I said that I thought it went on pronunciation: so in this case, James's, but in the case of a name where the extra 'iz' is not pronounced (frustratingly I couldn't think of a good example), the final s would be omitted. But then I got slightly confused because I knew there was some different rule about Jesus, which I couldn't put my finger on.
Today, I have gone to the authorities and I can declare Dave victorious.
Fowler's says:
Use 's for the possessive case in English names and surnames whenever possible; ie in all monosyllables and disyllables, and in longer words accented on the penult, as Burns's, Charles's, Cousins's, Dickens's, Hicks's, St James's Square, Thomas's, Zacharius's. It is customary, however, to omit the 's when the last syllable of the name is pronounced /-IZ/, as in Bridges', Moses'. Jesus' is also an acceptable liturgical archaism.The Guardian's style guide says, succinctly:
Words ending in -s use use -s's (Dickens's house): for plurals, use -s'.And The Times's (yes, s's) says:
With proper names/nouns ending in s that are singular, follow the rule of writing what is voiced, eg, Keats's poetry, Sobers's batting, The Times's style (or Times style); and with names where the final “s” is soft, use the “s” apostrophe, eg, Rabelais' writings, Delors' presidency; plurals follow normal form, as Lehman Brothers' loss etcJesus, I note, is torn. He gets away with no s in Fowler's, but is commanded to take one by The Times. James, however, is well and truly decided. Take your apostrophe and your s, sir - and we shall have no head-kicking in response, thank you very much.
Note that with Greek names of more than one syllable that end in "s", generally do not use the apostrophe "s", eg, Aristophanes' plays, Achilles' heel, Socrates' life, Archimedes' principle; but note Jesus's (not Jesus') parables.
I tend to sway towards the view that the possessive apostrophe is a rather ugly thing especially when it comes after an s and sometimes the best way to deal with the bumpy ride that 's usually generates is to change the sentence.
ReplyDeleteJesus' love is very wonderful in my eyes is as awkward as Jesus's love is very wonderful. So I would tend to go, if I had the time (and of course in my case I wouldn't opine such a thing!), with The love of Jesus is very wonderful. Or perhaps even Very wonderful is the love of Jesus. Mind you, does that mean the same thing? So one might have to put Loving Jesus is a wonderful thing; or The love Jesus gives us is a wonderful thing. I like both better than the 's. You may not agree.
Another thought I had last night was this - The Times will stick to the heights of grammar and correct historical usage but sometimes this gets in the way of readability. The most classic example was their insistence on 'gave warning' instead of warned when you do not have an object. They gave in on this after a long struggle as it just read so quaintly.
The Sunday Times style takes a very different view: their mantra is - what assists readability: help the reader. So I would be prepared myself to sacrifice the strictest grammar rules if it helps the reader. After all, language is there to communicate, not to sit within a set of rules designed not by the common man on the Clapham omnibus (Vince) but by lofty academics. A lot of people find this view of mine shocking but it is human nature. And I do recall cases where the imposition of strict grammar has obscured meaning.
The Times also insists on a rigorous metric then imperial conversion in brackets afterwards (quite a job for the subs as you will discover - you do not get it done for you). But this gets boring and rather ludicrous. The ST, however, says just put the measure that assists most readers. So they mix imperial and metric, just having one or the other, according to context. And to change 'the killer walked a few yards down the road' to 'the killer walked a few metres down the road' – would that not be daft. But The Times would.