The selection of Tim Walz as Vice President Kamala Harris's running mate has unexpectedly reignited a longstanding grammatical debate. The controversy centers on the correct possessive form of proper nouns ending in 'S', particularly relevant to Harris's surname.
Grammar enthusiasts quickly engaged in discussions about apostrophe usage following the announcement. Ron Woloshun, a California-based creative director, noted the intensity of such debates, stating, > "The lower the stakes, the bigger the fight."
Various style guides offer differing opinions on the matter. The Associated Press Stylebook recommends using only an apostrophe for singular proper names ending in 'S'. However, other prominent publications, including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, advocate for adding 's.
Benjamin Dreyer, former Random House copy chief and author, suggests simplifying the rule by consistently adding 's. He argues this approach allows individuals to focus on more critical aspects of communication.
From a linguistic perspective, Timothy Pulju, a Dartmouth College senior lecturer, provides historical context. He explains that until the 17th or 18th centuries, possessives of proper names ending in 'S' often used no additional markers. The apostrophe was later introduced to denote possession.
Pulju anticipates the 's form may eventually become dominant, reflecting changes in spoken language. However, he emphasizes that successful communication is the primary goal of language, regardless of specific grammatical choices.
This debate is not entirely new in the political sphere. Michael Dukakis, the 1984 Democratic nominee, faced similar challenges with his surname. In a recent interview, the 90-year-old former candidate expressed support for the AP style guide's approach.
Interestingly, if elected, Harris would become the fourth U.S. president with a last name ending in 'S', following Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876. This historical context adds another layer to the ongoing discussion.
As the campaign progresses, the Harris team has yet to adopt a consistent approach. Recent press releases have used both "Harris's" and "Harris'" forms, reflecting the broader uncertainty surrounding this grammatical issue.
"As long as people are communicating successfully, we say language is doing what it's supposed to be doing. If you can read it whichever way it's written, then it seems like it's working for people."
This unexpected grammar debate serves as a reminder of language's evolving nature and the ongoing tension between prescriptive and descriptive approaches to linguistics. As the campaign unfolds, it remains to be seen whether a consensus will emerge or if the apostrophe controversy will continue to punctuate political discourse.