I remember looking up that apostrophe question and finding a source that claimed that "Jesus" had different rules than other names that ended in S. I forget if it was "Charles' and Jesus's" or "Charles's and Jesus'."

> Oh snap, #100 beat me to it.

Sorry, it's the latter. Singular plural, you add apostrophe S. I don't think there are any exceptions.

Unless you're using AP style. Which, y'know, thousands & thousands -- probably millions -- of writers & editors do. Unless I'm still so asleep that I'm getting that wrong, but I don't think that's the case.

I found an online cite for that just a couple of minutes ago, but my tortie decided to stand on my keyboard & reduce the type to the point that it'd probably all fit on the head of a pin. Oh, well.

Also, I've changed my tune on words and expressions, figuring that things just change over time. But the apostrophe thing does really bug me for some reason.

However, there is one apostrophe/plural rule that I break on purpose. It's pluralizing acronyms. Officially, to pluralize "PC", you're supposed to write "PCs". But with the proliferation of acronyms, I find that confusing. Especially because some acronyms have lowercase letters (BoA for Bank of America, etc.). Because acronyms aren't "real" words, you often can't tell whether the lower case "s" is part of the acronym or not. So instead of "The PCs are in the closet" or "The BoAs of the world are a bunch of crooks", I'll write "The PC's are in the closet" or "The BoA's of the world are a bunch of crooks". I know it's wrong, but I think it's clearer.

Acronyms have only been around in full force since about WWII so I think language is still adapting to them.

Unless you're using AP style. Which, y'know, thousands & thousands -- probably millions -- of writers & editors do. Unless I'm still so asleep that I'm getting that wrong, but I don't think that's the case.

OK, OK, no need to get snarky about it. I've looked this up a lot and every time I have, I come to the conclusion that "'s" is proper. I either missed AP or forgot about it.

Here we go --

In AP style, if a proper noun ends in s or an s sound, add an apostrophe only.
Chris‘ exam scores were higher than any other students.

OK, OK, no need to get snarky about it.

Sorry -- no particular snark intended. If you don't work for a newspaper or a publication that follows AP, there's no reason for you to take it into consideration. But I do, so I do. And the people I work with violate it all the goddamned time, so I'm probably more militant about it than I would otherwise be. (Of course, my genius bpss has asked me twice whether Obama is or isn't spelled "O'bama," as if he were Irish, so I'm not dealing with one of the great minds of the Western world to start with.)

Not sure if this is too much to quote here, but here's the Wikipedia* section of the apostrophe entry:

Many respected authorities recommend that practically all singular nouns, including those ending with a sibilant sound, have possessive forms with an extra s after the apostrophe so that the spelling reflects the underlying pronunciation. Examples include Oxford University Press, the Modern Language Association, the BBC and The Economist.[19] Such authorities demand possessive singulars like these: Senator Jones's umbrella; Tony Adams's friend. Rules that modify or extend the standard principle have included the following:

-If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added sibilant, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by The Guardian,[20] Yahoo! Style Guide,[21] The American Heritage Book of English Usage.[22] Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates' later suggestion; or Achilles' heel if that is how the pronunciation is intended.

-Classical, biblical, and similar names ending in a sibilant, especially if they are polysyllabic, do not take an added s in the possessive; among sources giving exceptions of this kind are The Times[23] and The Elements of Style, which make general stipulations, and Vanderbilt University,[24] which mentions only Moses and Jesus. As a particular case, Jesus' is very commonly written instead of Jesus's – even by people who would otherwise add 's in, for example, James's or Chris's. Jesus' is referred to as "an accepted liturgical archaism" in Hart's Rules.

However, some contemporary writers still follow the older practice of omitting the extra s in all cases ending with a sibilant, but usually not when written -x or -xe.[25] Some contemporary authorities such as the Associated Press Stylebook[26] and The Chicago Manual of Style recommend or allow the practice of omitting the extra "s" in all words ending with an "s", but not in words ending with other sibilants ("z" and "x").[27] The 15th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style still recommended the traditional practice, which included providing for several exceptions to accommodate spoken usage such as the omission of the extra s after a polysyllabic word ending in a sibilant. The 16th edition of CMOS no longer recommends omitting the extra "s".[28]

So, the use of "s'" for singular instead of "s's" is "older" and at this point only indicated as proper by AP.

I think I'll stick with the "just always add 's".

