2 (the traditional style): Leave out the S from names that end in S - "Giles' hat" - unless you judge that the pronunciation would emphasise both S's - "Joss's writing".
See, I'd still pronounce "Giles'" with a double pronunciation of S. Every name I can think of that ends in an S, when made possessive would have a double S pronunciation. So I'm kinda looking squinty-eyed at the second rule. Archimedes' owl: double S. Phyllis' cow: double S. The only name I can think of that doesn't have the double S pronunciation is King Louis, as per your example above. And that's only when we Americans acknowledge the French pronunciation. Ex.: St. Louis' transit system is a mess. Double pronunciation of S.
It seems to me that basing the written rule on vocal pronunciation gets dodgy when quote-unquote English is pronounced so differently on three different continents. And that's before considering the vast variation within the same continent. And that old historical or mythological figures shouldn't get an extra S? That seems like a bizarre reason for grammar to me. At what point is a historical figure old enough to not be weighted down by that oh, so heavy S?
So I'm over here wondering why I was taught always add "'s" except when the noun ends in "s", then just add an apostrophe so the numerous S in a row aren't gumming up the works (reading Joss's makes me eyes hurt). Though I can see for clarity of the rule why the modern style just says add "'s" to everything to make it possessive.
I guess I'm saying the exceptions to those two rules above just look really odd to me. Grammar is used to denote the age of a historical figure? Grammar is influenced by spoken pronunciation that varies wildly?
I'm not sure if it's an American thing or an Emmie thing, but there's my curious thoughts.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-04-16 02:52 am (UTC)See, I'd still pronounce "Giles'" with a double pronunciation of S. Every name I can think of that ends in an S, when made possessive would have a double S pronunciation. So I'm kinda looking squinty-eyed at the second rule. Archimedes' owl: double S. Phyllis' cow: double S. The only name I can think of that doesn't have the double S pronunciation is King Louis, as per your example above. And that's only when we Americans acknowledge the French pronunciation. Ex.: St. Louis' transit system is a mess. Double pronunciation of S.
It seems to me that basing the written rule on vocal pronunciation gets dodgy when quote-unquote English is pronounced so differently on three different continents. And that's before considering the vast variation within the same continent. And that old historical or mythological figures shouldn't get an extra S? That seems like a bizarre reason for grammar to me. At what point is a historical figure old enough to not be weighted down by that oh, so heavy S?
So I'm over here wondering why I was taught always add "'s" except when the noun ends in "s", then just add an apostrophe so the numerous S in a row aren't gumming up the works (reading Joss's makes me eyes hurt). Though I can see for clarity of the rule why the modern style just says add "'s" to everything to make it possessive.
I guess I'm saying the exceptions to those two rules above just look really odd to me. Grammar is used to denote the age of a historical figure? Grammar is influenced by spoken pronunciation that varies wildly?
I'm not sure if it's an American thing or an Emmie thing, but there's my curious thoughts.