docbook: [OT] ISO's vs ISOs
Subject:
Re: [OT] ISO's vs ISOs
From:
Martin WHEELER ####@####.####
Date:
22 Jul 2002 09:40:41 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0207220859420.8030-100000@caxton.startext.demon.co.uk>
On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Peter Jay Salzman wrote:
> A) Getting Debian ISO's has always been a painful experience.
> B) Getting Debian ISOs has always been a painful experience.
> which sentence would people here use?
B -- without question. In written English, plurals are (mainly)
indicated by adding an s to the singular form; and the genitive
(possessive) is indicated by apostrophe s.
e.g. dog/dogs; eye/eyes; halo/haloes; radio/radios; CD/CDs
and the dog's eyes (one dog; more than one eye)
the dogs' eyes (more than one dog; more than one eye)
the CD's manufacturers were at fault (one CD)
the CDs' jewel-cases had been interchanged (several CDs)
The intrusive apostrophe to indicate a plural ("grocer's plural") is an
orthographic aberration, and is to be avoided. Alas, the standards of
19thC schooling have all but disappeared in the modern age of
couch-potato culture, wilful ignorance and instant 'master craftsmen'
with no apprenticeship or learning behind them.
The fact that you feel happier with a historically incorrect version is
simply a reflection of the fact that you have probably seen it more
often than the historically correct version. This in turn is due to the
fact that modern electronic typesetting methods allow the pig-ignorant
and untrained to dominate what was once the province of the
knowledgeable and highly-trained.
It is not uncommon today to find that those who have learned English as
a second or foreign language have a higher degree of written literacy
than native speakers. This is because they have been taught the very
simple rules of English orthography; and have the discipline to apply
them.
(But the real reason of course, is that psycho-linguistically speaking,
some people think of 'CD' as a single lexical unity, where others deal
with it as two separate lexical items.)
msw
--
If you write it's for its, why then don't you write her's for hers,
and hi's for his?
