In a famously unreadable work, Thomas Carlyle long ago depicted economics as “the dismal science.” Most writers look upon punctuation with the same gelid eye. Only a copy editor could love this dismal art.

Please stick around. Today’s reflections arise from the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, but here we’re not concerned with John Roberts’ record. We’re concerned with John Roberts’s punctuation. In the possessive form, is it properly “Roberts’ family” or “Roberts’s family?” How do you vote?

Allow me a metaphor. Punctuation marks are road signs along the highway of prose composition. The period functions as a stop sign, a semicolon signals slow, and a colon warns of grammatical construction ahead. Commas indicate approaching curvy clauses, and the bang mark hollers danger! Many rules of punctuation are as clear as “Do Not Enter,” but the apostrophe of possession causes heads to shake and brows to furrow.

My first city editor was a gentleman of a thousand unshakable convictions. In certain realms of grammatical possession – a realm we’re exploring today – he lived by the rule of the Unadorned Apostrophe. In his eyes, a single apostrophe, naked and unashamed, served splendidly to convey the idea of possession. He would have regarded those darling children as the Roberts’ children, not the Roberts’s children.

My old boss would have cited a rule laid down in the current Stylebook of The Associated Press. For singular proper names ending in “s,” it decrees: “Use only an apostrophe: Achilles’ heel, Dickens’ novels, Kansas’ schools …” This would give us “Roberts’ opinions.” Fine with me.

Most book publishers rely upon the Chicago Manual of Style. After some hedging, its editors offer their wan support to “the rule established for many years by a highly respected learned association: ‘In words of more than one syllable ending in a sibilant, only the apostrophe is added.”‘

Having quoted this highly respected rule, Chicago’s experts then amend it: In some instances, they observe, the rule is “clearly absurd.” It would forbid such euphonious punctuation as “Dylan Thomas’s poetry” or “Maria Callas’s performance.” Or more to the point, the highly respected rule would forbid “John Roberts’s opinions,” which is the punctuation now widely used.

After some further meandering, the Chicago editors simply give up. They yield to a rule “both more subjective and more pragmatic.” Their sound advice is: If you like “the Roberts’ children,” stick consistently with the “s” and apostrophe. If your preference goes to “the Roberts’s children,” that too will pass muster. And if you won’t pass the muster, pass the ketchup.

Other forms of the possessive constantly raise questions. There’s the problem of the double possessive, as in “a darling of Evelyn Waugh’s.” In its Manual of Style and Usage, The New York Times defends the punctuation. While the apostrophe and “s” is “sometimes unnecessary,” says the Times, “the construction is proper.” It notes the difference between “a picture of Matisse” and “a picture of Matisse’s.”

Pfui! A more likely reaction to the double possessive is to wonder, “a darling of Evelyn Waugh’s what?” His mother? His poodle? The Times sometimes ignores its own advice. At hand is a photo caption from the Times identifying two “longtime friends of Bill Clinton.” Right on! If the two were “friends of Bill Clinton’s,” the extra possessive might suggest “Bill Clinton’s wife.” It’s a thought for the day.

James Kilpatrick is a syndicated columnist.