Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004

Because it's a matter of the written language, I have always assumed that
the captioners are following an explicit rule. In fact, in a post to
alt.english.usage a couple of years ago, I reported having read just such a
rule:

See
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=47dd044c.0201230002.a60e20d%40posting.googl
e.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

or

http://tinyurl.com/22xue

[begin quote from Usenet post]

I have read of a rule where a modern name ending with <s> becomes a
possessive by adding an apostrophe and no <s>, but the result is
pronounced by adding an extra /s/, /@s/, or /@z/ to the name. I don't
believe the people who hold to this rule use it in the case of ancient
names such as those I gave above, and in any case, it seems a bizarre
rule to me. However, it appears to still be in use, because the other
day when I saw Ken Burns's documentary about Mark Twain, the narrator
made reference to /'hEnrI 'klEm@ns@z dET/, but the Closed Captioning
read "Henry Clemens' death." I would have pronounced it as the
narrator did, but written it "Henry Clemens's death."

[end quote from Usenet post]

It would be useful if you could infer that the author is pronouncing <Jones>
as one syllable. However, the reality of the matter is that you cannot.
Today while reading in a local paper an article about rationing in American
medicine, I came across the following phrase: <Xigris' maker, Eli Lilly &
Co.> This reminded me that the rule in question does not seem to apply to
names. If someone writes <Charles' book> I don't really know if the author
intended for <Charles'> to be read in one syllable or two. By the same
token, I don't know if <Xigris'> is intended to be read as one syllable or
two.

And I gave the example in my post of <the witness' statement> being used to
represent a pronunciation in which <witness'> is pronounced in three
syllables. I think the following indicates that it could also be pronounced
in two syllables:

From *The American Heritage Book of English Usage* at
http://www.bartleby.com/64/82.html

[quote--I have not corrected their italics]

Note that although some people use just the apostrophe after singular nouns
ending in _s (the witness' testimony, Burns' poetry_), the _-'s_ is
generally preferred because it more accurately reflects the modern
pronunciation of these forms. However, in a few cases where the _-'s_ is not
pronounced, it is usual to add just the apostrophe: _for righteousness'
(appearance') sake._

[end quote]

I have not, as yet, encountered anyone who pronounced the possessive of
<boss> in less than two syllables. So to answer the original poster's
question, I am quite certain that <my boss' kid> is to be read with <boss'>
pronounced in two syllables, but no one can have the same certainly about
many other possessive forms of nouns ending in <s>.

Note that this situation would cause ambiguity even for someone reading *my*
writing, if they were not already familiar with it! If I were to write
<Charles' book>, I would do so with the intention that <Charles'> be
pronounced as one syllable (and I would do so only when representing the
speech of someone who would make a one-syllable possessive based upon the
name <Charles>. I prefer <Charles's> myself--see my reference above to <Ken
Burns's documentary>. But a reader unfamiliar with my opinion on such
matters simply could not be certain whether I intended <Charles'> to be
pronounced with one syllable or two.