Posted on 10/20/2006 9:28:44 AM PDT by qlangley
SCOTUS has weighed in on a very controversial topic, though since it was not the issue of the case, the ruling cannot be said to be definitive.
In both written and spoken English (both British and American usage) there is a growing tendency to omit the "s" after the apostrophe in the genitive form of singular nouns ending in "s". Traditionally this was the practice only in the plural, thus it would be "New Yorkers' preferences are generally for the Democrats" but "Kansas's voting record leans towards the Republicans". One of the largest parks in central London is St James's Park, both written and pronounced with "James's" as a two syllable word.
Disconcertingly, according to Legal Times's Jonathan Starble, Justice Souter seems to be on the traditionalist side of this debate while Justice Thomas's preference would be to refer to his own preference as "Justice Thomas' preference".
Interesting. My last name ends with an "s," so I deal with this all the time.
Well Thomas is right when it counts'.
Mine too. .....and I'm in Thomas' camp.
Perhaps this "traditionalism" in orthography is traceable to Souter's predilection for dressing like an 18th century British fop when he's, um, Foleying around at his estate.
Since when is it "traditional" to use an EXTRA S????
I've always understood it to be as in "James'", regardless even of plural or singular. It irks me that I'm seeing "s's" more and more.
And don't get me going about other grammar and spelling issues in the allegedly educated published press.
It's almost like they're pulling this garbage out of their s's! ;-P
I'm with Thomas. The fewer letters the better.
I agree with Souter. *Ouch, that hurt!*
>>Since when is it "traditional" to use an EXTRA S????
It is not not extra. Apostrophe s is the normal expression of the genitive singular in English. S apostrophe is the genitive plural, unless it is an irregular plural that does not end in s, in which case apostrophe s is normal.
The modern tendency to drop the second s in regular plurals is something that many of us regret.
Don't get ME started on other spelling and grammar issues either. The BBC does seem to understand the collective singular: "The government are going to announce later . . ". How many governments is that????
Pah!
>>I agree with Souter. *Ouch, that hurt!*
It's a tough thing to get used to. That's why I chose the deliberately provocative title. :)
(Please note, the use of the apostrophe above is elision, not genitive, so the issue of controversy does not arise).
*snicker*
The rest of Justice Thomas's positions are so superior that I think we can overlook this lapse.
Yes, it is my understanding that s' is the traditional way....I came across "for goodness' sake" in an old grammar book...ah, yes...."for the sake of goodness."
Ken Starr certainly described him as the most brilliant and original thinker on the Supreme Court so, yes, I agree.
That is the reverse of my understanding. But you are not the first to say so, so it may be that the contoversy is older than I had thought.
St James's Park in London is centuries old, though I haven't checked early maps to see if the spelling has been consistent throughout that time. The spelling on other Tube (subway) stops (the park has a Tube stop named after it) certainly varies over time, and quite rapidly. The signage at Earl's Court for example is often not consistent with Tube maps which are, obviously, updated more frequently than the station signage.
Can we talk about the the declension of Latin cases now?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.