From: Peter T. Daniels
Message: 4679
Date: 2005-04-14
>Be that as it may, the CMS rule for possessives is as I stated it. I
> --- 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'.