I like the name "Jacobs." I can't stand writing "Jacobs's." I will never be able to name a character "Jacobs." Damn this world. Is there some style manual that recommends "Jacobs'"? Maybe I can find a loophole.
You could write whatever word you want in Word and use the Find and Replace to replace it with the correct one. ;-) Strunk and White says it's an apostrophe S regardless of the consonant at the end of the name and that the exception of ancient proper names ending in es, is, and Jesus is the other exception. Change Jacobs to Jesus and you're golden. Just kidding. (In my Strunk and White's Elements of Style it's Chapter 1, page 1. Mine is not the most current edition.) Anyone with a current sub to Chicago Manual of Style? I let mine lapse because I'm not submitting or working for a publication right now. Somewhere in my memory banks I'm having a vague memory that this may be one of those instances where British publications do it differently than US??? I could be wrong on this but wanted to give you a heads up. I'm in the US.
APA excepts names where the final S is unpronounced: Descartes, for instance. Until I found that (today), I was only familiar S&W's rules. Maybe I'll just write "Jacobs's" until it stops hurting my teeth. Assuming it eventually stops.
Basically AP style is the one you prefer. Chicago, even as of the new version 17, always adds the apostrophe S. They even make a point of talking about it in section 7.22 and explicitly say that some people prefer just the apostrophe but they recommend against it. They claim it "disregards pronunciation in the majority of cases." I wonder though . . . majority is not ALL. I would say "Jacobs house" not "Jacobses house" (sounding it out there). Unless. . . well, there are exceptions that have to do with plural last names ending in S, but that's not what you're asking. I kind of agree with you. Jacobs looks better without an apostrophe-S because it sounds unnatural. I usually don't like AP as much as Chicago, but I do here.
Thanks, @Seven Crowns ! I'm guessing it's not for a specific publication that has writer's guidelines? If that's the case, do what you like. If it's for a publication, it doesn't matter what you like; check which style manual they prefer, and follow it. ETA: I used to write for a publication that hated commas, especially in a list or before the word "but." Killed me every damn time to leave out those commas.
My shelved novel had a character called Jacobs and I used Jacobs' for the possessive. Which is what @ChickenFreak has already suggested. However, in a sample passage I posted somewhere on here (can't remember why or where now) I was told it should be Jacobs's. I also can't remember what was the reason given.
Strunk and White, those ruiners of usage. For some reason, the English-writing universe has seen fit to adopt The Elements of Style, surely the most dubious style guide ever written, as the Holy Writ. This makes me want to howl, and if you've ever heard a squirrel howl, you will know it's not pretty.
Never heard of 'em, but a quick look-up tells me their book deals with American-English style, so I'm going to disregard them anyway.
It's not that I'm not a fan of the American language. In a lot of ways I prefer it and nearly always set my novels in an undisclosed location that is probably somewhere in America. I prefer the American accent(s), love many of your phrases and 'ways', love your cities, your films. But, sometimes, what you do with the English language makes my teeth itch.
I couldn't agree with you more. I just go along 'cause it's what the editors want. Never heard a squirrel howl, but I do hear them cackle and chatter all the tin the backyard...especially when they see a cat. ;-) Or at least I thought so...Now I wonder if they're all cackling over Strunk and White!
Unfortunately, should you endeavor to get published in most American publications, you can't ignore them. Most use a combination of Strunk and White and The Chicago Manual of Style.
I completely agree. There are times when passive voice is useful. I have a character whose inner thought are in nothing but passive voice, because the character has no confidence.
It's not just how they feel about passive voice, it's also the fact that some (most?) of their examples of passive voice are not actually passive voice. I look all confused. (Or, confusion is experienced by me.)
My thoughts on passive voice are complicated. I think the actual reason we're told to avoid it is bullshit. I still think it ought to be avoided in most cases--just not for that particular reason.
I think that passive voice is so unnatural that there's really no need for the near-phobic avoidance of it--people don't form it naturally anyway. When they do form it, it's usually because they need it. Of course, there are two instances in your post. Was that a pointed point you were making, or just freaky coincidence?
I don't think it's either, @ChickenFreak; it's just a common mode of speech where I'm from. I imagine that has to do with the echoing remnants of the kind of honor culture that produces a tendency toward passive speech in the first place.
@ChickenFreak @Archer is correct, passive voice can be a cultural or regional way of speaking, too. The phrase "ought to be avoided" was common among my dad's relatives, but they moved around so much, I'm not sure if they picked it up in the Midwest or Texas.
