![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rmIt has always been my understanding that when one makes a plural or other word or name ending in s possessive, one merely adds an apostrophe, not a second s because in the weird rules of English to do so is simply redundant in the face of the understood s.
This was something true in my education both at private and public school and in my tenure at the Associated Press.
It has recently come to my attention from several sources, however, that this is not universally true, and in fact is considered archaic in some quarters, mainly thanks to the Chicago Manual of Style, which it seems is a source of much contention amongst pretentious wankers everywhere. The writer C.J. Cherryh even has a tirade about it on her website which I am inclined to agree with (http://www.cherryh.com/www/panel_room.htm halfway down the page).
Certainly, I've been thrown for a massive loop by suddenly discovering that something I was always taught indicated an exceptionally embarassing lack of education is not only acceptable, but preferable in certain circles.
I mean if I saw the students's books in print, I'd immediately view it as an egregious typo, and a complete speedbump in my reading.
I don't care if it's archaic to say the students' books -- it looks and feels better.
Granted, I'm still feeling pissy about the imprecision of current uses of decimate both in terms of it meaning things not people, and percentages larger than ten, but that's apparently extra archaic. Also, growing up, anxious meant to be axcited and anticipatory, not nervous.
New words coming into the language I find to be awesome, but the deterioration of words and habits already there really disturbs me, as much as I'll grant those are personal rather than scholarly issues.
This was something true in my education both at private and public school and in my tenure at the Associated Press.
It has recently come to my attention from several sources, however, that this is not universally true, and in fact is considered archaic in some quarters, mainly thanks to the Chicago Manual of Style, which it seems is a source of much contention amongst pretentious wankers everywhere. The writer C.J. Cherryh even has a tirade about it on her website which I am inclined to agree with (http://www.cherryh.com/www/panel_room.htm halfway down the page).
Certainly, I've been thrown for a massive loop by suddenly discovering that something I was always taught indicated an exceptionally embarassing lack of education is not only acceptable, but preferable in certain circles.
I mean if I saw the students's books in print, I'd immediately view it as an egregious typo, and a complete speedbump in my reading.
I don't care if it's archaic to say the students' books -- it looks and feels better.
Granted, I'm still feeling pissy about the imprecision of current uses of decimate both in terms of it meaning things not people, and percentages larger than ten, but that's apparently extra archaic. Also, growing up, anxious meant to be axcited and anticipatory, not nervous.
New words coming into the language I find to be awesome, but the deterioration of words and habits already there really disturbs me, as much as I'll grant those are personal rather than scholarly issues.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-05-26 05:44 am (UTC)Apparently, this topic is disucssed in length in the book: Eats, Shoots & Leaves which is about grammar. I caught a discussion with the author on cable recently and need to get the book as it sounds really great. And apparently, I am the kind of geek that reads books about grammar evolving in culture.
no subject
Date: 2004-05-26 05:46 am (UTC)