Mark E. Shoulson wrote:

>Hmm. I've been "corrected" on this a few times myself, and I don't have
>the age to be considered "old-fashioned". I pretty consistently say
>things like "Daniels'" or "Moses'" and so forth, in speech as well as
>writing. Somehow it sounds right to me. Maybe I just internalized the
>older usage a little too deep.
>
>~mark
>
>

Nah - that's my habit too.

I took a look at CMS 13th Ed. in a used book store. Didn't buy it, but
did look up the relevant sections. Seems our correspondent did not note
that the last 3 paragraphs (6.21-6.24 IIRC) noted that the material in
the prior part of the section is the subject of what Operating System
afficianados call a "Religious War" among editors. I took it to imply
that even its own claims (CMS's) are not to be treated as carved in
stone because great minds disagree on the matters. I don't object to the
use - I merely asked for a citation because it was unfamiliar to me as
well.. Now I know there is a disagreement and either way may be
considered acceptable.

Which was interesting to me. I guess this usage may now start to fall
into a "pet peeve" category for me, just as words such as
"compose/comprise" are.

Best,

Barry