Opening the lock at the bone dam (aka: Apostrophe debate)

[hermoda]

Hi there!

 

I am at the at the exit of the woods and I have taken care of the beavers, but I do not know how to open the lock on the outside so that I can drive through with Glottis. Can someone please give me a tip on how to accomplish this?

[Du Man]

Hi to you back!

 

but your question is in the wrong forum. Go one up and go to Glottis' Garage for game help. none the less though, i'll answer.

 

have you come across the area with a circle of trees and a single arrow sign roughly in the middle?

 

by the way, I believe it should be Glottis's Garage, you only use the apostrophy with a possesive plural, so the moderator might like to correct that too as well as moving this thread.

[Frenkieee]

edit: I just read in another thread that English is your mother tongue, so I guess I can't argue with you about this matter

[Thrik]

Man, can't believe I didn't notice that!

 

I did believe the way it's written was correct when I created the forum, but've since learnt otherwise in an unrelated context. Consider it changed. ;

 

By possessive plural he means the word in question is not only a possessive but also a plural. For example it'd be correct if it were Mechanics' Garage, but since there's only one Glottis it's wrong.

[Frenkieee]

Thanks, never knew that.

[Stickywulf]

By possessive plural he means the word in question is not only a possessive but also a plural. For example it'd be correct if it were Mechanics' Garage, but since there's only one Glottis it's wrong.

The correct spelling is Glottis' Garage

or mechanic's garage. (singular - only one mechanic)

or mechanics' garage. (plural - more than one mechanic)

 

Since the plural and singular of Glottis is both spelt the same, the only correct spelling of the possessive proper noun is Glottis' Garage. The 's' is emphasised in pronunciation, although there is no additional 's' added to the spelling.

[Thrik]

There isn't a plural of Glottis, though. It's implicitly singular as it's the name of a single character (although I'm aware the name is based on a word that can legitimately be plural).

[Du Man]

what word is that and what does it mean?

[Stickywulf]

There isn't a plural of Glottis, though. It's implicitly singular as it's the name of a single character (although I'm aware the name is based on a word that can legitimately be plural).

Whether there is a plural for Glottis is irrelevant. The apostrophe is to show that the garage belongs to Glottis. Adding 's after the noun to show ownership is not normally used for words ending in s,x or z.

 

Examples:

Archimedes' principle.

Marx' theory of history.

Jesus' teachings.

Glottis' garage.

 

It's OK though. The mispelling has become so common that both are accepted. I prefer the traditional sense, you have embraced the new age.

[Du Man]

sorry to be a dick, but at least i'm starting to learn more about grammar on my own (even if i never spell right)

 

Adding 's after the noun to show ownership is not normally used for words ending in s,x or z.

 

Not so according to this source, where not ending a possisve "s" ending noun with an s is considered rather archaic, so I don't see what's "new age" about it.

 

And for those that might be interested, we are talking about a specific case of the Saxon Genitive

 

The two reasons why I do it is because (a) it makes sense and makes it visually easier to tell if a word is plural or singular as either way you will already know it's possesive (b) I read an independent (that is, kinko published) comic that devoted a whole panel to explaining why you add an extra "s" after the apostrophy.

[Stickywulf]

sorry to be a dick, but at least i'm starting to learn more about grammar on my own (even if i never spell right)

 

 

 

Not so according to this source, where not ending a possisve "s" ending noun with an s is considered rather archaic, so I don't see what's "new age" about it.

 

And for those that might be interested, we are talking about a specific case of the Saxon Genitive

 

The two reasons why I do it is because (a) it makes sense and makes it visually easier to tell if a word is plural or singular as either way you will already know it's possesive (b) I read an independent (that is, kinko published) comic that devoted a whole panel to explaining why you add an extra "s" after the apostrophy.

 

The exception is when the pronunciation would be difficult. Also it is important to keep spelling consistent throughout the document so that the same word is not spelt differently on two different occassions.

 

Punctuation is used to indicate the writers intended pronunciation of the words.

 

The spelling Glottis's Garage implies pronunciation similar to Glottises Garage. (With two distinct ess sounds).

The spelling Glottis' Garage implies pronunciation similar to Glottiz Garage. (The ess sounds are slurred together).

 

Imagine the writer needed to describe what tools Glottis has in his garage. Consider these three examples:

a) In Glottis' Garage was Glottis' spanner.

or

b) In Glottis's Garage was Glottis's spanner.

or

c) In Glottis's Garage was Glottis' spanner.

