to build meretricious relationships, then either Advice Columnist or Prostitute might be the way to go. Guidance Counsellor might be an even better choice.

Perhaps my questions about this subject have been addressed previously, in which case I missed it, so I feel free to ask: Why are they called urban legends/myths? To characterize them as "urban" somehow begs a contrast with "rural" legends/myths...which I have never heard of. Why not "modern" instead of "urban"? Both "legend" and "myth" reek of age and tradition and to juxtapose either of them with "modern" would seem sooooo much more linguistically interesting than "urban legend/myth". The only reservation I would have about calling them "modern legends" is that, just like jokes, there ain't no new ones. Which brings me to another question: How can this story be considered a "legend"? We know its provenance exactly. Does that not disqualify it as a legend or myth? How many times must a story be repeated before it attains to the exalted status of "myth"? Would not "fiction" or even "lie" be a better fit, presuming, of course, that the story is not true, which is probably the case? Lotsa questions. Help me out here!

Good question. Wikipedia has an article on urban legends, though it really doesn’t answer your question about why the term “urban legend” was chosen. It says that “Jan Harold Brunvand (born 1933), professor emeritus of English at the University of Utah in the United States, first promoted the concept of the urban legend in his 1981 book The Vanishing Hitchhiker: American Urban Legends & Their Meanings,” but the OED Online records its first written use in 1960. Here are some definitions from the OED Online:

• urban folklore orig. and chiefly U.S., the folklore of contemporary industrialized societies; urban legends collectively.
  
  1960 Jrnl. Negro Hist. 45 199 As examples of *urban folklore, another field deserving deeper study, tales like ‘The Ghostly Hitchhiker’ and ‘The Death Car’ are traced in some detail. 1986 Campaign (Nexis) 6 June, Urban folk-lore (which for once seems to be rooted in solid fact) has it that London is carved up between two gangs. 2000 Rocky Mountain News (Denver, Colorado) (Electronic ed.) 28 Oct., ‘It's urban folklore completely,’ he says of the ghost stories. ‘You can't prove any of this.’
  
  
• urban legend orig. U.S. = urban myth.
  
  1968 R. M. DORSON in T. P. Coffin Our Living Traditions xiv. 166 Ubiquitous *urban legends deal with the ghostly hitchhiker,..the stolen grandmother,..and the death car. 1971 Amer. Lit. 43 119 (note ) My colleague, Professor Patrick B. Mullen,..has examined a number of contemporay newspaper stories which reflect this phenomenon. His recent paper on ‘Urban Legend and Rumor Theory’ has been of invaluable assistance to me. 1981 J. H. BRUNVAND (title ) The vanishing hitchhiker: American urban legends and their meanings. 1986 Times (Nexis) 10 Aug., The myths [about radiation from microwave ovens] are called ‘urban legends’ by the Department of Trade. 2001 Washington Times (Electronic ed.) 9 Jan., Recent cyberspace myths have included..the urban legend about prospective gang members who drive with their headlights off and shoot any driver who signals them to turn them on.
  
  
• urban myth orig. U.S., a sensational but apocryphal story which through repetition in varying versions has acquired the status of folklore, esp. one lent plausibility by its contemporary setting, or by the purported involvement of someone known to the teller.
  
  1960 W. H. FRIEDLAND in A. Dubb Myth in Mod. Afr. 83 (title ) Some *urban myths of east Africa. 1986 Toronto Star (Nexis) 18 Apr. D23 Urban myths..are welded together as the story unfolds. 2001 Western Gaz. (Electronic ed.) 11 Jan., A Somerset Women's Institute branch has issued a warning to its members about a telephone scam being operated by jail birds but telecommunications bosses have dismissed it as an urban myth.

Note that the OED equates the terms urban legend and urban myth, while Wikipedia tries to deffirentiate between them.

Tinman

quote:

Producers of "Dear Amy," in need of publicity, published a mythical letter that has stirred up comments on both sides of the Atlantic.

