Nancy,
Thanks for checking sources on the rule Paul cited. I was taught as he was, to use only the apostrophe after a singular noun ending in an /s/ (note, not an <s>, that is, the sound, not the letter). I have seen the –‘s in that environment more frequently, so I’m wondering when the change took place in the handbooks. It would be interesting to look at earlier editions to see if the advice changes.
Herb
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nancy Tuten
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 11:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Possessive form
Thanks for sharing that article, Paul.
I found one point odd, though: the authors suggest that grammarians widely favor putting only the apostrophe (and not an additional “s”) after singular nouns that end in “s.” Although I run into people in my business writing seminars frequently who have been taught that rule, it is not espoused by Chicago, MLA, or APA. In fact, until tonight, I had been unable to find it in print anywhere. Those three very reputable style guides (and a host of others) prescribe putting the apostrophe and an additional “s” after all singular nouns, whether they end in “s” or not.
We can have fun debating the merits of such rules, but what do you tell your students to do when they ask? I usually resort to explaining the whole notion of style guides and differences among disciplines, but first- and second-year students glaze over.
Nancy
Nancy L. Tuten, PhD
Professor of English
Director of the Writing-across-the-Curriculum Program
Columbia College
Columbia, South Carolina
803-786-3706
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul E. Doniger
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 9:52 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Possessive form
Of course, life is probably more complicated than Wikipedia will allow. I believe that the history of the apostrophe as apossessive marker is also more complex. You might want to check out the following paper:
I sheds some light, or rather thins out some fo the shadow, on this history.
More to the point, I think, is the question of what's happening to the apostrophe now. It seems to me that it's dying a slow, agonizing death! I for one will miss it (of course. Bernard Shaw ignored it, and no one seems to think the less of him because of that!).
Paul D.
----- Original Message ----
From: Max Morenberg <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2006 9:16:26 PM
Subject: Re: Possessive form
Peter,
I haven't read into the history of punctuation in a long time. But I think the "his" story has little or no reality. Here is the wikipedia.com explanation:
Despite the above, the English possessive did originate in a genitive case. In Old English, a common singular genitive ending was -es. The apostrophe in the modern possessive marker is in fact an indicator of the e that is "missing" from the Old English morphology. . . .
The 18th century explanation that the apostrophe might replace a genitive pronoun, as in "the king's horse" being a shortened form of "the king, his horse", is erroneous (a construction which actually occurs in German dialects and has replaced the genitive there, together with the "of" construction that also exists in English).
Ain't wikipedia great?
Max
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the "'s" was actually a contraction
for "his." I think when a person who doesn't write makes a mark on a
document, we write undert it "John Doe his mark." This is the "his" that is now
contracted into "'s." Any truth to this?
Peter Adams
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--part1_467.2d7a96c.31b5fbe7_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" FACE=3D"Gen=
eva" FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" SIZE=3D"2">I seem to remember reading somewhere th=
at the "'s" was actually a contraction for "his." I think when a pers=
on who doesn't write makes a mark on a document, we write undert it "John Do=
e his mark." This is the "his" that is now contracted into "'s." =
; Any truth to this?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Peter Adams<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" FACE=3D" Geneva " FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" SIZE=3D"=
2"></FONT></HTML>
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
--part1_467.2d7a96c.31b5fbe7_boundary--
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/ To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/