The grammar wank ends HERE.

[cleolinda]

Look, I don't mind grammar discussion in the Troy comments. What I do mind is the attitude (falling on both sides of the matter, by the way), that OMG YOU ARE SO STUPID if you learned it one way or the other.

Here's what the Chicago Manual of Style has to say:

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 [Dickens's]. 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. [Granted, I can't get anything on special cases like "Moses" or "Jesus" or, apparently, "Achilles" to come up on their site, and I don't have the book on hand.]

Another site cites Strunk's Elements of Style:

Some writers will say that the -s after Charles' is not necessary and that adding only the apostrophe (Charles' car) will suffice to show possession. Consistency is the key here: if you choose not to add the -s after a noun that already ends in s, do so consistently throughout your text. William Strunk's Elements of Style recommends adding the 's. (In fact, oddly enough, it's Rule Number One in Strunk's "Elementary Rules of Usage.") You will find that some nouns, especially proper nouns, especially when there are other -s and -z sounds involved, turn into clumsy beasts when you add another s: "That's old Mrs. Chambers's estate." In that case, you're better off with "Mrs. Chambers' estate."


My point is, NO ONE CAN AGREE ON THE MATTER. In fact, the current academic predilection seems to be towards s's, while everyone in practice wants to use only s'. There's enough dissension that, as the second site recommends, consistency is the key more than anything. So everyone chill, okay?



ETA: Look, it's my horoscope for today:

Quickie: A friendly debate is just that: friendly. It's not as important as you think.

Comments

s's'

[house-monkey.livejournal.com]

Wow, some people will bitch about anything. You have my sympathy.

Re: s's'

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

Well, I did open the floor to discussion. It was more the attitude that was getting to me. A few people on both sides of the issue were getting all "OMG you heathen, who taught you THAT?" at me or other commenters, and given the "either is correct"/lack of definitive academic agreement, I was geting tired of the attitude. Serves me right, I guess. :)

[count-01.livejournal.com]

I am more comfortable with the "archaic" version, which is just throwing an apostrophe on words ending in s. Call me a relic if you must.

On the other hand, I'm so much cooler than anyone else, I can't possiby be bothered with how anyone else does it anyway, so there.

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

And that's fine. I rather prefer s' myself. I was just getting tired of the poster-to-poster bitching, really.

The English perspective (as opposed to American)

[(Anonymous)]

H. W. Fowler, in his 'Dictionary of Modern English Usage' (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1926) has an entry 'Possessive puzzles', in which item 1 reads:

1. Septimus's, Achilles'. It was formerly customary, when a word ended in -s, to write its possessive with an apostrophe but no additional s, e.g. Mars' hill, Venus' Bath, Achilles' thews. In verse, & in poetic or reverential contexts, this custom is retained, & the number of syllables is the same as in the subjective case, e.g. Achilles' has three, not four; Jesus' or of Jesus, not Jesus's. But elsewhere we now add the s & the syllable, Charles's Wain, St James's not St James', Jones's children, the Rev. Septimus's surplice, Pythagoras's doctrines.

[theonlykow.livejournal.com]

It's the same as the "comma list" issue. Do you use a comma after the second to last item in a list (buns, milk, and hot dogs) or not (buns, milk and hot dogs).

It's a pesonal preference. Lay off our lovely Cleo.

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

And lay off each other, too, OR I CUT YOU.

(Aww, thanks.)

What I learned.

[(Anonymous)]

The way I learned it was if you were someone that everyone would recognize, such as Achillies or Dickens or Moses, then you use s'. But if it's just some run of the mill Charles then you would use s's.

[cavalier.livejournal.com]

Like OMGWTFBBQ I can't believe petty people are railing on you for your GRAMMAR in such a wonderfully funny piece. Maybe it's the signal ratio now that you appear to have hit every blog in the universe (welcome to your very own AYB (http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.planetstarseige.com/allyourbase/&e=7627) meme). Holy crap did I just use the word meme. Shoot me now.

Anyway. Just keep your head up and your delete key flexed. You are bound to find more fans (Hi!) then foes with your great wit and obvious style (whether or not it fits Grammar School A or B style is another thing).

And I realize that grammatical encouragement doesn't mean much coming from a (parenthetical addict), so, um, Moo. And thanks again for sharing your creativity!

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

Aww, thanks. (Seriously, am I capable of starting a reply comment with a word other than "Awww"? Looks like not.) I'll live. Besides, I've only gotten the very vaguest of negative comments, which has got to be some kind of record. (And what's with this whole Every Blog on the Intarweb thing? I'm flattered, but... it's kinda freaking me out.)