Jer, I hope you didn't think that I thought Ann Landers and Dear Abby are still writing columns. No, they haven't for awhile, you are correct.

Actually, Amy has been publishing her column in Chicago for awhile, too. There was a contest, just as there was for Ann Landers way back when, and Amy won. She obviously receives lots of letters, and I don't think she needs to make them up. As far as that letter not being plausible, as many of you say, I don't buy it. Frankly, I think some of you are being a bit naive. I know the following happened because it happened to my mother, and my father along with other family members were present:

While my mother was still in the hospital after having a baby, her precious baby died. Obviously, my mother was distraught and upset. A Catholic priest came in to console her and said, "You shouldn't feel too bad. After all, maybe he would have grown up to be a criminal."

We expect priests and school counselors and doctors and teachers, etc., to be professional, law-abiding, and ethical. Sometimes they aren't. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that school counselor kiddingly made that comment. Enough said.

Tinman, great research on urban legends and myths. We can always count on you!

quote:

Tinman, great research on urban legends and myths. We can always count on you!

Yep, Tinman's good all right, but I'm not so sure of Wikipedia. I discovered that they think that a turbosupercharger is NOT a supercharger! Go figure... Yeah, yeah, I know, this has nothing to do with urban legends or deceased advice columnists, but it's still the same outfit.

quote:

turbosupercharger is NOT a supercharger!

That's because it's not, I would imagine.

Kalleh, when I saw this ...

quote:

[BTW, should it be Ann Landers's?]

... I thought you were asking if the singular possessive of Landers (Landers's) should be written that way. Silly me, I thought you were asking a general audience, inviting any member of that audience to answer, so I answered. But I abbreviated my answer too much, which led to confusion. On with the show.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:

turbosupercharger is NOT a supercharger!

That's because it's not, I would imagine.

Not so. A device for increasing air pressure over ambient pressure is a supercharger. A turbosupercharger, now commonly shortened to "turbocharger," does it via an exhaust-driven turbine driving a centrifugal compressor. The drive system is irrelevant; Wikipedia is wrong. If I knew how to contact them for a correction, I would, but I can't figure it out. PM me if you know how.

As you might expect, Snopes has a pretty good go at defining an urban legend. They don't say why it is called an urban legend, though.

quote:

Urban legends are best described as cautionary or moralistic tales passed along by those who believe the incidents befell either folks they know personally or acquaintances of friends or family members.

quote:

Not so. A device for increasing air pressure over ambient pressure is a supercharger.

Not in the UK.

I haven't even looked at Wikpedia but I can tell you that here a supercharger is specifically a directly-driven compressor which compresses air or mixture and forces it into the cylinders at higher than atmospheric pressure. A turbocharger (a later invention) does a similar thing but is driven by exhaust gas pressure. The performance is different (there is a lag with a turbocharger) and the names are not interchangeable.

It might be just possible to say that a turbocharger is a form of supercharger but all superchargers are not turbochargers and thus the important difference in nomenclature.

quote:

Originally posted by arnie:
As you might expect, Snopes has a pretty good go at defining an urban legend. They don't say why it is called an urban legend, though.

No, they don't. But I had a closer look at Wikipedia and they note that although these stories often are not in an urban setting, "the name is designed to differentiate them from traditional folklore created in preindustrial times."
Well, I still think a better name could have been used.

Many articles on this subject make two common observations: (a) With repeated tellings, urban legends tend to gradually change to conform to circumstances familiar to the teller and listener. (b) E-mail now makes passing on these stories very easy.
Seems to me that forwarding an e-mail without making any changes is so common and easy that e-mail could eventually kill the genre..... if the stories don't change, they'll gradually get out of context to future listeners and be easily recognized as suspect. That's what I predict will happen.

quote:

... I thought you were asking if the singular possessive of Landers (Landers's) should be written that way. Silly me, I thought you were asking a general audience, inviting any member of that audience to answer, so I answered.