EDIT: Composed before 105 and 106 were there.

*Clearly Wikipedia isn't definitive, but it's all I'm willing to search for on a Sunday morning.

Also, I've changed my tune on words and expressions, figuring that things just change over time.

Sometimes that change doesn't strike me as necessarily bad or good (eg "impact" as a verb) but I think it's worth fighting over the changes that denude our language. Disinterested is a great word, with a useful specific meaning, so it's a shame that it's being used as an unnecessary synonym of "uninterested."

The Times (assuming that that's what the Wikipedia excerpt is referring to; I'm too lazy to go look) & any other publication still using courtesy titles are too hidebound to cite as any authority for anything.

Would they refer to "Mr. Jesus"? I suppose so.

I need a new ruling on style, though. I composed post 107 and put in an asterisk. Then I wanted to edit it to add a comment about the two posts that were put in while I was writing. Does the EDIT go before or after the asterisk. In general I think EDIT should go at the end of the post to be clear. But I didn't want it to be thought of as part of the asterisked section.

Sometimes that change doesn't strike me as necessarily bad or good (eg "impact" as a verb) but I think it's worth fighting over the changes that denude our language. Disinterested is a great word, with a useful specific meaning, so it's a shame that it's being used as an unnecessary synonym of "uninterested."

I agree, but I've moved on to "language exists to convey ideas", so when someone says "I could care less", every single English language speaking person knows what they mean, so it's a perfectly fine expression.

I've said this before, but I came to this conclusion after reading The Word Detective columns. It's fascinating how words change their meaning over time, and what you learned as a kid and think is the right way to speak was probably horrifying to adults at the time. As it was to their parents, and theirs, etc. So many words and expressions that we use today didn't exist 200 years ago, it's astounding.

110 -- Good question. If you stick the EDIT after the asterisk, I for one would assume that you were editing your asterisked pasage.

I think EDIT should be below the footnote.

I agree, but I've moved on to "language exists to convey ideas", so when someone says "I could care less", every single English language speaking person knows what they mean, so it's a perfectly fine expression.

I agree with this. "Could care less" doesn't bother me. But in the case of disinterested/uninterested, the change actually makes the language less capable of conveying ideas with specificity. That's why it's worth fighting.

What's the standard for possessive when the word ends with an S? Charles' or Charles's?

It's rule #1 in Strunk and White's The Elements of Style. It says "[f]orm the possessive singular of nouns by adding 's." It then adds "[f]ollow this rule whatever the final consonant." After being so definite, as was Strunk's want, there are of course exceptions.


Confusion in the mind prevails, which has led to confusion in practice through the years. Practice has changed, it seems, recently and in the past, although the Strunk & White rule has been more or less dominated until fairly recently . The two editions of Fowler I possess both foreshadow Strunk & White. Fowler, though, goes into more detail in his entry noted under the rubric "possessive puzzles." He also provides an explanation for why the difference between common or regular proper nouns ending in s and ancient names ending in s. Had to do with the practice long ago, which when change took place was retained for "verse and reverential context." Thus began the confusion. Fowler held that you always add 's if the word is monosyllabic "and preferably when it is longer." Jones's children, St. James's Street, the Rev. Septimus's surplice, Pythagoras's doctrines, but Jesus' Achilles'. Would you refer to John Updike's classic account of Ted Williams's last at-bat or...?

By the way, Word's checker tells me it should be Williams’.

I have a collection of grammar books (elementary, secondary, and college) schools in my area used in the '50s through the '70s. They more or less adhere to what Fowler/Strunk&White; advocate. That becomes attenuated as we progress forward until now I'm not sure what's standard.

Preference of the sources seems to be arbitrary and according to personal taste, if not whim. Likewise, a similar evolution has occurred wrt the serial comma. (That was the second rule in The Elements of Style.)

So, regarding politics, I have a question for the conservative elements and camp here. Are the conservatives in the capital and on the hill upset at the sequester because they are being BLAMED for it? Because the American people are being told it's terrible when it is what the conservatives are saying is what needs to happen?

I'm not their spokesperson, but I think they're upset at the fraudulent reporting about how it's going to cause terrible problems.

Jesus' is referred to as "an accepted liturgical archaism" in Hart's Rules.

*whistles*

Disinterested is a great word, with a useful specific meaning, so it's a shame that it's being used as an unnecessary synonym of "uninterested."