[fanofall.livejournal.com]

I seriously thought for a moment that you were kidding.

But no, sadly, you are dead serious. That's so wrong. Grammar Nazi shouldn't have to police her own site.

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

Grammar Pirate. Arrrr.

(No, really. I was a pirate for a whole day last year. (http://cleolinda.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_cleolinda_archive.html#10640208342120745) I can't wait for September 19th to roll around again.)

[cygnus.livejournal.com]

I'll agree with you, on the point that no one can agree. Not sure if you're aware of grammarpolice, but you'd likely fit right in. We just looooove rambling on about apostrophes! ;)

Just found your LJ through niugnep, as he pointed to your adaptation of "Troy"... *cough* *choke* I've not read anything quite as funny as that in a long time. Please do more. I vote for "Hellboy", myself.

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

There's a place where I can ramble on about apostrophes... AND SOMEONE WILL UNDERSTAND?? Why wasn't I informed of this earlier? Ye poor misunderstood apostrophe, why art thou so abusèd?

OK, I'll stop now and join the Grammar Police. And then I'll be done.

Sorry for rambling.

The apostrophe made me.

[torificus.livejournal.com]

...are you serious? After all the hilarity and amusement of the Troy-ness, and people (incorrectly) commented to insult your grammar? Ha!

That's so sad of them...

[janegraddell.livejournal.com]

This may amuse you.

From the CMS 15th Ed, 7.17, regarding the general rule on possessives:

Since feelings on these matters sometimes run high....

Heh. No shit, Sherlock. :)

I can't get anything on special cases like "Moses" or "Jesus" or, apparently, "Achilles" to come up on their site, and I don't have the book on hand.

7.20 Names like "Euripides." The possessive is formed without an additional s for a name of two or more syllables that ends in an eez sound.

Euripedes' tragedies
the Ganges' source
Xerxes' armies

Also, "Jesus's contemporaries" is used as an example for 7.22, so there's apparently not a special rule for Jesus.

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

Heh. Seriously, I searched CMS, and that exact heading--7.20 Names like "Euripides"--came up, and CMS said, "There now, see? There's your answer, right there under that heading. Wouldn't you like to BUY OUR BOOK now and look it up?" Bastages.

[mental-thatone.livejournal.com]

I so just friended you. I wanted to the other day when I read the Troy thing and DIED from hilarity, but I was scared you'd be all psssh, but then I read the FAQ thingy so yay. xD

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

Man, I still feel weird about writing a freakin' FAQ. I will friend until I can't friend no more, trust me. :)

Arr. Lol.

[haleiwatown.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that.

I gave Troy a second viewing (and a second 20.00) tonight, and found it impossible to be serious because bits of your parody kept coming back to me for the entire 3 hours. Even my 5-year-old was laughing at the "Hec-TORRRRR" tonight.

Re. the grammar lesson, I suspected it was one of those issues the entire human race is divided about. I haven't read the posts debating it in your journal, but hopefully your aggro stops here.

Added you, btw.

/wank

[rosiegalbasi.livejournal.com]

This is one of those things that make me want to kill English. But then I wouldn't have a major.

It's just an apostrophe, people. Get over it. >

[darkspear.livejournal.com]

35 comments?!?! wtf?!?! on grammar?!?! this is AMAZING...

[robling-t.livejournal.com]

In a fit of confusion I once had a character cite the collective plural of a group named "Cleverhands" as "the Cleverhandses". Lord knows how she'd render the possessives but I suspect it would involve a lot of spitting. ;)

[venuslovesyou.livejournal.com]

grammar has always been a touchy subject.

[edda.livejournal.com]

When in doubt, write like Gollum. That's about all the grammar fallback I have. We hasss. My precioussss.

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

Oh good! Because I can do that. Actually, I think my automatic fallback is pirate speak. THE CAP'N BE KEELHAULIN' THE NEXT SCURVY WOODWORM WHO QUESTIONS ME GRAMMAR. ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!

[katiefoolery.livejournal.com]

I used to just stop with an apostrophe, but I was told of a rule that I have stuck by ever since: if you pronounce the second 's' then put it, if you don't pronounce the second 's', then leave it out.

Ah, grammar. If only more people loved it.

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

Actually? That's a really good rule, because it's easy to remember and it focuses on the real utility of grammar, which is 1) to make things clear and 2) to make things sound better.

