Re: OT: Silent last letters, pluralization, and possessive formation in English (was Re: Langmaker down since January?)

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Tristan McLeay <conlang@...>
wrote:

>
>
> If it were me, I would spell the plural of "Illinois" as "Illinoises",
> certainly not as "Illinoiss", and therefore the possessive plural as
> "Illinoises'". Of course the rule seems sillily to be you don't add an
> orthographic s if there's a silent one there already, so I'd presume
> "Illinois'". That does, however, leave much to be desired.
>
The problem of course being that the plural should be /ilinoiz/ and not
/ilinoiz@s/ (I'm using the phonemic spelling because X-SAMPA would pose
distinction difficulties). I say if the word ends in a silent 's', keep the
spelling in the plural.


>
> > I see that the Wikipedia entry for [[Apostrophe]] says:
> >
> > "For possessive plurals of words ending in silent x, z, or s, the few
> > authorities that address the issue at all call for an added s, and
> > require that the apostrophe precede the s: The Loucheux's homeland is
> > in the Yukon; Compare the two Dumas's literary achievements. As usual
> > in punctuation, the best advice is to respect soundly established
> > practice, and beyond that to strive for simplicity, logic, and
> > especially consistency."
>
> The inclusion of "silent x" there seems to imply that it is possible to
> spell "box's" as "box'", which of course it isn't. The
> apostrophe-for-possession rule only applies, to my knowledge, to plurals
> and particular names, generally biblical or classical.
>
>

No it doesn't. "Box" doesn't have a silent 'x'. And the paragraph doesn't
cover non-silent x's, z's and s's, or singulars. Also, the possessive of
"chassis" is "chassis'" or, as many now begin to prefer, "chassis's".

Eugene

Reply