Skip to main content

orthography - "The species/species'/species's survival..."


Ok, I am really confused regarding apostrophe with the s and the end of the word. I have looked through multiple sites only to see multiple viewpoints. And, on tests they test it differently. So, can anyone help me with the following problem:



The only evidence of the species survival before its rediscovery at the end of the century was an unconfirmed recording.



Would it be species' or species's ?




There is a lot of advice on the internet about how to use possessive S with names such as the following:



Per APA Style, the answer is that the possessive of a singular name is formed by adding an apostrophe and an s, even when the name ends in s (see p. 96 in the sixth edition of the Publication Manual). Therefore, in the example above, the correct usage would be “Adams’s (2013) work.” Although this presentation may look awkward to some writers, the rule for forming the possessive does not change just because the name ends in s.


However, it is important to note the following exception to this rule: You should use an apostrophe only with the singular form of names ending in unpronounced s (see p. 97 in the Publication Manual). Therefore, if you were writing a paper about the philosopher Descartes, to form the possessive with his name, you would need to just add an apostrophe (e.g., Descartes’ theory).


To help illustrate these guidelines, let’s look at a few more examples of properly formatted possessives:



Sigmund Freud’s method


Jesus’s disciples


Charles Dickens’s novels


Socrates’s life


François Rabelais’ writings (note that Rabelais ends with an unpronounced s)




However, the word species in the sentence above is not a name. The case with species does not seem to be a normal case like dog's or dogs' or even on a par with bus's or buses'. It's difficult to put ones finger on why, though.



Answer



The online Chicago Manual of Style (both 16th and 17th editions) states:



When the singular form of a noun ending in s is the same as the plural (i.e., the plural is uninflected), the possessives of both are formed by the addition of an apostrophe only. If ambiguity threatens, use of to avoid the possessive.



And gives the following examples:



politics’ true meaning
economics’ forerunners
this species’ first record (or, better, the first record of this species)



This is section 7.19 of the 16th edition and 7.20 of the 17th edition (2017).


Obviously this differs to my comments saying that the CMOS says species's, which I took on faith from a third party website.


However, in speaking, despite remarks by others, I'm not sure I would rule out saying the species's survival (with the extra syllable) just to clarify that I'm talking about the possessive form of the word. This is my opinion only.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.