Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 5 · column 1 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved
By JAMES J. KILPATRICK
Universal Press Syndicate
Stand back, if you please, while I deliver an apostrophe to the apostrophe: 0, Apostrophe! Dear Apostrophe! Why do you trouble us so? What have writers done to deserve the quarrels you cause?
The Chicago Manual of Style sets forth a “general rule” on proper names ending in sibilants. Thus, Burns’s poems, Davis’s home, Jones’s reputation. - This is the rule at The New York Times, which speaks of Tennessee Williams’s plays, British Airways’s purchase and Mr. Sessions’s future. The Times is specific: The “s” is dropped only “when two or more siblant sounds precede the apostrophe.”
The Washington Post also decrees the apostrophe-s, as in “Con.nors’s will to win.” So does Washingtonian magazine: “Gov. Richards’s conclusions.” The Kankakee (111.) Daily Journal reports “Morris’s signs.”
On the other hand, The Associated Press Stylebook says to use only the apostrophe. So, The Miami Herald speaks of “Judge Philip Davis’ unique defense.” The Charleston (S.C.) Post and Courier said the Sen. Danforth was “Thomas’ guiding light.”
Time magazine recalls that President Bush had “Graves’ desease.” Bill Safire, word maven for The New York Times, says “Graves*’ is wrong. It should be “Graves’s desease,” but his own newspaper, in a forgetful moment, provided a headline: “Researchers finding new ways to learn about Graves’ disease.”
Well, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. My own general rule is go with the sound of the possessive word. I have said it a hundred times: We read not only with our eyes but subconsciously with our ears. What do we hear?
93.5%