 

Example 'c' is unnacceptable since it uses two different spellings of the same word. Example 'b' is also unacceptable since it contains a triple sibilant which can be difficult to pronounce. Example 'a' is correct since the spelling is consistent and the implied pronunciation is fluid.

 

The focus is mostly on Proper Nouns, which are commonly used in different context within the same document. This is why the examples you see as exceptions to the rule are Proper Nouns. In my understanding, the best practice is to punctuate this way if for no reason other than to avoid possible situations where difficult pronunciation would be encountered. The spelling must remain consistent at all times.

 

This is a much debated topic and I understand that we have different points of view. In the link which you gave, I notice the references are modern and American publications, so it is possible there is a difference depending on geographic location. I admit that since in this case "Glottis's Garage" is a title in a forum which is most likely filled with bad spelling, that either spelling would be correct and the point is somewhat moot.

[Du Man]

The exception is when the pronunciation would be difficult.

I'm not talking about pronunciation, I'm talking about writing, which is what we are doing here.

 

Also it is important to keep spelling consistent throughout the document so that the same word is not spelt differently on two different occassions.

 

Agreed.

 

Punctuation is used to indicate the writers intended pronunciation of the words.

 

The spelling Glottis's Garage implies pronunciation similar to Glottises Garage. (With two distinct ess sounds).

The spelling Glottis' Garage implies pronunciation similar to Glottiz Garage. (The ess sounds are slurred together).

 

This "iz" sound you're making is "es," which is what we normally add to the end of a word when writing to deal with this problem, as in " the classes' ." Also note the word "class" is not a name, thus you can change its spelling.

 

As for "Glottiz," those ess sounds cannot possibly be slurred together with those two e vowels. You are no longer using the ess sound, you're using iz.

 

Imagine the writer needed to describe what tools Glottis has in his garage. Consider these three examples:

a) In Glottis' Garage was Glottis' spanner.

or

b) In Glottis's Garage was Glottis's spanner.

or

c) In Glottis's Garage was Glottis' spanner.

 

Example 'c' is unnacceptable since it uses two different spellings of the same word. Example 'b' is also unacceptable since it contains a triple sibilant which can be difficult to pronounce.

 

(b) is not bad pronounciation, it's bad writing. (b) should be "In Glottis's Garage was his spanner." You already know the name of the subject, no need to repeat it.

 

Example 'a' is correct since the spelling is consistent and the implied pronunciation is fluid.

 

Great, except I don't know whether Glottis is a place or an actual person, nor do I quickly grasp that Glottis owns the garage.

 

In my understanding, the best practice is to punctuate this way if for no reason other than to avoid possible situations where difficult pronunciation would be encountered. The spelling must remain consistent at all times.

 

Again, we're not pronouncing, we are writing, and in my understanding good writing puts clarity before pronouncation. I already know the word is a possesive, but it's not clear whether it's singular or plural. It can be Jenny's and it can be Bob's, but I can't tell whether they are James' or it is James's. Frankly I hope you never walk into a room of James. And again, I agree the grammar/spelling must be consistent thoughout the entire document, I'm not stupid.

 

This is a much debated topic and I understand that we have different points of view. In the link which you gave, I notice the references are modern and American publications, so it is possible there is a difference depending on geographic location.

 

Well according to that same site on the Saxon Genitive "Many English writers have adopted the nonstandard usage (even in formal writing) of adding only an apostrophe for the singular possessive of a noun ending in "s"." Though yes, I understand the site lacks a citation for this, but in my defense you have yet to confront me with another source besides a wiki link.

 

And yes, I know the Americans haven't used English for years (cookie for the reference), but according do the University of Sussex (which I believe is in Englang, correct?), Larry Trask writes "Do not write things like Jones's, Steve's, Julie's or Eleanor Cross's if you are merely talking about more than one person or thing with that name." "Unless" would be a better word than "merely" to use here, but either way unless you are talking about more than one person or a thing (or locations as you tend to do in England, though London seems to be filled with crazy people), you should add that extra s after the apostrophe for a possesive name ending in s.

 

I admit that since in this case "Glottis's Garage" is a title in a forum which is most likely filled with bad spelling, that either spelling would be correct and the point is somewhat moot.

 

Just because there's bad spelling dosn't mean one shouldn't bother to correct oneself.