Nope...not silly of you at all. That was exactly what I was asking. "Landers's" seemed odd to me, and I legitimately was asking if that was correct. Thanks for the answer, Jerry!

You had said, "Abby's and Ann Landers's (yes, Kalleh) columns are defunct.", and it seemed to me that you could have thought that I hadn't known they no longer are writing. I do know that. While I don't know much about Dear Abby (except that she was Ann's twin sister), Ann Landers was from Chicago, so I know a lot about her. I always preferred her columns to Abby's, though both appeared on our Chicago Tribune.

I haven't heard from Amy, so we may never know. I guess everyone will assume it was bogus, but I will always wonder.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

quote:

turbosupercharger is NOT a supercharger!

That's because it's not, I would imagine.

http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/history.html

Now what do you say, RE?

quote:

Originally posted by jerry thomas:
Abby's and Ann Landers's (yes, Kalleh) columns ...

I disagree. I think it should be "Abby's and Ann Landers' columns ..."

Tinman

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tinman,

Yeah, what Tinman said!

quote:

I disagree. I think it should be "Abby's and Ann Landers' columns ..."

If the second column is written by several people called Ann Lander, then I agree. If it is written by one person called Ann Lander, then it should be "Ann Lander's". If it is written by one person called Ann Landers, then it should be Anne Landers's - awkward though it sounds.

Because of this awkwardness many nouns with a stressed "s" ending are apostrophised as though they were plural and, in the USA for sure, this has become so common that it will, I suspect, soon be considered correct. And once it's considered correct by the majority then, of course, it will be correct - for this is the way of lingustic change.

quote:

Now what do you say, RE? Wink

Since the article here is writeen by GE (a US company) it is to be expected that they would make great play of the fact that they developed the turbocharger for their aero engines. For the full history of the supercharger (not simply in aviation) look here http://www.superchargersonline.com/content.asp?ID=76

Note that they say, as did I, "...The Turbocharger. You may be wondering where the turbocharger fits in to this equation. Technically, a turbocharger IS a type of supercharger - one that is driven by exhaust gasses rather than from a pulley that draws power from the engine's crank. Because we have covered this topic in depth in our Turbos vs. Superchargers article, we will not re-examine the differences again here. Because the turbocharger relies on a technology substantially different from the three traditional supercharger technologies discussed above, it is beyond the scope of this article..."

The difference in nomenclature is important and, if it is not appreciated in the USA, then that is regretable.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:

If the second column is written by several people called Ann Lander, then I agree. If it is written by one person called Ann Lander, then it should be "Ann Lander's". If it is written by one person called Ann Landers, then it should be Anne Landers's - awkward though it sounds.

I agree completely with Richard and Jerry on this.

The APS FAQ on this matter.

quote:

turbocharger relies on a technology substantially different from the three traditional supercharger technologies discussed above, it is beyond the scope of this article..."

The difference in nomenclature is important and, if it is not appreciated in the USA, then that is regretable.

I must admit defeat, RE. You and Wikipedia are correct. The simple fact that turboSUPERCHARGERS ARE superchargers is rejected by most of the English speaking world, so, like Galileo, I'll concede before being declared a heretic. The earth is the center of the universe, and turbosuperchargers are not superchargers.

I suppose you are right about "Landers's", too. We have talked about this before; however, it just didn't look right. Neither does "Illinois's." I recently rewrote a sentence to avoid using "Illinois's" as I was afraid that people would think I was mistaken. I think this way is more accepted in Britain than in the states. If you recall, all our style guides list both ways (that is, Illinois' or Illinois's). From where does APS originate?

How to form the possessive of singular names (and other words) ending in s, that is the question. But what's the answer? Jack Lynch of Rutgers University (Guide to Grammar and Style) seems to prefer the 's, but says it's a matter of house style.

The only time for hesitation is when you have a singular noun that ends in s or an s sound: bus, James, house. This is a matter of house style: most guides suggest the same rules as before: the bus's route, James's friends, my house's roof. Others suggest just an apostrophe without the additional s. [Entry added 12 July 2005.]