Yes, it's important that we keep it around as an unnecessary synonym of "impartial".

Edit: Since this is the Grammar Nazi thread, I am 87% sure that it should be 'synonym for', but went with the original.

I'm not their spokesperson, but I think they're upset at the fraudulent reporting about how it's going to cause terrible problems.

Here are two rather typical articles that ran on the front page of today's Times, along with a third one that directly faces the jump page of the first two. All deal with the sequestration.

Cuts to Achieve Goal for Deficit, but Toll Is High

Virginia’s Feast on U.S. Funds Nears an End

Across-the-Board Cuts Take Effect, but Their Impact Is Not Immediately Felt

Forget the blame game, which is a whole separate topic, and there are three undeniable truths about the sequestration. The first truth is that the effects of it will be felt more down the road than immediately. The second truth is that the effects will vary significantly by state and by region. The third truth is that the effects will impact younger adults more than older ones, since the former are more likely to depend on their salaries and less likely to have paid up their homes or built up any sort of independent financial cushion.

Taken together, these articles do a very good job of explaining these points. So where's the "fraud"? What's your complaint?

I don't think that "disinterested" and "impartial" are quite the same. Because the word is a negation of "interested" it lays emphasis on a lack of selfishness. You don't often call an umpire "disinterested" because he's not expected to have any skin in the game.

At least I think.

Edit: Since this is the Grammar Nazi thread, I am 87% sure that it should be 'synonym for', but went with the original.

I was wondering about that.

I don't think that "disinterested" and "impartial" are quite the same. Because the word is a negation of "interested" it lays emphasis on a lack of selfishness. You don't often call an umpire "disinterested" because he's not expected to have any skin in the game.

They're pretty much synonymous, but since "impartial"'s meaning is understood by everyone, it makes more sense to use that word when talking about an umpire, since no casual fan will then scratch his head trying to figure out what you mean.

But when I hear someone say "disinterested" when they really mean "not interested", I get the same chalk on the blackboard sensation that I do from hearing "between you and I". It's one thing to hear it from a half educated person who probably doesn't know any better, but IMO the only excuse for someone who knows better to use it incorrectly is when they're using it for purposes of parody. It didn't originate from any particular street language, either ethnic or age-related, and it doesn't really add anything to the language as a whole, like "ain't". It just sounds stupid.

This politics thread was good at first but then the style manual discussion went too far.

This politics thread was good at first but then the style manual discussion went too far.

I'd agree. I find the whole discussion rather disinteresting.

Irregardless, let us endeavor to persevere.

Interesting article on usuage and the change in usuage--see in particular discussion on "disinterested" and "uninterested". We've had these discussions before and people just rewind and replay. I won't linke Pinker's The Language Mavens again (it's pointless), but he had in mind those who confuse snobbery with real knowledge of the subject. Things change. And sometimes they change back.

Speaking of rehab, what ever happened to Chosen Joe Kehoskie?

121: How are you on "mother-####### disinterested" spoken by the right sort of guy in a hoodie with the waistband of his pants around the back of his knees? Does that grate on you like fingernails on a blackboard?

121: How are you on "mother-####### disinterested" spoken by the right sort of guy in a hoodie with the waistband of his pants around the back of his knees? Does that grate on you like fingernails on a blackboard?

Nah, I'd just challenge him to a 50 yard dash with our hands behind our backs.

More class warfare promoted by the press. How dare they report facts like these!

Recovery in U.S. Is Lifting Profits, but Not Adding Jobs

With the Dow Jones industrial average flirting with a record high, the split between American workers and the companies that employ them is widening and could worsen in the next few months as federal budget cuts take hold.

That gulf helps explain why stock markets are thriving even as the economy is barely growing and unemployment remains stubbornly high.

With millions still out of work, companies face little pressure to raise salaries, while productivity gains allow them to increase sales without adding workers.

“So far in this recovery, corporations have captured an unusually high share of the income gains,” said Ethan Harris, co-head of global economics at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “The U.S. corporate sector is in a lot better health than the overall economy. And until we get a full recovery in the labor market, this will persist.”

The result has been a golden age for corporate profits, especially among multinational giants that are also benefiting from faster growth in emerging economies like China and India....

