Sibilant Possessives
Bridgewalker J the Chestnut Cockatiel
Hyphenation_ (© 1955) states that that for sibilant sounds, you should
"drop the _s_ and add only an apostrophe to form the possessive when the
use of _'s_ would cause a hissing or an awkward sound. The book then gives
examples such as "Moses' rod," "executrix' power," " for conscience' sake,"
"for goodness' sake," and "for appearance' sake."
Apostrophe uses such as "executrix'," "conscience'," and "appearance'"
aren't still in effect, are they? What would be the method to use now?
Thank you in advance for any help.
______________________________________________________
Bridgewalker J, the Chestnut Cockatiel
( b r i d g e w a l k e r _ j @ i N a m e . c o m )
Making it with MiniDisc
Robert Lieblich
>
> _Secretary's Desk Guide to Punctuation and Spelling, Word Division and
> Hyphenation_ (© 1955) states that that for sibilant sounds, you should
> "drop the _s_ and add only an apostrophe to form the possessive when the
> use of _'s_ would cause a hissing or an awkward sound. The book then gives
> examples such as "Moses' rod," "executrix' power," " for conscience' sake,"
> "for goodness' sake," and "for appearance' sake."
>
> Apostrophe uses such as "executrix'," "conscience'," and "appearance'"
> aren't still in effect, are they? What would be the method to use now?
There is no clear answer, because practice differs. The issue is whether
to use only an apostrophe or to use apostrophe-s when forming the
possessive of a singular word ending in the letter "s" or in a sibilant
sound. There are at least four rules: (1) Always use apostrophe-s.
(2) Always use only the apostrophe. (3) Use apostrophe-s except where
the word ends with the letter "s". (4) Write it the way you say it.
The first is fading; few people these days would ever write
"conscience'". But the third is alive and well: many people write
"Charles'".
But most people say what sounds like "Charleses" for the singular
possessive of "Charles," so most people write it "Charles's". Most, but
by no means all. And some of them always write apostrophe-s, so they
even write "for Jesus's sake" even if they would say "for Jesus sake"
for the singular possessive.
My inclination is to write it the way I say it. Put the words on paper,
imagine yourself saying them aloud, and "listen" to what you say. If you
pronounce the "s" as part of the possessive, write it down. This leads
to "for Jesus' sake," "for Charles's sake," and "for conscience's sake,"
because that's how I say them --- the first without the added "s", the
other two with them. I'd also say (taking some examples from your book)
"Moses's rod" and "executrix's power," so that's how I spell them.
I wish there were one simple rule, but there isn't. I do urge you to
avoid the one that would have you always omitting the "s" after the
apostrophe. But the decision is ultimately yours. Good luck.
Bob Lieblich
Mahatma Caine Jeeves
<78q00h$e...@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>...
<<_Secretary's Desk Guide to Punctuation and Spelling, Word Division
and Hyphenation_ (© 1955) states that that for sibilant sounds, you
should "drop the _s_ and add only an apostrophe to form the
possessive when the use of _'s_ would cause a hissing or an awkward
sound. The book then gives examples such as "Moses' rod," "executrix'
power," " for conscience' sake," "for goodness' sake," and "for
appearance' sake.">>
This is absolutely incorrect. Dropping the S, as suggested above,
would not even give these forms, but rather "Mose' rod", "executric'
power","for conscien' sake", "for goodne' sake", etc.
--
(Reply to SteveMacGregor at InfiCad dot Com)
---------------------------------------------------------
Whom are you going to call? GRAMMAR BUSTERS!!!
---------------------------------------------------------
Charles Riggs
<lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>Bridgewalker J the Chestnut Cockatiel wrote:
>>
>> _Secretary's Desk Guide to Punctuation and Spelling, Word Division and
>> Hyphenation_ (? 1955) states that that for sibilant sounds, you should
>> "drop the _s_ and add only an apostrophe to form the possessive when the
>> use of _'s_ would cause a hissing or an awkward sound. The book then gives
>> examples such as "Moses' rod," "executrix' power," " for conscience' sake,"
>> "for goodness' sake," and "for appearance' sake."
>>
Being somewhat of an expert on this tiny example of English usage, I
say Charles's.
Charles
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
writes:
>Being somewhat of an expert on this tiny example of English usage, I
>say Charles's.
I respect your expert credentials, and I concur. In my own particular area of
specialization, it is my expert opinion that the singular possessive is
"Williams's" and the plural "Williamses'".
I do have a problem with tripled sibilants, so tend not to sound (or write)
the genitive -'s in words like Jesus's and Moses's. But doubling a sibilant
doesn't seem to me like too much to ask.