[thayleia.livejournal.com]

Heheh

To quote my Comp II teacher in college (spelled out phonetically for impact):

Only use an apostrophe at the end of a name ending in S to show possession. An example: "We took Charles' car to the theater." Not "We took Charleses car to the theater." It just sounds too damn ghetto.

I loved that teacher!

the plurality of S (<-- sounds like a bad romantic comedy)

[deightine.livejournal.com]

Here is a link to the comment I -wanted- to leave but... Well, it was 5128 characters, and it limits to 4300. I warn you, its dense (in my opinion)... But terribly interesting. Or so I hope. Either way, here's my two cents:

http://www.livejournal.com/users/deightine/1219.html

[tundraeternal.livejournal.com]

Hiya! I'm friending you because you're totally funny and fabulous and uh furry and other words that start with the letter f. So i want to read your journal, but i doubt you want to read mine, and i know you get about four hundred comments every ten minutes, so go on and ignore me, i just thought i'd say keep up the good work!

[harping.livejournal.com]

Wow
I had no idea it could be so contentious. But then again, I haven't read the infamous "Eats, shoots and leaves: the zero tolerance approach to punctuation" by Lynne Truss yet....... (apparently, it's worth it, but mainly if you are a fairly psychopathic pedant as far as grammar goes)

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

I haven't read it either, and I'm starting to wonder if I even want to. My problem isn't with the kind of grammatical question that takes 30 people and five different reference books to answer--it's with people who can't even match a subject with a verb properly, and, moreover, don't even care.

[magentathompson.livejournal.com]

Okay, your icon? Cracks my shit all the way up.

[tiarlynn.livejournal.com]

Hi, you don't know me, but I am a Grammar Nazi and can say irrevocably that "Dickens's" is correct—traditionally. You alwaysalwaysalways add apostrophe "s" if the word isn't plural, regardless of the ending. You will find that some of the more stuck-up guides like Fowler's, etc. will consistently uphold this traditional rule, along with some other rules that modern grammarians might call archaic, such as those against ending an independent clause with a preposition, against starting sentences with "and" or "but," and regarding the whole "who"/"whom" debacle. These days, "Dickens'" is more or less accepted because everyone has decided that "Dickins's" looks stupid, but it's not technically correct.

Still, as a fan of Fiddler on the Roof, I personally favor a more traditional approach.

One of my favorite modern grammar books is a nice synthesis of the bug-up-the-ass Fowler's and, let's say, the traditional AOL user's grammar. The book, by Patricia T. O'Conner, is called Woe is I and has this to say on the matter:

·If the word is singular, always add add 's, regardless of its ending. The waider spilled red wine on Demi's dress, which came from Kansas's finest shop.
·If the word is plurarl and doesn't already end in s, add 's: The children's menu was a rip-off, and the men's room was painted fuschia.
·If the word is plural and ends in s, add just the apostrophe: The Willises' car was stolen by the valet parking attendant.

This is how I was always taught about plurals and possesives, and this is what I follow—as far as I'm concerned, there's not much controversy about which way is correct, but many people use the incorrect anyway. I will forever be awkwardly rewording my sentences so that they don't end with "for" or "of," and so I will be forever adhering to the most stringent rules of grammar as I know them.

To each their own.

[cleolinda.livejournal.com]

That's pretty much what I was taught, with the addition of "Except when it looks dumb, at which point it's every man for himself." No wonder everyone's so confused.

[(Anonymous)]

If you really want to give the anally-retentive a nether-spasm, play fast and loose with a serial comma, begin a sentence with a conjunction, or split an infinitive.

While they are writhing through their retention dance, think about this: by definition, 50% of the population is below average in intelligence. It's reasonable to assume that your critics have a 50/50 chance of being headed in the wrong direction on the path of evolution.

From another perspective, nearly 2/3 of the population is tightly clustered between "not that bright" and "not that stupid." The rules provide the external structure they need to make sense of the world.

Of the remaining third, roughly half are either "that stupid" or "that smart."

It is reasonable to assume that potential critics who are that stupid will not linger long enough to read or comment. Without glistening pudendal mucosa being in lurid abundance, you've lost their attention.

Those who are that smart perceive the rules as guidelines, and not as rules of engagement. They usually have other things to ponder.

So, at best, your critics are not that smart. Sadly, most of them are headed the wrong way down Darwin Lane.

Cheers!

givzerhead@yahoo.com

P.S. Thanks for the reference links.