Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Sir, Can We Do Something Easier?

Por supuesto, no.

The first and fourth * S & W are so basic they omit discussion of the plural; they are interested principally in style. Fowler does write, "The growing tendency to indicate the plural of proper names .... by writing ... [two examples]... is an abuse of the apostrophe." Fowler is even more adamant in the case of ordinary nouns, writing it, "... is a fatuous vulgarism." Nicholson (American version of Fowler) evidently thinks no one would make that mistake, and, therefore, neglects discussing, including in possessive puzzles. The MLA style manual allows the use of the apostrophe to form the plurals of letters but not numbers or abbreviations. No other mention, except the customary. The Follett, Modern American Usage devotes more space to the discarding of the apostrophe, e.g. Teachers College and Investors Trust, than to its use except, of course, as the possessive or contraction, which it explains is a contraction of the originally es. The Columbia Guide to Standard American English is, as I reported w/ Fowler, adamant. "Never use an apostrophe in front of the -s ending that forms a plural noun. It ends w/ the warning: Apostrophes appearing where they ought not to be or missing from where they ought to be are devastating shibboleths in the view of many standard users, who will penalize the perpetrators mercilessly for them regardless of whether haste, inadvertence, or ignorance caused the outrage against convention. Be warned." Finally, Lynne Truss in "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" gives several pages of misplaced apostrophes, e.g. Dear Mr. Steven's, XMA'S Trees, Glady's (badge on salesgirl), and Did'sbury.

* Don't have the second; didn't bother w/ the third.


bc, Who prays no one resorts to "tu quoque".

p.s. Lynne repeats some theories as to the origin of the apostrophe -- none include its use as part of a proper noun plural.


Jack Uretsky wrote:

Wonderful! Would you mind checking your collection and letting me know if there was ever a time when 's was acceptable. I doubt that I invented the tradition, although as a virtual scientist, one never knows.
Virtual? Perhaps I meant virtuous. Either one is unreal.
Best,
Jack

On Mon, 21 Aug 2006, Bernard Cleyet wrote:


Curious, we have two copies of Chicago and I have a collection of S &
Ws. From the first ('59 -- $2.50, hard covers) to the current paper
back ($7.95). Did I refer to them? .... Nooooo.

bc, now an imaginary scientist, who read full papers in his field long ago.

p.s. De nada.

Jack Uretsky wrote:


Thanks, Bernard, for the correction. The Chicago Manual of Style
agrees, saying (item 7.9), "The apostrophe is never used to form the
plural of a family name". It prescribes just adding s, or for names
ending in s or x, just using the singular form.
I also thank John C. for his instruction that:
"Real scientists read full papers."
If I ever decide to become a "real scientist" - whatever that may
mean - I shall endeavor to follow is advice. Other than that, I think it
clear that he and I have no basis for communication, so I shall not pursue
that dialogue.
Regards,
Jack


On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Bernard Cleyet wrote:




"Nobel's (apostrophe denotes plural of a proper name) and NAS membership
are, I suggest, measures of effective learning."

I beg your pardon.

This site disagrees:


http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm



When a family name (a proper noun) is pluralized, we almost always
simply add an "s." So we go to visit the Smiths, the Kennedys, the




much cut
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l