Hi James - I mentioned that because I believe in providing
credentials when necessary to establish credibility. I don’t BS, and
I’m open to learning. I’m sorry it came across differently.
As for the source you provided, that is interesting. I also
strongly suspect it is also regarded as non-authorative; despite the
‘Oxford’ tag that is an area that’s known to have certain clear
rules.
The title quoted in that URL isn’t the Oxford English Dictionary, it
is something called “Practical English Usage”, written by an
individual, and published (along with many, many other titles) by the
OUP. The divide between official, editorial-sanctioned rules and one
writer’s opinion aren’t always reconcilable, but they do get
published anyway. Forgive me for bringing it up again, but I’ve
learned this time and time again through my experience in the book
and magazine publishing industry.
If there is a clear authoratative directive regarding using
apostrophes in those circumstances, I also suspect that it is a
relatively modern amendment. Not that modern is bad, but in language
development it is wise to move in baby steps to avoid too much
thrashing about.
k
Sometime around 26/5/08 (at 15:28 -0700) James F. Marshall said:
On May 26, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Keith Martin wrote:
I’m even currently writing this while taking
a break from proof-reading a manuscript for a major international
book publisher.
Approval for using an apostrophe in a plural, rather than possessive,
sense extends beyond one yank rag and includes substantial authorities
in the old world, too.
http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/grammar/archive/apostrophes01.html
Or has Oxford ceased to be an authority on the English language?
Jim
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options