Lynch also says, "There are countless writing guides, most of them awful."

The Elements of Style, written in 1918 by William Strunk, says it should be 's.

Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's.

Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,

Charles's friend
Burns's poems
the witch's malice

This is the usage of the United States Government Printing Office and of the Oxford University Press.

Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in - es and - is , the possessive Jesus' , and such forms as for conscience' sake , for righteousness' sake . But such forms as Achilles' heel , Moses' laws , Isis' temple are commonly replaced by

the heel of Achilles
the laws of Moses
the temple of Isis

The Chicago Manual of Style prefers ‘s …

Q. How does one make the following names possessive (and all first names that end in “s”)? James, Iris.

A. Chicago style adds an apostrophe and an s: James’s, Iris’s. But please see CMS 7.17–23 for more examples and exceptions to the rule.

… but says either is correct.

Q. When indicating possession of a word that ends in s, is it correct to repeat the s, after using an apostrophe? For example, which is correct: “Dickens’ novel” or “Dickens’s novel”?

A. Either is correct, though CMS 15 recommends the latter. Please consult 7.18–22 for a full discussion of the rules for forming the possessive of proper nouns, including exceptions and examples. For a simpler statement of the rule, see paragraph 5.26. For a discussion of the alternative practice of simply adding an apostrophe to form the possessive of proper nouns ending in s, see paragraph 7.23.

The American Heritage® Book of English Usage, 1996, prefers ‘s.

The possessive case of a singular noun is formed by adding –’s: one’s home, by day’s end, our family’s pet, the witness’s testimony, a fox’s habitat, the knife’s edge. Note that although some people use just the apostrophe after singular nouns ending in s (the witness’ testimony, Burns’ poetry), the -’s is generally preferred because it more accurately reflects the modern pronunciation of these forms. However, in a few cases where the -’s is not pronounced, it is usual to add just the apostrophe: for righteousness’ (appearance’) sake. … By convention, however, certain proper nouns ending in s form the possessive by adding just the apostrophe since adding -’s would make the pronunciation difficult or awkward: Jesus’ teachings, Moses’ children, Achilles’ heel Hercules’ strength, Ramses’ reign, Xerxes’ conquest.

I remember learning to just add an apostophe, but those American sources I quoted preferred 's.

I couldn't find many online British sources. There is a source, xrefer.com, that offers access to about 200 reference sources. I used to access it often, until it became a subscription service for libraries. But individuals and libraries can try it for free for a month. Maybe you can talk your library into subscribing.

One of the sources I used to get through xrefer isThe Oxford Companion to the English Language edited by Tom McArthur. I can't get it online anymore, but I can quote from the 1992 edition (Oxford University Press).

The conventions for the use of the possessive apostrophe in late 20C standard English are: singular nouns add ‘s (known as apostrophe s), as in John's new suit and Your Mother's job. Plural nouns have s' (known as s apostrophe) as in the Smiths' cat and my parents' house (the house belonging to my parents). If a plural does not end in s, an apostrophe s is added: the children’s food. Such a phrase as the sheep’s behaviour is ambiguous out of context: it can be singular or plural. Beyond this point difficulties and inconsistencies are as common in the 1990s as in earlier times, especially with proper nouns. Singular use varies with place-names (St John’s, Newfoundland, but St Albans, England and St Andrews, Scotland). There has been an accelerating tendency since the turn of the century to drop the apostrophe in the names of organizations and publications as well as place-names, as in: Barclays Bank, Collins English Dictionary, Crows Nest, Debenhams, Harrods, Marks and Spencers, McMahans Point, Pikes Peak. …

