A correctly used apostrophe

After I mentioned a hymn in my previous post, I remembered another hymn I sang last year where a correctly used apostrophe causes another issue. I have sung the hymn many times before, but not noticed that issue.

Most hymnbooks have the music and words separate, with the music at the top and/or on the left hand page and the words in verses at the bottom and/or right hand page. Some hymnbooks always and others sometimes, especially for hymns with an irregular number or stress of words, have the words between the two staves, with each syllable placed under a note, separated by a hyphen whenever necessary. This hymnbook has the first formatting by default, but this hymn has an irregular number or stress of words, so this hymn has the second formatting.

The hymn Holy Spirit, ever dwelling in the holiest realms of light has the words Holy Spirit, ever living as the Church’s very life and Holy Spirit, ever working through the Church’s ministry in the second and third verses. The ’s turns the one-syllable Church into the two-syllable Church’s (compare justice’s sake in my previous post). In the first formatting, there’s no problem. In the second formatting, the editors must decide to use either Church -’s or Chur – ch’s, both of which look strange and are problematic in different ways. The editors’ solution is to sidestep the choice by setting Church’s without a hyphen, spanning both notes. I can’t immediately decide which I would choose.

The same issue occurs in the hymn The Church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord. The English hymnbook we use has the first formatting, but the US hymnbook I have a copy of at home has the second formatting, and uses Church’s unhyphenated spanning both notes. Both of these are major hymnbooks within the Anglican/Episcopalian Church. There are also free versions of both hymns on the internet, which use Church’s, Church – ’s and Chur – ch’s. Most people wouldn’t notice.

Plurals and possesives

Since the candidacy of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, there has been some discussion of what the relevant plural and possessive forms of their surnames are (search and you will find). I would unhesitatingly add es and ’s to each: the Harrises (if necessary) and the Walzes, and Harris’s speech and Walz’s speech. There are unconvincing arguments that names ending with s should take only an apostrophe, or that ’s should be used if the extra s is pronounced but not if it’s not, but people speak in different ways. But plurals should not be made with ’s. Snopes has two reports of photos of distant cousins of Tim Walz wearing Walz’s for Trump t-shirts. It says “some [Twitter/X] users … questioned the apostrophe appearing on the T-shirts”. Another page refers to Harris’ family.

I few days ago in Melbourne I saw the Princess Theatre, which one sign gives as Princess’ Theatre and Wikipedia as originally the Princess’s Theatre (with no mention of which Princess (if any in particular)). Note that the princess didn’t ever ‘possess’ the theatre.

We have one prince and the prince’s theatre, multiple princes and the princes’ theatre (see also the Princes Highway), one princess and the princess’s theatre and multiple princesses and the princesses’ theatre. If we have to make a distinction, we might say princes’s and princesses’s respectively. Many years ago two of my sisters shared a rental house and I sometimes had to make a distinction between my sister’s house (another sister) and my *sisters’s house (those two).

Linguistic comments are welcome. Political comments aren’t.