Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: Il genitivo di Linus

Non dovrebbe essere "Linus's"?
 
Invece sul Peanuts Wiki si legge
 
Linus' security blanket
 
http://peanuts.wikia.com/wiki/Linus%27_security_blanket
 


Yes, it should be Linus's. But that's according the 14th edition of the 
Chicago Manual of Style. The current edition is the 16th edition which I 
don't have in my possession. And, I've been informed that the 16th 
edition includes changes made to the accepted standard for possessives 
because the older rules not only had exceptions, but they had exceptions 
to the exceptions. The following post may be an indication of that 
change. Take a look at the answer to the first question about "Dickens's 
novel."
 
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/PossessivesandAttributives.html?old=PossessivesandAttributives01.html
 
 
By the way, the 14th edition definitively says that "Dickens's novel" 
is correct.

):

Yes, it should be Linus's. The "rule" to follow is "if the apostrophe-s is 
pronounced, it should be written." It's only logical.
 
Dickens's novels have withstood the test of time and are still very popular.
Jonas's story about being swallowed by a whale is a bit too hard for /me/ to 
swallow.
Elvis's memorabilia would bring a ton of cash at an auction.
 
A lot of writers ignore this and the use without the final 's is becoming 
accepted, but it's illogical to me if the 's is pronounced.
 
-- 
Joey from New York
Among those whom I like or admire, I can findï¿œno common denominator,
but among thoseï¿œwhom I love, I can: all of them make me laugh.
ï¿œ ï¿œ-- WH Auden
 

 accepted, but it's illogical to me if the 's is pronounced.
 
Thanks Joe (and Tony)!
 
So,  the s is pronounced in any case, even when it's not written?

):

Yes, it's pronounced even though it's not there, which is what makes no sense 
to me.
 
Linus' is pronounced Linuses, just as 
Linus's is pronounced.


 Linus's is pronounced.
 
HA! :-O

 pronounced.
 
 
I don't understand why they used the apostrophe to replace a
single 'e', or even to replace nothing.
 
Dickens's novels are as good as Wilde's comedies.
Dickenses novels are as good as Wildes comedies.
 
 
-- 
One must have a heart of stone to read the death of Little Nell
by Dickens without laughing.
    -- Oscar Wilde
 

 Dickenses novels are as good as Wildes comedies.
 
Replacing an omitted letter or letters is only one use of the apostrophe 
in English. In the case of the possessive it doesn't necessarily replace 
a letter nor is it always necessary, for example in "hers," or "yours." 
It does, however, distinguish possession from the plural as in 
"Italian's" or "Italians." So, as with most grammar preferences, it's 
best to be familiar with the usage rather than to try to learn the rules 
and then all the exceptions to the rules and finally hope that it will 
make sense.
 
 

 Dickenses novels are as good as Wildes comedies.
This last sentence doesn't make sense; it's grammatically incorrect.
 
"Dickenses" is not a possessive form, so it can't be used to indicate novels 
written by Dickens. Nor is "Wildes" a possessive form.
 
Both of these can only refer to their plural surnames:
"The Dickenses are coming for dinner on Christmas day! Humbug!"
"The Wildes weren't very proud of their son, Oscar, when he got tossed into 
gaol."
 
You're confusing the apostrophe that indicates omitted letters with the 
apostrophe that indicates the possessive form of nouns [the Saxon Genitive, 
q.v.]
 
"Dickens's novels are widely read even today."
[The novels of Dickens]
Same as:
Joe's novels have never been published.
[The novels of some guy named Joe.]
 
"Wilde's witticism is often quoted sarcastically."
[The witticism of Wilde.]
 
Hoping not to confound you further, I add:
Dickens's novel's introduction is very lengthy.
[The introduction of that novel by DIckens is very lengthy.]
and
Dickens's novels' introductions are very lengthy.
[The introductions of the novels of Dickens are very lengthy.]
NOTE that in this last example, because you don't say "novelses" in the 
plural possessive, the apostrophe-s indicating plural possession is not 
added, only the apostrophe.
 
As stated earlier, there are some writers who eschew the 's on all nouns 
ending in 's,' using only the apostrophe, but my claim is that it's illogical 
to do so when the final 's is pronounced, as in the case of "Dickens's."
 
-- 
Joey from New York
Among those whom I like or admire, I can find no common denominator,
but among those whom I love, I can: all of them make me laugh.
   -- WH Auden
 

 single 'e', or even to replace nothing.
 
Blame the French! ;)
 
 
===
 
In Middle English the -es ending was generalised to the genitive of 
all strong declension nouns. By the sixteenth century, the remaining 
strong declension endings were generalised to all nouns. The spelling 
-es remained, but in many words the letter -e- no longer represented 
a sound. In those words, printers often copied the French practice of 
substituting an apostrophe for the letter e. In later use, -'s was 
used for all nouns where the /s/ sound was used for the possessive 
form, and the -e- was no longer omitted. Confusingly, the -'s form 
was also used for plural noun forms. These were derived from the 
strong declension -as ending in Old English. In Middle English, the 
spelling was changed to -es, reflecting a change in pronunciation, 
and extended to all cases of the plural, including the genitive. 
Later conventions removed the apostrophe from subjective and 
objective case forms and added it after the -s in possessive case 
forms. See Apostrophe: Historical development
 
In the Early Modern English of 1580 to 1620 it was sometimes spelled 
as "his" as a folk etymology, e.g. "St. James his park"; see his 
genitive.
 
...snip...
 
From 
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_genitive
 

 genitive.
 
It's my understanding that this is the modern convention in Dutch, too.


 Dutch, too.
 
 
Well, you live in Nieuw Amsterdam, you should ask your
neighbours...
:-)
 
 
-- 
"The future, according to some scientists, will be exactly like
the past, only far more expensive."
                -- John Sladek 
 

> -)
 
 
Good one.
 
-- 
Joey from New Amsterdam (or as we said as kids when something went wrong: 
Amster, Amster, DAMN DAMN DAMN!)
Among those whom I like or admire, I can find no common denominator,
but among those whom I love, I can: all of them make me laugh.
   -- WH Auden