Re: plural possessive question

["Timothy Olson" TLO@xxxxxxxx]

from *The Chicago Manual of Style* 6.19-20; 6.24


The possessive case of singular nouns is formed by the addition of an apostrophe and an s, and the
possessive of plural nouns by the addition of an apostrophe only.
the horse's mouth
the puppies' tails
the children's desks

The general rule covers proper names as well as common nouns, including most names of any length
ending in sibilants. When in doubt, common pronunciation should be your guide. For instance, ***if
you would not ordinarily pronounce an extra s, then only an apostrophe should be added.***

Burns's poems	Jefferson Davis's home
Marx's theories	Dickens's novels
the Joneses' reputation	Timothy Rogers' Bible



Of course, there's always the rewrite option: "The most recent discussion by the New York Court
of vicarious liability in ..."

--Timothy Olson
TLO@xxxxxxxx
(630) 784-5327
"Life doesn't cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when
people laugh." --G.B. Shaw

>>> Bill Troop  01/11/03 09:19PM >>>
May I pose a question to the grammarians on the list? I am one of those who strongly cling to the
convervative view that nearly every plural possessive
must have an apostrophe-s (i.e., CBS's, etc.). It sets my teeth on edge
whenever I see an exception to this, usually in the New York Post or some other tabloid, and it
distracts me beyond endurance when this artificial locution actually finds it way into speech. My
question, or rather my
several questions, have to do with the New York Court of Appeals and the US Court of Appeals of (for
example) the Second Circuit.

Is it proper (and consistent with the principle expressed above) to write, "... the New York
Court of Appeals's most recent discussion of vicarious liability in ..." ? Somehow it doesn't
sound quite right.

Should the s be dropped in this case? Would this be an exception to the
general rule? Or should the s after the apostrophe be retained at any cost?

Similarly, what happens when you have to write about them both? For
example, "both the New York and US Courts of Appeals have ruled ..." Here, I would prefer
to say, "Courts of Appeal" -- but, reasoning that the title of both courts is "Court
of Appeals" I find myself doubting that that would
be correct. And then, whichever we decide is correct, what would be proper if we wanted to make both
courts possessive? "The New York and US Courts of
Appeals' rulings ..." Well, in that case, I suppose it would be better to say, "the
rulings of etc." and avoid the problem that way.

Anyway, I would greatly appreciate an authoritative answer on or off list.