I can’t focus on my manuscript, which is, among other things, about ADHD. Stop laughing.
But I hadn’t forgotten that some of you asked about whether you add an apostrophe s in a word that ends with an s or a z. Chicago has gone back and forth about these issues over the years and editions. I started to write out the quote, but then I remembered, you don’t care. You are staring at your computer yelling “Indy, if we wanted to read Chicago’s version, we would have bought the damn book.”
Right, sorry. Here it is:
Chicago’s definitive rules on how to add apostrophes to words with “s” sounds at the end
1. It is now acceptable, nay, required, to add an s at the end of words that end with an s or z. Sorry folks.
2. Add an apostrophe s to words where the s is silent.
3. Add an apostrophe s to proper names that end in an s
but Lincolns’ marriage [this is different because “Lincolns” is plural]
Decartes’s three dreams
(Source: Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed., 7.15–18)
Exception 1. If the plural and the singular is the same, do not add an s after the apostrophe (e.g., politics’ true meaning or United States’ role; CMOS 7.19).
Exception 2. This one I have to quote because it is really funny “For the sake of euphony a few for . . . sake expressions used with a singular noun that ends in an s end in an apostrophe alone…for goodness’ sake” (7.20)
This is a change from Chicago 15. But it’s the rules for standard American publishing. Now you know.
That said, Sparks, if it’s your damn fiction story, you can probably stick with Aliss’ if you like it better. Just be mentally prepared to have it changed to Aliss’s when it goes to print.
I went with Aliss’s from the beginning. (Yay me!) I thought it looked better. One less thing to worry about now. All riiight!
In London there is St James’s Park, ( a park) but in Newcastle there is St James’ Park ( a football – erm soccer to you – stadium).
To irritate you; or possibly because English spent many centuries not being standardized. Chicago Manual of Style is just one way of standardizing (erm, standardising) the language.
Yay! I lucked up on being correct. That’s how I felt as I started reading this post. Then I got to exception two, looked up the word euphony, and still feel the gray cloud of “duh?” falling over me.
I’m going to ignore exception two, and go back to the yay part before the gray locks into place. 🙂
Sparks Exception 2. Instead of writing “for goodness’ sake” just write “for god’s sake” or for “for Pete’s sake” and worry no more.
This post makes me feel happy. Adding that s has always made the most sense.
Good! Chicago had about ten different rules about it in previous editions, so I think standardizing it is not a bad idea.
Do any of you have a Masters degree? A Master’s Degree? A Masters’ degree?
I don’t have one. wouldn’t know. Can’t tell from Uni web sites, as they all have different usages…
How ’bout it Indy?
Pingback: I Have Heard The Mermaids Singing | writeitdown-ith
Pingback: Grande Full Fat Triple Snort | writeitdown-ith
The English language–a work of art for the likes of Shakespeare and Dickens, a butchered lamb for the knives of the writers of “style” manuals.