Gary Williams
K1912
[...]
>>I wish there were one simple rule, but there isn't. I do urge you to
>>avoid the one that would have you always omitting the "s" after the
>>apostrophe. But the decision is ultimately yours. Good luck.
>>
>>Bob Lieblich
>
>Being somewhat of an expert on this tiny example of English usage, I
>say Charles's.
>
And so does the first rule one the first page of "The Element of Style":
1. _Form the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's.
Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Thus write,
Charles's friend
Burns's poems
the witche's malice
George
K1912
Bridgewalker J the Chestnut Cockatiel
>There is no clear answer, because practice differs. The issue is whether
>to use only an apostrophe or to use apostrophe-s when forming the
>possessive of a singular word ending in the letter "s" or in a sibilant
>sound. There are at least four rules: (1) Always use apostrophe-s.
>(2) Always use only the apostrophe. (3) Use apostrophe-s except where
>the word ends with the letter "s". (4) Write it the way you say it.
>The first is fading; few people these days would ever write
>"conscience'". But the third is alive and well: many people write
>"Charles'".
>
>But most people say what sounds like "Charleses" for the singular
>possessive of "Charles," so most people write it "Charles's". Most, but
>by no means all. And some of them always write apostrophe-s, so they
>even write "for Jesus's sake" even if they would say "for Jesus sake"
>for the singular possessive.
Does this mean that it is not considered wrong or bad style to have
multiple versions of possessives in a document (perhaps "Charles's," then
later "Jesus'")?
______________________________________________________
Bridgewalker J, the Chestnut Cockatiel
( b r i d g e w a l k e r _ j @ i N a m e . c o m )
Making it with MiniDisc / 'Postrophe fan
Robert Lieblich
<snip>
> Does this mean that it is not considered wrong or bad style to have
> multiple versions of possessives in a document (perhaps "Charles's," then
> later "Jesus'")?
It is not wrong as long as you are consistent in your practice. If it's
Charles's in one paragraph and Charles' in another, the reader will be
brought up short. But Charles's and Jesus' are each legitimate on their
own under the "spell as you say it" rule. No problem.
Well, there is one problem. Because there are so many inconsistent
rules that can be invoked to answer the same question, some people are
going to complain (to themselves, of course, and you'll never know) no
matter what you do. (I'll spare you the details of of how a US Court of
Appeals, no less, took the time to correct my 's to plain s in quoting
my brief several times. They outranked me; they could do it.) Same
with "who/whom" in certain contexts and "shall/will" and several others.
There are individual words that cause problems -- is "data" singular or
plural? Is "media"? You simply have to decide what practice you will
follow and stick with it, realizing that someone is going to be unhappy
no matter what you do.
Or learn another language.
Bob Lieblich
Charles Riggs
<lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>Bridgewalker J the Chestnut Cockatiel wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Does this mean that it is not considered wrong or bad style to have
>> multiple versions of possessives in a document (perhaps "Charles's," then
>> later "Jesus'")?
>
>It is not wrong as long as you are consistent in your practice. If it's
>Charles's in one paragraph and Charles' in another, the reader will be
>brought up short. But Charles's and Jesus' are each legitimate on their
>own under the "spell as you say it" rule. No problem.
A problem for me. I would write it as I say it and I wouldn't say
"Jesus' life". Isn't it "Jesus's life"?
Charles
Robert Lieblich
>
> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:38:39 -0500, Robert Lieblich
> <lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >It is not wrong as long as you are consistent in your practice. If it's
> >Charles's in one paragraph and Charles' in another, the reader will be
> >brought up short. But Charles's and Jesus' are each legitimate on their
> >own under the "spell as you say it" rule. No problem.
>
> A problem for me. I would write it as I say it and I wouldn't say
> "Jesus' life". Isn't it "Jesus's life"?
As the baker said, six-and-a-half of one, half a dozen of the other.
The real crunch comes with something like "Jesus'[s] sake." If you
don't add the "s" for that one, what do you do with, say, "Jesus'[s]
preachings"?
I have no answer. I rarely have occasion to mention Jesus. Or Moses,
for that matter. After all, I'm a lawyer.
Bob Lieblich
Robert M. Wilson
Robert Lieblich wrote in message <36B329...@erols.com>...
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:38:39 -0500, Robert Lieblich
>> <lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >It is not wrong as long as you are consistent in your practice. If it's
>> >Charles's in one paragraph and Charles' in another, the reader will be
>> >brought up short. But Charles's and Jesus' are each legitimate on their
>> >own under the "spell as you say it" rule. No problem.
