This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision Previous revision | |
| blog:for_the_want_of_an_apostrophe [2026/01/12 16:13] – [Naked Apostrophes] hjr | blog:for_the_want_of_an_apostrophe [2026/01/12 17:31] (current) – [Naked Apostrophes] hjr |
|---|
| {{ :blog:screenshot_2026-01-10_at_13.48.14.png?direct&600 |}} | {{ :blog:screenshot_2026-01-10_at_13.48.14.png?direct&600 |}} |
| |
| This is certainly more nuanced than the rule I was taught. Indeed, with the example given of "Lord Williams's School" it appears to flat-out say my rule is simply wrong. Except that it does no such thing: if it gives the example of Nicholas' and Nicholas's, it's showing that either form is acceptable. I cannot see a meaningful difference between the name "Nicholas" and "Williams": both are three-syllable names ending in single-s, so what applies to Nicholas should equally apply to Williams. | This is certainly more nuanced than the rule I was taught. Indeed, with the example given of "Lord Williams's School" it appears to flat-out say my rule is simply wrong. Except that it does no such thing: if it gives the example of Nicholas' and Nicholas's, it's showing that either form is acceptable. I cannot see a meaningful difference between the name "Nicholas" and "Williams": both are three-syllable names ending in single-s, so what applies to Nicholas should equally apply to Williams. The examples given are, in other words, merely pointing out that long, multi-syllable names ending in single-s can and cannot take a naked apostrophe ending. They specifically chose to say //Nicholas'// was correct; they could equally well have said that //Williams'// was acceptable on precisely the same logic... but I imagine space got the better of them! |
| |
| We shouldn't, in any case, look for a rule spelled out that simply mandates or forbids the naked apostrophe. The point is to demonstrate that a formidable authority on punctuation has just demonstrated that the naked apostrophe is acceptable "where an additional s would cause difficulty in pronunciation". It is, in other words, more a matter of 'internal voicing' that occurs when you read than a hard-and-fast rule-book approach. | We shouldn't, in any case, look for a rule spelled out that simply mandates or forbids the naked apostrophe. The point is to demonstrate that a formidable authority on punctuation has just demonstrated that the naked apostrophe is acceptable "where an additional s would cause difficulty in pronunciation". It is, in other words, more a matter of 'internal voicing' that occurs when you read than a hard-and-fast rule-book approach. |