On page 80 of the UK edition, half-way chapter 7, the possessive form of Chymes appears both as Chyme's and as Chymes'. Elsewhere in the book it says Chymes's which I thought was the correct (or preferred) form.
Is there a joke here? Is it a simple typo, or has a spellchecker run beserk? Or do the forms on page 80 carry a different meaning that I fail to grasp? I would be grateful if someone could explain.

Delacuesta.



*---

It's funny, it could so easily be just a simple type-setting error but we're thinking long and hard about it because just maybe there's a very subtle reference there...

Cle'arly: it?s gramm,asit!es.

Ahrm! *stands up from desk to take the mike*

UK English grammar would have it as Chymes' in the possessive form, but American English as Chymes's

My mate & I are the founders of Apostrophy Anoraks Anonymous (AAA). Membership doubled recently when I agreed to join her...

Is it intentionally apostrophy not apostrophe?
Or is this why you're all anonymous?



-------
Turn the silliness to eleven!

This yvidyncy of apostrophy-moving grammasitys is a catastrophy of unimaginably proportions! Think what a tragyde it would by if such an yxcyllynt book wyry dystroeyd be thosy pyske cryaturys so soon aftyr bying publishyd! Incidyntalle, a warning to all Jurisfiction agynts out thyry: a nyw tepy of grammasity has byyn discovyryd, so plyasy watch your styp and alyrt thy rylyvynt authoritiys if you syy ane signs of infystation.

?waht a#e th@ cii'trea ()r stoptnig gmarrmatise iefcoitnN

?esod etelpeske unotc

~~UK English grammar would have it as Chymes' in the possessive form, but American English as Chymes's~~

Are you sure about that? I'm American, and although for the most part my spelling and grammar are UK English (please don't ask how that happened) I do know that the correct American English form would be Chymes' unless Chyme was the name, in which case it'd be Chyme's, the only exception being if the possessive were a plural possessive (if the entire Chyme family owned something) in which case it would be Chymes'. (Good, now that that's clear.)

Apostrophes: One rule of grammar that should be repealed.

Actually in UK English, given that the name has an s on the end, it could be Chymes' or Chymes's - either's fine. It's just a proof reader/copy editor who missed that small point. Ain't a proof reader born who gets it right all the time.



_ _ _ _ _

If the English language made any sense, a catastrophe would be an apostrophe with fur.