The grammar wank ends HERE.
May. 20th, 2004 05:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cleolindaLook, 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
s's'
Date: 2004-05-20 03:50 pm (UTC)Re: s's'
Date: 2004-05-20 03:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 03:59 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 04:01 pm (UTC)The English perspective (as opposed to American)
Date: 2004-05-20 04:02 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 04:12 pm (UTC)It's a pesonal preference. Lay off our lovely Cleo.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 04:15 pm (UTC)OR I CUT YOU.(Aww, thanks.)
What I learned.
Date: 2004-05-20 04:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 04:23 pm (UTC)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!
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 04:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 04:26 pm (UTC)But no, sadly, you are dead serious. That's so wrong. Grammar Nazi shouldn't have to police her own site.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 04:28 pm (UTC)(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.)
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 04:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 04:36 pm (UTC)Just found your LJ through
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 04:39 pm (UTC)That's so sad of them...
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 04:43 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 04:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 04:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 05:27 pm (UTC)crimebad grammar?no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 05:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 06:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 06:18 pm (UTC)Nevertheless, point taken on the folly of getting bitchy over grammar. *hands out valium to the masses*
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 06:26 pm (UTC)You were mentioned on Boing Boing here (http://www.boingboing.net/2004/05/19/troy_in_15_very_funn.html), and that led to you being mentioned on MetaFilter here (http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/33207). One of those alone is usually good for about 10-15 knock off links, but both of them together and you will be surfing the east and west coasts, so, um, cowabunga!
Technorati (Silicon Valley geekiness that tries to track blogs), has Troy pegged with about (http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/search.html?rank=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.livejournal.com%2Fusers%2Fcleolinda%2F99710.html&sub=Go%21) 53 links so far, and Blogdex (same kinda thing) started (http://blogdex.net/track.asp?id=9547784) tracking you today.
And all the power to you, I mean, it's smart(tm), and it's good(tm), so they will come. I like this whole internewt thing. Cream rises, freely distributed. :)
Arr. Lol.
Date: 2004-05-20 06:56 pm (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2004-05-20 07:23 pm (UTC)It's just an apostrophe, people. Get over it. >