Vickie writes:
Excessive Possessiveness
Mills’s educational excellence is enhanced by its sylvan campus.
I fear this is one of those grammar strictures that’s broken so many times, it’s about to get dumped. Somewhere along the way, editors stopped doing their duty and allowed writers to hang an “s” onto possessives ending in “s,” so they work just like possessives that don’t have an “s” at the end.
The rule, in case anyone still wonders, is this:
Add ’s to possessives that don’t end with the letter “s” (except for “its”). Possessives that end with “s” simply take an apostrophe. For example:
Lt. Valeris’ alacrity enabled Star Fleet to deduce Ambassador Nanclus’ role in the assassination of Klingon Chancellor Gorkon.
In recent decades, the Associated Press Stylebook (a favorite of mine) allowed for the addition of ’s to possessives that end in “s” when the word is only one syllable. Therefore:
Mills’s educational excellence is enhanced by its sylvan campus.
Where do you stand on slipping in a second “s”? In my case, growing up with one rule means that when I encounter examples like the one above, I lose track of the point of the sentence and stop while my mind corrects the grammar. Plus, to my eyes, it looks wrong, that row of “ssssss,” like a cartoon-balloon for a snake. What do you think? Am I being too possessive of the old rules? Is the new usage more helpful? Does it make more sense?
Well, Vickie, I disagree.
I have a surname that ends in two esses. To flap a mere apostrophe on the end does not do it for me. When a speaker refers to the home of James Arness, it is natural and logical to say and write "James Arness's home." The venerable Strunk and White's Elements of Style promotes the adding of apostrophe S. The only being who routinely receives merely an added apostrophe is Jesus. For some reason, "Jesus' name, Jesus' birth, Jesus' resurrection" is the way to go. I guess He gets an exemption.
Listen to speakers when they talk of the possession-hood of a person who has a name ending in S or SS. Most of the time, you will hear repetition of the S sound. Dennis's tennis shoes; Janis's songs (how is this any different from Janice's songs?); Moses's walking stick. It is natural to say it, and it should be natural to show it with the addition of apostrophe S. Let's keep in step with the pros and and consistently go with apostrophe S. (Except for Jesus. He can do it any way he wants.)
Hi Nancy,
ReplyDeleteCool blog! So nice to find you and thanks for the shout-out (even if we're on different sides of the "S-divide"!).
Like you, my last name ends in "s," so I take a particular interest in this. Also, I worked for Mills College for four years, so I was stuck with that strange-looking "Mills's" configuration.
I love that you state that bad television writing is ruining the English language at the top of your blog. The latest, most irritating instance, I find, is the mispronunciation of "often," which to my old-school ear is always going to be correct when it's "offen" - never when "off-ten." Where do you stand on this one? :-)
Cheers!
Thanks for the kind comments, Vickie.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on "often." I don't know why some people feel the need to make the T audible. There are many other words in the English language that have silent Ts in them-- castle, hustle, wrestle, soften, mustn't, to name a few.
Yes, the modeling of poor grammar on TV is a big problem. Children are learning to speak very faulty English. I have heard teachers use poor grammar, as well, but the kids are even more likely to copy their favorite TV characters.
I need to get back into posting here. And I want to catch up on your blog, too.
Keep on fighting the 'unfortunate choices,' Vickie!
Nancy