>>
>> A problem for me. I would write it as I say it and I wouldn't say
>> "Jesus' life". Isn't it "Jesus's life"?
>
>As the baker said, six-and-a-half of one, half a dozen of the other.
>The real crunch comes with something like "Jesus'[s] sake." If you
>don't add the "s" for that one, what do you do with, say, "Jesus'[s]
>preachings"?
There is a tendency to add the * 's* with one syllable words and drop the
*s* with two or more.
I suspect that this follows natural pronunciation.
Charles Riggs
<lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:38:39 -0500, Robert Lieblich
>> <lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >It is not wrong as long as you are consistent in your practice. If it's
>> >Charles's in one paragraph and Charles' in another, the reader will be
>> >brought up short. But Charles's and Jesus' are each legitimate on their
>> >own under the "spell as you say it" rule. No problem.
>>
>> A problem for me. I would write it as I say it and I wouldn't say
>> "Jesus' life". Isn't it "Jesus's life"?
>
>As the baker said, six-and-a-half of one, half a dozen of the other.
>The real crunch comes with something like "Jesus'[s] sake." If you
>don't add the "s" for that one, what do you do with, say, "Jesus'[s]
>preachings"?
>
>I have no answer. I rarely have occasion to mention Jesus. Or Moses,
>for that matter. After all, I'm a lawyer.
I thought of the common curses too. Why do we say "for Jesus' sake"
and, even less plausibly, "for Christ' sake"? Is it because we say
them rather quickly and the ending s disappears into the beginning s
of sake or that it is awkward to pronounce two or three esses in a
row? Why am I asking these ridiculous questions?
Charles
Charles Riggs
<r...@island.net> wrote:
>
>Robert Lieblich wrote in message <36B329...@erols.com>...
>>Charles Riggs wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 20:38:39 -0500, Robert Lieblich
>>> <lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> >It is not wrong as long as you are consistent in your practice. If it's
>>> >Charles's in one paragraph and Charles' in another, the reader will be
>>> >brought up short. But Charles's and Jesus' are each legitimate on their
>>> >own under the "spell as you say it" rule. No problem.
>>>
>>> A problem for me. I would write it as I say it and I wouldn't say
>>> "Jesus' life". Isn't it "Jesus's life"?
>>
>>As the baker said, six-and-a-half of one, half a dozen of the other.
>>The real crunch comes with something like "Jesus'[s] sake." If you
>>don't add the "s" for that one, what do you do with, say, "Jesus'[s]
>>preachings"?
>
>
>There is a tendency to add the * 's* with one syllable words and drop the
>*s* with two or more.
>I suspect that this follows natural pronunciation.
I'm afraid I lost you on that one. Isn't it "Thomas's pen", "Thomas
Aquinas's book", and "Hercules's wife"? Jesus is the only oddball
exception that comes to my mind and then only in a couple of phrases,
such as in your "Jesus' sake" example.
Charles
Brian J Goggin
[...]
>I'm afraid I lost you on that one. Isn't it "Thomas's pen", "Thomas
>Aquinas's book", and "Hercules's wife"? Jesus is the only oddball
>exception that comes to my mind and then only in a couple of phrases,
>such as in your "Jesus' sake" example.
I'm surprised that no British contribution to this thread has reached
my server. Burchfield, in MEU3, for instance, devotes a considerable
amount of space to this topic and advances several considerations that
have not yet been mentioned here.
bjg
Robert M. Wilson
Charles Riggs wrote in message <36bbf612....@news.anu.ie>...
[earlier material removed]
>>
>>
>>There is a tendency to add the * 's* with one syllable words and drop the
>>*s* with two or more.
>>I suspect that this follows natural pronunciation.
>
>I'm afraid I lost you on that one. Isn't it "Thomas's pen", "Thomas
>Aquinas's book", and "Hercules's wife"? Jesus is the only oddball
>exception that comes to my mind and then only in a couple of phrases,
>such as in your "Jesus' sake" example.
The key word is "tendency".
If the written word follows the spoken, then the following is likely:
Charles's book (sometimes Charles')
Dickens' book (sometimes Dickens's)
Thucidides' history
but:
Thomas's book
Herodotus's history
Many people will leave off the 's' off to avoid saying too many 'esses'.
Would you say (unless you are thinking about it): "for convenience' sake" or
"for convenience's sake"?
Charles Riggs
<r...@island.net> wrote:
Now, would I say something without thinking about it? I'd say it the
first way - too many esses the other way.
Charles