There is widespread inconsistency and uncertainty in the use of the apostrophe when a singular noun already ends in –s. Traditional usage adds the apostrophe s if it is pronounced: the boss’s explanation. With names of classical origin, a second s is not usually added, especially when the end sound of the word is /z/ rather than /s/: Xerxes’ battle, Socrates’ pupils. In speaking, a further syllable is less likely with such names as Xerxes’, where the last syllable already has two sibilant sounds, but might or might not be pronounced with Socrates’. With non-classical names ending in –s, again spoken and written forms may or may not have the same number of syllables. With short names, an extra syllable is generally pronounced, although the possessive can be written either way: Mr. Harris’ job , Mr. Harris’s job; Keats’ poetry, Keats’s poetry. The extra syllable for Jesus is optional in both writing and speech: in Jesus’ name, in Jesus’s name. The possessive plural of a singular name ending in –s (Jones) may be written either ‘s or s’: the Jones’s house; the Jones’ house. The tendency seems to be toward simplification and omitting the apostrophe: a century ago, Chambers English Dictionary was Chambers’s English Dictionary.

Fowler's Modern English Usage Third Edition (Oxford University Press, 1996) says pretty much the same thing.

Michael Swan, in the second edition of Practical English Usage (Oxford University Press, 1995), says “We sometimes just add an apostrophe (') to a singular noun ending in -s, especially in older and foreign names. But 's is more common.”

See what Michael Quinion says on World Wide Words.

Tinman

I edited this to correct a mistake that Cat and Bob pointed out. The corrections are in red. Thanks for catching it. I hope I got everything right this time.

Tinman

This message has been edited. Last edited by: tinman,

If I read this aright, all US style guides say that singular nouns ending in "s" are made possessive by adding apostrophe s - just as do British style guides. It's just that most Americans don't believe them!

By the way, what about Finnegans Wake?

quote:

Originally posted by tinman:
my parent’s house (the house belonging to my parents)

I don't understand this: why isn't it 'my parents' house'? A person can have one parent or two parents, so technically it's not a plural noun like 'children'. I know it's very unlikely that one would use the word parent in the singular (preferring 'mum' or 'dad'), but surely that's not the reason?

Can someone enlighten me?

Cat the temporarily confused

quote:

Originally posted by Cat:

quote:

Originally posted by tinman:
my parent’s house (the house belonging to my parents)

I don't understand this: why isn't it 'my parents' house'? A person can have one parent or two parents, so technically it's not a plural noun like 'children'. I know it's very unlikely that one would use the word parent in the singular (preferring 'mum' or 'dad'), but surely that's not the reason?

Can someone enlighten me?

Cat the temporarily confused

Because the article is wrong.

You're right. I typed it wrong. I managed to skip over an entire line. I'll go back and correct it.

Tinman

I found this on another forum.

Tinman

That's s'uper, Tinman! Thank's!
A'sa the A's's

Oh cool; I'm not as thick as I thought I was.

Hooray for typo's! (sic )

quote:

It's just that most Americans don't believe them!

When we first started talking about "Charles's" (or whatever), I gave in and said I'd stop writing "Charles' paper", and for the most part I have. However, after other discussions here about overly fastidious prescriptivism, I have changed my mind. I will either write "Charles' paper" or change the wording, from now on. The s's ending looks ridiculous to me, and even though sources prefer it, they accept the other way, at least here in the U.S.

quote:

Originally posted by Richard English:
If I read this aright, all US style guides say that singular nouns ending in "s" are made possessive by adding apostrophe s - just as do British style guides.

Yes, Richard, you can gloat. The four US style guides I cited did prefer the apostrope s, but they all, except for Strunk, accepted the s apostrophe. Somehow, you managed to extrapolate those four into all.

Lynch said he preferred the apostrophe s, but that it was a matter of house style. CMS also preferred apostrophe s, but said either is correct, specifically Dickens's or Dickens'. AH also said the possessive is formed by adding apostrophe s, but acknowledged that many people use only the apostrophe. It said the apostrophe s is "generally preferred," but stopped short of outright condemning s apostrophe.

