The Legislative Apostrophe

They've got a little problem down in Arkansas: how to form the possessive of the state's name--Arkansas' or Arkansas's?

The Associated Press Stylebook says the former spelling is correct, and the state's biggest newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, concurs. But others disagree. On Tuesday, State Rep. Steve Harrelson, a Democrat, introduced a resolution to make "Arkansas's" the official spelling. He told NPR reporter Melissa Block that a friend of his put him up to it:

"It's that sibilant letter, that sibilant 's' that really fires him up," Harrelson says. "He is adamant that it must have an apostrophe and an 's' on the other side of the apostrophe."

Curiously, the Arkansas judiciary's house style guide treats the issue as settled law: "Add the 's even if the word ends in "s" (the witness's testimony; Arkansas's sodomy law; Yeats's "Crazy Jane" poems)." That's what Strunk and White say, too. The only permitted exceptions are "ancient proper names" such as Jesus and Moses.

But the story doesn't end there, nor is it merely the local problem of a state whose name is pronounced nothing like it's spelled. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ventured into this very territory, as Connecticut attorney Jonathan Starble recounts in a deft, deadpan Law.com article titled "Gimme an 'S': The High Court's Grammatical Divide." Here's a snippet:

As one of its final acts last term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Kansas v. Marsh, a case involving the constitutionality of a state death-penalty statute. The 5-4 decision exposed the deep divide that exists among the nation's intellectual elite regarding one of society's most troubling issues -- namely, whether the possessive form of a singular noun ending with the letter "s" requires an additional "s" after the apostrophe.

The issue reached a crescendo in Marsh primarily because of two circumstances. First, the statute in question originated from a state with a name ending in "s." Second, the majority opinion was written by a justice whose last name ends in "s." Given the confluence of these factors, it was inevitable that the justices' philosophical differences on matters of American usage would be thrust into the spotlight.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Court, referred to the law in question as "Kansas' statute." But:

Whereas Thomas apparently believes that whenever a singular noun ends in "s," an additional "s" should never be placed after the apostrophe, [Justice David] Souter has made equally clear his conviction that an "s" should always be added after the apostrophe when forming a singular possessive, regardless of whether the nonpossessive form already ends in "s." With this acrimonious undercurrent simmering in the background, Souter boldly began his Marsh dissent as follows: "Kansas's capital sentencing statute provides ... " This dramatic and gratuitous use of the possessive was an obvious attack on Thomas, who, as one of three s-ending members of the Court, is viewed as a role model for the millions of children who grow up with the stigma of grammatical ambiguity attached to their names.

Clearly, possessives are nine points of the law. Let's hope for big news from Little Rock; the good citizens of that state--not to mention Kansas, Illinois, and Massachusetts--deserve a swift, just, and decisive resolution.

Comments

[Mark Gunnion]

Once again I must disagree with Judge Thomas.

But mostly, this whole thing makes me think of The 6ths' CD, "Hyacinths and Thistles" ( http://www.amazon.com/Hyacinths-Thistles-6ths/dp/B00004WHA3 ).

Their first album was called, oddly enough, "Wasps' Nests" - although it's listed in the band's official biography as "Wasps Nests" ( http://www.houseoftomorrow.com/sixths.php ), the art on the cover plainly has the apostrophe ( http://www.houseoftomorrow.com/sixths_cd_wasps.php ).

And this thread begs us to recall the Frank Zappa album universally typed as "Apostrophe (')" ( http://www.amazon.com/Apostrophe-Frank-Zappa/dp/B0000009SI ). Whether the ever-inventive FZ meant the album to be noted as simply ' I don't know, although there is this ( http://www.progreviews.com/reviews/display.php?rev=fz-apo ):

"And the mystery of the album's title? "Stink Foot" tells us that the answer should be "easy to see," since "the crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe." Zappa himself never elaborated..."

[Diane Taylor]

What about pluralizing Blackberry? Someone from RIM suggested I try to find a way to always use Blackberry in the singular form to avoid the problem - hardly a solution.
As Blackberry is a Trademark I am not comfortable using Blackberries but I'm not sure about Blackberrys and I do not agree with some who have suggested Blackberry's because then it is singular possessive.

Is anybody out there? What do you all think?

[Nancy]

Diane--Here's what the Chicago Manual of Style says (15th edition, 5.18): "If the noun is proper or if the y is preceded by a vowel, add s to form the plural {Teddy - Teddys}..." So, yes, it's "Blackberrys."

And, of course, the Toronto Maple LEAFS, not "Leaves."

[Nancy]

...although of course the lawyers want us to write "BlackBerry devices" or "BlackBerry smartphones." Trademarks are always adjectives blah blah blah.