ConfirmThem

Now you have proved yourself a liberal, Andrew, because you side with the NYT on this issue, against all reason, truth, and justice. An extra 's' is an abomination! Cease and desist! :)

Now you have proved yourself a liberal...

Um, shouldn't that be 'have proven'? :-)

I concur with Justice Scalia's opinion. basing it on phonetics is clearly the way to go.

Now at last we have a diverting and intriguing topic. As a Linguistics/English double major, I recall learning that while orthograpy and puntuation invariably lag behind usage, the latter is inevitably the ultimate determinant. But not necessarily too quickly. Since popular taste (in all ages) is usually degraded, rules should follow slowly so as to avoid institutionalizing abominations (such as Roe, to make a constitutional law parallel. The parallel breaks down, however, when one realizes that Fowler's 1926 edition lacks the controlling status of the U.S. Constitution.)

Therefore I have opted for the Chicago Manual/Scalia approach (an interesting congruence in itself), as a conservative recognition of linguistic evolution while maintaining rules based on tradition, aesthetics and reasonable usage. To wit: 's should be used after proper nouns ending with an "ess" sound, while a mere ‘ suffices when the final s is a voiced sibilant such as "z". The following example will illustrate this distinction:

For the future of American constitutional jurisprudence, it is of vital importance that in the next two years Justice Stevens' philosophy be replaced on the Court with a Justice of similar orientation to Justice Thomas's philosophy.

I read James Taranto's piece yesterday (I rarely miss his column,) and I found it really helpful. The WSJ's style book seems complicated but it makes sense to me.

In multisyllabic words that end in "s" and the last syllable also begins with an "s" or "s" sound, end with an apostrophe - not apostrophe "s." (Jesus, Texas, and Kansas were given as examples.) Also, classical references such as "Achilles' heel."

However, when a word ends in "s" and the final syllable begins with a sound other than an "s" sound, then the word ends in apostrophe "s."

I think this is something that I was either not taught or did not absorb in school, but for the past few years I have seriously wondered about its proper use.

clearly we are correct, you as a Lings major and I as a Lings minor.

although, I am not sure vocalization is the criteria (e.g. Massachussetts'). while Stevens' "s" is voiced due to assimilation to the preceding nasal, the more determinant factor is the consonant, voiced or not.

Clarence Thomas is the best justice, and Clarence Thomas says no "S" after an apostrophe, so therefore the best (and also the originalist) position is for there to be no "S" after an apostrophe. It's a simple, straighforward, STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST rule.

But Quin, Justice Thomas has not held that his rule applies to others. Suum cuique. :)