[Stickywulf]

I'm not talking about pronunciation, I'm talking about writing, which is what we are doing here.

The University of Sussex which you linked to earlier supports spelling the possessive proper noun in cooperation to the way is is pronounced.

"a name ending in s takes only an apostrophe if the possessive form is not pronounced with an extra s. Hence:

 

Socrates' philosophy

Saint Saens' music

Ulysses' companions

Aristophanes' plays

"

The pronunciation of Glotis's Garage would imply plural even though it is singular. Since the pronunciation could be misinterpreted, the 's' is excluded and the word is pronounced "Glotiz Garage".

 

This "iz" sound you're making is "es," which is what we normally add to the end of a word when writing to deal with this problem, as in " the classes' ." Also note the word "class" is not a name, thus you can change its spelling.

Class becomes classes when it becomes plural. Classes becomes classes' when indicating possession. The ending 's' (classess's) is omitted since the spelling would not correctly convey the pronunciation of the writing (as is the case when showing possession of all plural nouns).

 

As for "Glottiz," those ess sounds cannot possibly be slurred together with those two e vowels. You are no longer using the ess sound, you're using iz.

If you pronounce Glottis's with an ess sound (Glottises) the pronunciation would imply a plural term. Since Glottis is only singular, the pronunciation should be with an elongated ess (Glottiz) so there is no confusion as to whether Glottis is plural or singular.

 

(b) is not bad pronounciation, it's bad writing. (b) should be "In Glottis's Garage was his spanner." You already know the name of the subject, no need to repeat it.

I only used this example to make it simple. Instead, use two sentences:

Manny walked into Glottis's Garage. He then picked up Glottis's spanner.

 

Great, except I don't know whether Glottis is a place or an actual person, nor do I quickly grasp that Glottis owns the garage.

A name can not distinguish itself as a person or place since it is only a name. The possession is shown with the apostrophe, as is its use in the English language.

 

Again, we're not pronouncing, we are writing, and in my understanding good writing puts clarity before pronouncation. I already know the word is a possesive, but it's not clear whether it's singular or plural. It can be Jenny's and it can be Bob's, but I can't tell whether they are James' or it is James's. Frankly I hope you never walk into a room of James. And again, I agree the grammar/spelling must be consistent thoughout the entire document, I'm not stupid.

It is important to have both clarity and pronunciation conveyed. The apostrophe cannot be used to indicate a plural word. You would be walking into a room full of Jameses. There is no apostrophe in this case.

 

Well according to that same site on the Saxon Genitive "Many English writers have adopted the nonstandard usage (even in formal writing) of adding only an apostrophe for the singular possessive of a noun ending in "s"." Though yes, I understand the site lacks a citation for this, but in my defense you have yet to confront me with another source besides a wiki link.

I cannot find a truly reputable source on the internet. Besides wikipedia, I can give University of Sussex and The Story of the Apostrophe

And yes, I know the Americans haven't used English for years (cookie for the reference), but according do the University of Sussex (which I believe is in Englang, correct?), Larry Trask writes "Do not write things like Jones's, Steve's, Julie's or Eleanor Cross's if you are merely talking about more than one person or thing with that name." "Unless" would be a better word than "merely" to use here, but either way unless you are talking about more than one person or a thing (or locations as you tend to do in England, though London seems to be filled with crazy people), you should add that extra s after the apostrophe for a possesive name ending in s.

There is St James Park, St James' Park (both pronounced St James/z) and also St James's Park (pronounced St Jameses). The spelling indicates how the creator wishes the words to be pronounced. None of these are plural, they are all named after a singular St James (separately of course). The final spelling would convey a plural of St James through pronunciation although the writing suggests it is singular. Therefore, although the spelling is sometimes accepted, it can be confusing so the final 's' should be dropped.

 

 

Ultimately, the decision is with the author and how he would like the title to be pronounced. In my opinion, the most clear and precise spelling is Glottis' Garage. Then once Grim Fandango 2 is released (I wish), and there is another Glottis, the plural and the possessive noun will not be confused.

[Du Man]

How about I make this clear. Cite a reputable sources other than my own that supports your opinions, and I'll believe you.

