(no subject)

[tree_and_leaf]

Am back in the USSR... er, no, the UK, after what was in some respects a nightmarish journey (please don't mention luggage and weight limits), though it would have been a deal worse without the support of my friends Sehenna and Gaston, which was definitely above and beyond the call of duty.

Am currently engaged in boggling at editor's demands for alterations to my translation (they might have said they wanted US spellings in the first place, and I maintain that there are times when 'become' is a better choice than 'turned into'). Most painful is his wish to substitute Herodotus's, Jesus's for Herodotus', Jesus'. Is this a US thing? It just looks illiterate to me...

Comments

[sacred-sarcasm.livejournal.com]

I think the English 'rule' is that is you say the possessive 's' then you should write it. (So James's coat, but the buses' engines) But both are 'technically' correct. I usually use 'James'' because the other looks wrong to me, but I admit mine is probably not the right way. (I do use an oxford comma, though, which I think makes up for it!)

Glad you got back safely.

[parrot-knight.livejournal.com]

I am definitely a 'Herodotus's' and 'James's' person. (I think Newcastle's 'St James' Park' to be just wrong, and prefer the London version.) Unfortunately I'm 280 or so miles away from my Oxford style guides, or the MLA one, so can't check them.

[azdak.livejournal.com]

AS far as I know, both forms are correct, but personally I feel that Herodotus's is starting to go the way of bananananananana.

[tree_and_leaf]

Wasn't there a Discworld novel where someone wanted to know 'how to stop spelling bananna'?

[wuglet.livejournal.com]

It's Witches Abroad I think. :)

And I have actually learned the James', Jesus', Herodotus' variant in school, although that might not account for much...

[tree_and_leaf]

I'm waiting for someone to get back to me with the style guide they're using...

[snorkackcatcher]

I understood them to be pretty much equally valid -- although you could even argue that the version without the final 's' is a bastardised written form, either to allow for the fact that it's often not pronounced in actual speech, or used simply because of improved appearance (in the way that US usage has punctuation stuffed within quotes and parentheses when it doesn't belong there, which is my bugbear). I used to use the no-s form, but seem to have started using the other because of concerns about whether it looks right to other people.

[tree_and_leaf]

Yes, unfortunately you do have to pay a little attention to how people will react!

[scionofgrace.livejournal.com]

The possessives are a U.S. thing. And speaking as a Yank, they grate on my nerves, too. I was under the impression that you could still get away with "Jesus'", just like you can still get away with "Saviour", on account of so many Americans still being familiar with the King James translation. Apparently not.

[tree_and_leaf]

On another matter entirely - I love the icon!

(Judging from the comments below: it seems Jesus' is Ok with some US style guides but not others)

[itinerantsphinx.livejournal.com]

I always want to put Back in the USSR for the UK too.

Who is publishing this? You didn’t expect American spellings, which implies British? But then, why American spelling? So I’m not sure which guide you want. However, if these spellings are house style, you will probably have to go with them. But if not house style, then you have to approve (of) all changes (or not). Anyway, here goes:


According to New Hart's Rules (http://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Harts-Rules-Handbook-Reference/dp/0198610416) (i.e. British English) section 4.2.

"An apostrophe and s are generally used with personal names ending in an s, x, or z sound, e.g. Charles's."

[unless the additional s would make it hard to pronounce, e.g. Nicholas' or Nicholas's.]

"Jesus's is the usual non-liturgical use; Jesus' is an accepted archaism."

"it is traditional to use an apostrophe alone after classical names ending in s or es, e.g. Herodotus'

The Chicago Manual of Style (http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html) also seems to prefer Jesus's but mainly seems anticipate some controversy (although I'm searching this online, and may have missed something important):

"7.19 Nouns plural in form, singular in meaning

...when the name of a place or an organization (or the last element in the name) is a plural form ending in s, such as the United States, even though the entity is singular.

the United States’ role in international law
Highland Hills’ late mayor
Callaway Gardens’ former curator"

[but this doesn't mention people]

However:

"Those uncomfortable with the rules, exceptions, and options outlined above may prefer the system, formerly more common, of simply omitting the possessive s on all words ending in s—hence “Dylan Thomas’ poetry,” “Maria Callas’ singing,” and “that business’ main concern.” Though easy to apply, that usage disregards pronunciation and thus seems unnatural to many."

Not sure if that helps, really. Apologies also about it being overly long.

[tree_and_leaf]

No, thanks for that! The complication is that the publisher is a German firm with offices in both London and New York - I've been trying to get the stylesheet off them, but they are very slow at dealing with e-mails.

[itinerantsphinx.livejournal.com]

Ah, that explains it! They probably have their own ideas about style anyway then... Good luck!

Incidentally, if you don't mind me asking - what sort of queries do you get from editors? And how do you feel about them / how they are phrased? What format do you prefer to receive queries in? I'm just asking as someone who's currently contacting authors etc as an editor, but freelance and without experience of what authors expect or like. It seems to me a fine balance between being courteous and respectful, but still getting my way... Of course, you may have different views on this!

Thank you!

[tree_and_leaf]

I've not got much experience of this - it's my first proper job in that field - , so I'm probably the wrong person to ask, but I'd say that while 'polite but firm' is probably best, the main thing is to be clear. Do not, for instance, send back the text with a few changes made - unsystematically - via track changes and then a vague comment along the lines of 'the system should be clear now', followed by not responding to emails requesting clarification! (Of course, I expect you've thought of this yourself).

(The only requests for alteration I've had so far have been formal, i.e. switching from UK to US spelling and regarding punctation).

[itinerantsphinx.livejournal.com]

Fair enough - I just thought it worth asking anyway though... Yes, I'm trying to be quite direct and clear, and providing all with a table with original text and suggestions of changes to it.

I suppose just feel a bit inferior writing to people with all their knowledge of everything and saying 'but I think you should say this instead'. I am making a lot of changes, but it's mainly due to most being non-native English writers.

Incidentally (again), I don't suppose you know the correct form of address to an Archmandrite do you? From the pictures on his university's website, he has a big beard and black robes and looks terribly thoughtful and learned - so I'm a bit scared to get it wrong. The only suggestion I've had so far is "Dear learned very holy man...".

[lilliburlero.livejournal.com]

I was taught that classical names were different from modern ones, so I'm with you on Herodotus', but encountering Yeats' poetry as I often do in students' essays brings me out in hives. Jesus' / Jesus's stumped me entirely: insofar as Jesus has always seemed to me a bit chummier than Christ and so on (because Hebrew is chummier than Greek wtf?), I think I might have plumped for Jesus's, but Jesus' looks archaic and stark, which is not an argument that generally holds water with copy-editors bent on enforcing house style.

[tree_and_leaf]

Jesus' looks archaic and stark, which is not an argument that generally holds water with copy-editors bent on enforcing house style

I fear you may be correct! *g*