With $85 billion in automatic cuts taking effect between now and Sept. 30 as part of the so-called federal budget sequestration, some experts warn that economic growth will be reduced by at least half a percentage point. But although experts estimate that sequestration could cost the country about 700,000 jobs, Wall Street does not expect the cuts to substantially reduce corporate profits — or seriously threaten the recent rally in the stock markets.

“It’s minimal,” said Savita Subramanian, head of United States equity and quantitative strategy at Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Over all, the sequester could reduce earnings at the biggest companies by just over 1 percent, she said, adding, “the market wants more austerity.”...

My god, I'm surrounded by nerds.

My god, I'm surrounded by nerds.

Your mom really needs to be more selective in choosing occupants for her basement.

I think the prescriptivist / descriptivist thing is a false dichotomy. We all agree that language can be used poorly and incorrectly. Don't we?

How can that be? What's the basis for deciding when language is used poorly and incorrectly? And why poorly and incorrectly instead of poorly or incorrectly. Is the basis communication? Elegance? Disinterested incorporated as its meaning uninterested for ages, then for a short while there was a trend to isolating that part of its meaning out. That seems to have reversed back to what was previous. Rather than think of change in this censorious mode, why not look at it from a mental or psychological standpoint. Why does the mind of so many want to conflate this? (And, no, because they are lazy, stupid, ignoramuses is not the answer if you are going to try to see this scientifically.)

Morty, you're just complicating it unnecessarily. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and "disinterested" used for "uninterested", "I don't care", or "I don't give a ####" just sounds stupid in the same way that "between you and I" does. It may not have sounded stupid 200 years ago and it may not sound stupid fifty years from now, but it does today. YMMV and all that, and I don't make it a point of correcting people when they misuse the word, since it's not worth the effort and anyway, it's borderline rude to do so. It's a purely internal thought that comes to me whenever I hear it spoken.

What's the basis for deciding when language is used poorly and incorrectly?

Pinker is right that the rules for language are arbitrary and fluid. But I bet that when he was rearing* his children, he taught them that cars are called cars and not trains, and that hot dogs are called hot dogs and not hamburgers. There are rights and wrongs in the English language.

Rather than think of change in this censorious mode, why not look at it from a mental or psychological standpoint. Why does the mind of so many want to conflate this?

You're right. Both points of view (what language is, and what language ought to be) are worth considering. My #131 was poorly stated!


* Looking up disinterested/uninterested led me to a Safire column where he also stated that one raises cattle but rears children. I have no opinion on the accuracy or importance of this distinction.

Safire should have had his cattle taken away.

7 sentences that sound crazy that are still grammatical

For you, Jolly Old

Grammarly website is interesting

Morty, it's like dressing in different clothes for different occasions. How you dress depends on the crowd and the event. I've been in jail more days of my life than I've been in a suit, but I wouldn't have gotten far in the corporate world with that sort of ratio.

Same thing with using words properly: If you hang with a crowd that doesn't pay attention to usage, then Cletus-like misuses of words are fine. But if you don't like having many people think you're half-educated in a less informal setting, it might be better to drop the "disinterested" when you really mean "uninterested".

This is not about "communication", because you can get a point across in a million ways, many times with body language rather than words. It's simply how you choose to present yourself to whatever part of the world you happen to occupy at any particular moment, and that's for you alone to decide. But don't kid yourself into thinking that others won't take note of your choices, either fairly or unfairly, and think of you accordingly without ever mentioning it to you.

Morty, you're just complicating it unnecessarily.

Me complicate things unnecessarily? That's unpossible.

Everything eventually gets down to chacun à son goût lately with you, it seems. You find that intellectually very fulfilling? Is that a genuine principle of yours or a get out of jail card when you don't have much of a defense for a view? As to the public policies important to you, do you allow others to get away with that? How did that play out on those freedom rides in the South in the '60s?

"Between you and I". I said I wouldn't link Pinker, but I'll link someone intelligent about language who references Pinker.

Everything eventually gets down to chacun à son goût lately with you, it seems. You find that intellectually very fulfilling? Is that a genuine principle of yours or a get out of jail card when you don't have much of a defense for a view?

What "view" am I defending, other than "disinterested" means without skin in the game, and "uninterested" means "don't give a ####"?

As to the public policies important to you, do you allow others to get away with that? How did that play out on those freedom rides in the South in the '60s?

I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean. I don't correct anyone's grammar or usage. Never have and I never will. If people with college degrees want to sound like simpletons, that's their business.

134:

Clarification and amplification of your point noted and taken.