 

However, you flagrantly passed the parts in one of my sources that did not support your opinion. Again Trask wrote, "An apostrophe is used in a possessive form, like Esther's family or Janet's cigarettes, and this is the use of the apostrophe which causes most of the trouble. The basic rule is simple enough: a possessive form is spelled with 's at the end." "This rule applies in most cases even with a name ending in s: Thomas's job, the bus's arrival, James's fiancée, Steve Davis's victory."

 

Curiously, if you compare these words to the examples you listed, " Socrates' " and " Ulysses' ," they all are multi-syllabic, familiar (as in widely known) names, while such multi-syllabic names such as "Thomas's" or "Davis's" escapes this rule. Notice that "Glottis" is also a multi-syllabic yet not a publicily well known name.

 

Oh and I am so amazed you found the Story on the Apostrohpe on your own! Let me guess, you found it in the references of the MB site that I found for you? And even better, you decided to not even bother citing a relevant passage from it, leaving me to read it for you. On the top of page 5 of that document in the box under rule 2.c.1 "Add 's to form the possessive of single-syllable nouns and proper names ending in a sibilant in the singular."

 

If you search through that document own your own you might be able to conjure up a counter argument, but remember, it is an american source. And excuse me for writing in this tone, but I dislike it when someone takes pot shots at an argument without citing relivant sources (that is giving the source and explaining why they are using that source).

[Du Man]

And just one more thing that was causing my skin to itch.

 

The pronunciation of Glotis's Garage would imply plural even though it is singular. Since the pronunciation could be misinterpreted, the 's' is excluded and the word is pronounced "Glotiz Garage"...

 

Class becomes classes when it becomes plural. Classes becomes classes' when indicating possession. The ending 's' (classess's) is omitted since the spelling would not correctly convey the pronunciation of the writing (as is the case when showing possession of all plural nouns)....

 

If you pronounce Glottis's with an ess sound (Glottises) the pronunciation would imply a plural term. Since Glottis is only singular, the pronunciation should be with an elongated ess (Glottiz) so there is no confusion as to whether Glottis is plural or singular...

 

It is important to have both clarity and pronunciation conveyed. The apostrophe cannot be used to indicate a plural word. You would be walking into a room full of Jameses. There is no apostrophe in this case.

 

Yes, and if the room was there's you would say "Jameses' room" just as you would say "the classes' room." By adding an apostrophe, you already know the word must be possessive, but unless you modified the spelling of the word you still don't know whether it is plural or singluar. By adding an 's you make that word's singularity unquestionable since no possesive plural would be spelled like that.

 

As for confusing singular with plural, I can see this would happen if you read the title to a person out loud, but either way when you are denoting a possessive you are already modifying the pronounciation of the word. Now which is worse, assuming Glottises is a family run business or assuming Glottiz is a totally different person from Glottis?

 

Knowing that not every one has perfect pronounciation unlike the British, this is probably why so many american literature associations (though you haven't presented an English literature association that supports your opinion) require the 's to end the ambiguity. As you are already modifying the pronounciation, Glottises' and Glottis' become indistinguishable just as James' and Jameses' do.

[Stickywulf]

How about I make this clear. Cite a reputable sources other than my own that supports your opinions, and I'll believe you.

Is this a joke? You wont even believe your own sources? Additionally, I have given "The Story of the Apostrophe", which is reputable and cites its own sources. (Found by googling "history +apostrophe" - it is the first result).

 

Thomas's, Davis's and James's do not escape this rule. They can also be written as Thomas', Davis' and James'. There is no confusion whether they are plural or singular because these are peoples names. There is no such thing as a single Thoma, Davi or Jame (or Glotti)

 

There is no point in citing more references. Besides the fact that the internet is inherently unreliable, there is already enough links in this thread to demonstrate my case. To show possession of a noun add apostrophe-s EXCEPT in the case of names which end in a sibilant. It seems you have no problem reading the first half of the sentence but for some reason you refuse to acknowledge there is exceptions to the primary rule.

 

The bottom line is the writer can choose his own spelling based on what he deems appropriate. So there is no point arguing the case, it is the writers choice.

[Du Man]

Is this a joke?

 

I'm under the impression that what you just quoted from me was all you read or cared to read of my responses. I have always read, considered, and replied to your responses. Unless you do the same, I'll just assume I'm talking to a wall. Plus ignoring my criticisms will get you no where if you think all that matters is getting the last post.

 

You wont even believe your own sources? Additionally, I have given "The Story of the Apostrophe", which is reputable and cites its own sources. (Found by googling "history +apostrophe" - it is the first result).

