--- In qalam@yahoogroups.com, "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@...> wrote:

> i18n@... wrote:
> >
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > > This should be "Daniels's" (or, old-fashionedly, "Daniels'").
> >
> > Not picking on Peter personally here, but since his name is the

example....

> >
> > Is there a reference for the "newfangled" usage? I rarely see it and
> > always consider it incorrect, but I am willing to stand corrected....
>
> Chicago Manual of Style, at least since the 13th ed. Always use 's
> except on names that end with the "eez" sound (Aristophanes') and a few
> stereotyped cases -- in Jesus' name, for conscience' sake (I think there
> are half a dozen exceptions).

But there's another rule - don't add two adjacent {s} morphemes to a
word - elide the second. For example, if one creates the phrase
'McDonalds it' to mean to eat as McDonalds, the third singular is
'McDonalds', not *McDonaldses. (The same sort of rule exists in
Sanskrit.) A less slangy example is "It's the man who knows'
responsibility.". (I suspect the Chicago Manual of Style would
condemn this construction and recommend "It's the responsibility of
the man who knows" instead.) The issue is then whether 'Daniels' is
felt to contain the morpheme {s}; I think the answer is that sometimes
it is and sometimes it isn't. I did some introspection and came to
the conclusion that I would say "has's" rather than "has'", so for my
speech one doesn't have to ponder the morphemic analysis of 'is'.

Richard.