In fact, even the British sources do not condemn that usage. The Oxford Companion says, "With short names, an extra syllable is generally pronounced, although the possessive can be written either way: Mr. Harris’ job , Mr. Harris’s job; Keats’ poetry, Keats’s poetry," and Practical English Usage says, “We sometimes just add an apostrophe (') to a singular noun ending in -s, especially in older and foreign names. But 's is more common.” All the sources noted exceptions.

Tinman

quote:

Somehow, you managed to extrapolate those four into all.

Maybe I should have said, "All the guides quoted" - as I do not know too much about US style gudes and would never usually refer to one.

quote:

I will either write "Charles' paper" or change the wording,

The question I would ask is, "How do you pronounce the word?"

If you say "Charlesez" then you should write it "Charles's"; if you say "Charlz" then you should write "Charles'"

I'm willing to bet you pronounce the word in the former manner, in which you have no excuse for incorrectly punctuating it ;-) And, incidentally, this is exactly what The Times's style guide says, and I quote, " Apostrophes with proper names/nouns ending in s that are singular, follow the rule of writing what is voiced, eg. Keats's poetry, Sobers's batting, The Times's style (or Times style); and with names where the final "s" is soft, use the "s" apostrophe, eg Rabelais' writings, Delors' presidency; plurals follow normal form, as Lehman Borthers' loss etc."

I make no apology for preferring to use the style guide produced by one of the world's oldest and most respected newspapers.

Just because a word looks peculiar or unfamiliar that doesn't mean its spelling should be changed. After all, most people are very happy to write fo'c'sle (for forecastle) strange though it looks with its two apostrophes.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Richard English,

quote:

this is exactly what The Times's style guide says, and I quote, " Apostrophes with proper names/nouns ending in s that are singular, follow the rule of writing what is voiced, eg. Keats's poetry, Sobers's batting, The Times's style (or Times style); and with names where the final "s" is soft, use the "s" apostrophe, eg Rabelais' writings, Delors' presidency; plurals follow normal form, as Lehman Borthers' loss etc."

I make no apology for preferring to use the style guide produced by one of the world's oldest and most respected newspapers.

And I make no apology for questioning it.

The problem with their reasoning is that English pronunciation varies from place to place. This rule makes correct style dependent on local custom, and if that's the case, why have any rules at all? Weec'n all, y'know, jes rite like we tok.

Stick an 's on the end and pronounce it however you want.

Is it me, or do an inordinate number of our discussions devolve into these kinds of matters? : )

quote:

The four US style guides I cited did prefer the apostrophe s, but they all, except for Strunk, accepted the s apostrophe.

Well, that really is persuasive about using the s apostrophe; I abhor Strunk.

quote:

eg. Keats's poetry, Sobers's batting, The Times's style

I say all 3 of those with a soft s, that is, "Keats poetry."

quote:

I make no apology for preferring to use the style guide produced by one of the world's oldest and most respected newspapers.

And you shouldn't. One thing I have learned here is to be more fluid with and accepting of grammar/punctuation. What brought the issue to light for me was when I wrote a very important letter, and I used the word "Illinois's." I had wanted to make a good impression, and I was afraid they'd think I was wrong. Therefore, I reworded the sentence so as to avoid the use.

quote:

and I used the word "Illinois's." I had wanted to make a good impression, and I was afraid they'd think I was wrong. Therefore, I reworded the sentence so as to avoid the use.

Rewording is usually the best option, to my mind.

So far as Illinois is concerned, I thought it ended with the softest of soft esses when pronounced - Illinoy - and thus I believe that the "Illinois'" formation would probably be correct according to "The Times".

I accept your point about local pronunciation differences but I am not convinced that there are too many differences in the way that, say, "boss" is prounounced worldwide. But that is a prime candidate for the "spell it boss' but pronounce it bossez" syndrome.

quote:

Originally posted by Seanahan:
Is it me, or do an inordinate number of our discussions devolve into these kinds of matters? : )

Far too many. It's old ground, frequently trod, and the scenery on this familiar path gets rather tedious at times.

Well you take a different road and I'll meet you at the other end .