The "S" Clash: Scalia's Position Explained
Here's a brief update to our post from yesterday, concerning the divergence among Supreme Court justices over whether to include a second "s" at the end of the possessive form of a proper noun already ending in "s." E.g., Kansas' or Kansas's.
Justice Thomas says no ("Kansas'"), while Justice Souter says yes ("Kansas's"). We're with Justice Souter on this one -- as is Steve Dillard, although it pains him to admit it.
Justice Scalia appears to flip flop on the question. Jonathan Starble of the Legal Times offered a theory to explain Justice Scalia's approach: "He believes the extra 's' should be omitted if the existing 's' is preceded by a hard consonant sound."
We did some poking around, and Starble's theory is essentially correct. Past clerks tried to convince Justice Scalia to use the "s" no matter how it sounds (unless a plural possessive is involved, in which case only the apostrophe is needed). This is Justice Souter's view, Strunk and White's view, and our view as well.
But Justice Scalia consulted Fowler's, and he could find no rule to this effect. So he declined to follow the clerkly counsel. Instead, he "goes by the ear," or by how it sounds: If it sounds ugly, then add only the apostrophe; if it sounds okay, then add the "s" as well.
Generally we're all in favor of making decisions based on aesthetic considerations. But in this case, we respectfully dissent.
Gimme an 'S': The High Court's Grammatical Divide [Legal Times]
Mark This Date Down [Southern Appeal]
Comments
We're disappointed in you, ATL. The omission of the s is a hoary practice, and we all know that hoary practices are best. You're probably among those who would write CD's and 1990's instead of CDs and 1990s.
Scalia's rule, generally aiming for the best sound, though not necessarily codified anywhere, is probably preferable because it (a) on its terms is prettier, and (b) probably reflects actual vocal practice.
And, as the article in the Legal Times noted, Massachussetts' is more euphonious than Massachussetts's.
Posted by: nsc | October 20, 2006 03:58 PM
What do the Brits do on this? Perhaps Scalia is trying to avoid foreign practice in this realm, as well. (The above comment and its reference to CDs/CD's reminds me with horror that The Economist describes plural members of parliament as all capitalized MPS. Ackthp!)
Posted by: Dylan | October 20, 2006 05:33 PM