I still remember when I was very young in grammar school using the expression "raising children" and being slammed hard by the teacher. It was very much a distinction at one time that has with the passage of time not been deemed worth preserving. Whether it is "rear v. raise" or "disinterested v. uninterested", and there are others, there are shades of meaning involved, and to that extent, I welcome chewing that over (and over), but there's no call for the supercilliousness, even if it is only a mindset and not expressed to the transgressors.

Did I express superciliousness in this thread?

Did I express superciliousness in this thread?

I think he was immediately referring to my unspoken thoughts rather than your written words. He seems to think that my overall opinion about people is based more than .00001% on the correctness of their word usage, whereas in fact it's based almost entirely on their taste in movies.

141:

No.

But it has been expressed, here and now, and in the past.

Maybe, mirabile dictu, even by me at times.

So do you think I'm an ass for caring about disinterested/uninterested?

No. Not the way you've gone about it--tenor and tone.

Let me just say more thing, then I will clear the floor as to this subject. I just think it's sad and unfortunate that so many of us (and I can do the same thing, or feel it, anyway, just like anybody else) all too often are unwilling to get beyond viewing how people use language except in terms of censorship and one upmanship, and we impute those deficiencies as we see them saying something about character, intellect, and even morality. We may not have the courage to out-right say so, but let's not kid ourselves: it's about values.

We discuss a wide range of subjects here--sex, race, baseball, religion, politics--and we assign and impute attributes on these terms as to all those subjects. But, here, it's as if there is some special pride to be taken into pretending all you need to know about language, grammar, and usage was taught to you in the ninth grade. People are condemned just as they are if they don't hold the right racial or gender values and attitudes. It's actually argued as if it’s an ideology. I bet most of us have evolved considerably on those other subjects since we were children. We might consider that maybe should have as to our views on language. At least, maybe we should exhibit some tolerance. I mean, just think of the language used in public and in private now that would be simply unthinkable not that long ago. Yet, "irregardless" or "disinterested", throws us into a tizzy. We might just countenance the idea that it is not the linguistic scofflaws’ fault they don't meet those standards--it's that those standards that have not been renovated since the ninth grade are now outmoded and insufficient.

oooh March is Grammer month!

In the previous subthread - global warming, public tranportation, and accidental death and dismemberment will both be solved by self-driving electric cars. Eventually.

#146, 147: Word.

We discuss a wide range of subjects here--sex, race, baseball, religion, politics--and we assign and impute attributes on these terms as to all those subjects. But, here, it's as if there is some special pride to be taken into pretending all you need to know about language, grammar, and usage was taught to you in the ninth grade. People are condemned just as they are if they don't hold the right racial or gender values and attitudes. It's actually argued as if it’s an ideology.

The only "ideology" being argued here is the one that says that everyone should suppress not only the urge to correct someone when they hear them misusing words---a thought I completely agree with, on many grounds---but that everyone should suppress their internal reactions as well, at least if they don't want you to think of them as nasty "elitists".

Talk about a creepy concept. What should we do, Morty, have a smartphone monitor our thoughts and transmit an electric shock whenever it detects that we're rolling our internal eyes at "between you and I"? Should it transmit a shock to a 90-year old nun who thinks unkind thoughts about an atheist denouncing the Pope in scatological terms?

Missing in this is the simplest of distinctions: The distinctions among thoughts, words, and deeds, although those last two can often merge together in practice.

I can't speak for the "grammar police", since I'm not one of them. As I said, I don't correct people's usage, and I make allowances for individuals when I have those horrible internal thoughts upon hearing "disinterested" used as a synonym for "uninterested". I don't react to a high school dropout's speech the way I react to the speech of a college graduate. But until you wire me with one of those smartphone shock administrators, I'm afraid that there's no way those eyes of mine won't roll inside when I hear allegedly educated people sounding like high school dropouts.

It doesn't mean that this "judgment" of mine extends beyond that. I'm fully aware of the fact that some of these dumb sounding word butchers may be a lot smarter than I am in every other way, not to mention being better people. It just means that when I hear chalk on a blackboard, I react. And if that makes me some kind of an "elitist" in modern academia, I'm not "disinterested", I just don't give a ####. To repeat my own cliche, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Let me just say more thing, then I will clear the floor as to this subject.

Promise? Because you're boring the #### out of everyone right now, Morty, even more than usual.