 

What? Seriously, what? I went through BOTH the sources you just cited and proved my point. University of Sussex supports that most cases permit Glottis's (as well as Thomas's, Davis's, and James's). The Story of the Apostrophe (which forgive me for doubting that you actually did a search for it, they also link to it on the MB site, but remember it's an american source) goes so far as to actually define the rules for the apostrophe and cites literary, published sources, and also supports the 's as Glottis is an unfamiliar and proper name.

 

Thomas's, Davis's and James's do not escape this rule. They can also be written as Thomas', Davis' and James'.

 

First off, to you it's not a rule, it's a preference. In good writing, you must keep not only your spelling and grammar constant, but your terms as well.

 

There is no confusion whether they are plural or singular because these are people's names. There is no such thing as a single Thoma, Davi or Jame (or Glotti)

 

Really?

 

The pronunciation of Glottis's Garage would imply plural even though it is singular.

 

These are your words. Glottis is a name, but apparently there can be confusion whether it's plural or singular? Literary sources tell us that adding an 's denotes a singular possessive, so why not do it even for names ending in s to prevent confusion?

 

There is no point in citing more references.

 

Then there is no more point in you posting unless you have an inferiority complex.

 

Besides the fact that the internet is inherently unreliable, there is already enough links in this thread to demonstrate my case.

 

When I say "sources," I don't mean just wiki links or halfassed forum opinions, nor do I just mean websites, but I mean published literary sources. In fact, I would prefer published literary sources over a website any day. Give me a book, preferably multiple books (MLA cited, or with whatever citing format you use in Britain, WITH THE PAGE NUMBER) that supports your opinion and I'll check it for myself. And trust me, I will check it, I go to school near the second largest library collection in my country, one of them will be bound to be in there.

 

To show possession of a noun add apostrophe-s EXCEPT in the case of names which end in a sibilant.

 

Read the only source you have found on your own (The Story of the Apostrophe) and say that again. To make it easier for you, read pages 4 to 5. See how I just told you the PAGE NUMBERS, that's the polite thing to do when you cite sources.

 

It seems you have no problem reading the first half of the sentence but for some reason you refuse to acknowledge there is exceptions to the primary rule.

 

What sentence was this?

 

The bottom line is the writer can choose his own spelling based on what he deems appropriate. So there is no point arguing the case, it is the writers choice.

 

Yeah, but if the writer wants people to read and understand him, he's going to have to follow a standard set of rules, which I believe we call the English language.

[tk102]

sorry to be a dick

right

 

 

I enjoyed this debate (and renamed the thread accordingly) and before reading it, I would have called Glottis's Garage a mistake like a silly American.

 

That said, I'm still set in my ways (singluar-possessive: s' not s's ). And s' to me reads as "sez" and doesn't require the ungainly s's to emphasize it.

[Du Man]

Let me be honest. When I said "sorry to be a dick," I was insulting myself because I always find it annoying when people correct grammar or spelling, which is what I was doing in order to resolve what I thought was a pot hole in my knowledge. I then found a legitimate source and cited it as supporting the 's. But when Stickywulf not only criticized me without a citing a source but had the nerve to discredit it just based on the nationality of that source, that just set me off.

 

Well Stickwulf, I found this place in England called "Oxford" that has a site called "AskOxford." I have it set on the UK view since our languages are so different.

http://www.askoxford.com/betterwriting/osa/punctuation/?view=uk#apostrophe

 

Notice here that they say " Smiths' " is actually a plural possessive, so according to you, Glottis' is a family owned buisness. Also, remember

 

Socrates' philosophy

Ulysses' companions

Aristophanes' plays ?

 

Did you notice all these names end in es?

http://www.askoxford.com/betterwriting/classicerrors/grammartips/possessives?view=uk

 

Well apparently you add the apostrophe only on the end of names ending in es. And as much as I would like to find more literary, published sources, I think Oxford will do for me.

[Stickywulf]

I didn't mean to criticise and was not aware I was doing so. Before coming to this forum I have always believed the grammar rules taught to me were English standard. I have since found otherwise. I merely pointed to your reference and stated that it mentions either spelling is accepted and specifically mentions proper nouns as exceptions to norm.

 

I can not find any fixed rules, only references to writing and style guides. These are mostly determined by major publishing companies. Depending on which publishing company or which country would have a different set of standards.

