This thread is stupid and should die, at least in its current incarnation.

In message <Pine.NEB.4.21.0007261027440.24937-100000@mage.starwolf.com>, Greywo
lf writes:
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000, John Nemeth wrote:

>This is not quoted from any authoritative source save my own learnings
>throughout my school days.
...
>FWIW, I will volunteer proofreading services to anyone who is not sure
>that they have done it completely correctly.  I know this sounds totally
>pedantic, but exposure to more erudite types (via the Renaissance Faires,

No, it doesn't make you sound pedantic. It makes you sound arrogant
and pompous when you suggest that one particular set of rules, which
you cannot even offer an authoritative reference source for, should be
help up higher than, and as "more correct" than, another set of rules with
equally good (arguably better, for being printed and well-accepted
by some set of people) claims.


It is important to remember that there is no single correct answer.


For those who seem so inclined to know, my preferred refernce source
(Siegal & Connolly) asserts: 

	Almost all singular words ending in "s" require a
	second "s" as well as the apostrophe to form the
	posessive: "James's"; "Chris's"; "The Times's". But
	omit the "s" after the apostrophe when a word ends
	in two sibilant sounds (the "ch", "j", "s", "sh",
	"ts" or "z" sounds) seperated only by a vowel sound:
	"Kansas' Governor"; "Texas' population"; "Moses'
	behalf". The posessive "s" is also traditionally
	dropped in some idioms in which the word after the
	posessive begins with "s": "for conscience' sake";
	"for apperance' sake"; "for goodness sake."

	When a name ends with a sibilant letter that is
	silent, keep the posessive "s": "Arkansas's";
	"Duplessis's"; "Malraux's". By custom, however, the
	posessive of an ancient classical name is formed
	with an apostrophe only: "Achilles' heel";
	"Euripides' dramas".

--jhawk