 

The best I can find for a British standard is The Oxford Guide to English Usage ch 1.40.2. It does support your case that the thread title should be Glottis's Garage. Glottis' Garage is also acceptable if the pronunciation requires - see Barnabas' and Nicholas'.

 

The best I can find for an American standard is the Associated Press Stylebook. I cannot find any online version but here is a link to Fox News reporting on the end result of the debate regarding the spelling of Arkansas' or Arkansas's. This made the news because the state passed a bill announcing the official name as Arkansas's even though this does not adhere to APS guidelines.

 

So all that I have achieved is to realise that I have been taught some American standards at school. I also found that I have been using double quotes (") in documents when the British method would use single quotes ('). It seems I am not as English as I thought.

 

The websites I visited which support omitting the final 's' are much older names, Jesus', Moses', Socrates', blah, blah, blah. So it is possible the prefered style adapted in the 19th Century leaving the discrepancy in writing styles.

 

As I have said at the bottom of each post, although never acknowledged, the choice is with the writer and how he wishes the word to be pronounced. If the writer is tk102, and he would like the title pronounced 'iz', then the title should be spelt to relay that. For the record, I am neither American nor British, and I will continue to leave off the ending 's' in possessive proper nouns whenever it seems appropriate.

 

The End

[ThunderPeel2001]

You're both wrong:

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243155/

[Du Man]

Just to clear up a few things.

 

The websites I visited which support omitting the final 's' are much older names, Jesus', Moses', Socrates', blah, blah, blah. So it is possible the prefered style adapted in the 19th Century leaving the discrepancy in writing styles.

 

I highly doubt this considering adding the 's goes back to at least the 1660s.

 

I can not find any fixed rules, only references to writing and style guides. These are mostly determined by major publishing companies. Depending on which publishing company or which country would have a different set of standards.

 

Wrong, publishers and some companies may make guides to teach English, but they don't develop the standards, that's what literature associations and universities do. For instance, the Modern Language Association of America (MLA) publishes once in a while the "MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers," which is made by people who have centered their lives around writing.

 

As for locations, this is rarely true as most literature professors try to rely on such British published sources like the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

 

As I have said at the bottom of each post, although never acknowledged, the choice is with the writer and how he wishes the word to be pronounced.

 

This is true, but in the academic world (whose writing most of the world tends to aspire to) some professors will insist that you follow a specific writing standard (sometimes their own if they're jackasses). Sometimes the standards can differ (especially accross academic disciplines), but they usually differ in just how you cite the source; the grammar rules tend to stay pretty constant.

 

The End

 

Sorry, but only an administrator can lock a thread, so any one here is still free to debate this. Speaking of which, unless you're joking ThunderPeel2001, The Story of the Apostrophe establishes that unfamiliar proper names, even if they end in es like James, should have an 's added to their end. Read above for the page number.

[Stickywulf]

There is no authority defining rules for English grammar. The MLA publishes a book titled Approaches to Teaching Cervantes' Don Quixote. The position of the apostrophe shows the MLA is not strict.

[Du Man]

There is no authority defining rules for English grammar.

 

No, there is no king, no secret society, no organization that defines the rules of English grammar strictly, and arrests or corrects you when you're wrong, but to learn English and its grammar like I did, you must have had a teacher or an authority that told you how to write it and speak it. This authority is usually of the academic kind, and becomes more strict as you approach higher academic circles.

 

The MLA publishes a book titled Approaches to Teaching Cervantes' Don Quixote. The position of the apostrophe shows the MLA is not strict.

 

I assume somewhere in that source (that you cited WITHOUT A PAGE NUMBER of the relivant passages) is a passage on the apostrophe. Well according to the "MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers," 5th edition, they state their position clearly that you always put an 's at the end of a singular possessive (in case you want to look that up, it's page 61, section 2.2.7.). When writing, the MLA declares that this guide is the standard by which you write, not some teacher's guide on a specific literary book.

[Stickywulf]

I assume somewhere in that source (that you cited WITHOUT A PAGE NUMBER of the relevant passages) is a passage on the apostrophe.

LOL. Approaches to Teaching Cervantes' Don Quixote is the title of a book published by the MLA. There is no page number since it is the title of the book.

 

Further reading leads me to believe, to avoid awkwardness, passages should be rewritten to exclude the apostrophe, The Elements of Style section II.1. So the title of this forum would be The Garage of Glottis.