Post by postscript on Mar 30, 2009 10:23:26 GMT
Tidying up the link to the new thread I started. This discussion started HERE but its prologue was HERE
Hi Paddy
Today at 12:40am, Paddy wrote:
Oooops again, Grant!
The correct abbreviation for 'photographs' is 'photos', as in Mark's post.
I'll try and connect this up better within my twenty-four hour time frame when I get back from my meeting.
For now, Grant, that is the role of the asterisk!
At this point I am now back from the meeting to which I was rushing when I posted that last remark and need to apologise to you, Grant. In 'ancient history' your assumption is correct but I believe the history to be sufficiently old that Mark's comment regarding photos is correct. It constitutes a modern exception to the 'ancient' rule which prevails in such words as Jo'burg, which is usually done because the person can't spell Johannesburg! You are right in principle Grant, especially in quoting "typo's" which indicates its 'period piece' but it is a rule more proven by its breaches than its acceptance.
By the by, did you know it was the printers in St Petersburg who precipitated the Russian Revolution? In those days type was still set by hand and the printers went on strike, demanding to be paid as much money for setting punctuation marks as for setting letters.
In Oxford University's house style book for the New York Press it says "If you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad." It might have said "all punctuation"
I recommend Eats, Shoots and Leaves a superb book on pedentry for nonpedants. I guess that immediately puts me off topic on the thread title I've just chosen!
Peter S.
Hi Paddy
Today at 12:40am, Paddy wrote:
Oooops again, Grant!
The correct abbreviation for 'photographs' is 'photos', as in Mark's post.
Yes! No apostrophe, as I hinted (oh so gently) to you below (in red):
OK, being serious for a moment. I was always taught that the apostrophe replaced missing letters, hence my using
photo'graphs
typo'graphical errors
Why the difference between the above and the more obvious ones like haven't, don't etc.?
Best wishes
Grant
OK, being serious for a moment. I was always taught that the apostrophe replaced missing letters, hence my using
photo'graphs
typo'graphical errors
Why the difference between the above and the more obvious ones like haven't, don't etc.?
Best wishes
Grant
I'll try and connect this up better within my twenty-four hour time frame when I get back from my meeting.
For now, Grant, that is the role of the asterisk!
At this point I am now back from the meeting to which I was rushing when I posted that last remark and need to apologise to you, Grant. In 'ancient history' your assumption is correct but I believe the history to be sufficiently old that Mark's comment regarding photos is correct. It constitutes a modern exception to the 'ancient' rule which prevails in such words as Jo'burg, which is usually done because the person can't spell Johannesburg! You are right in principle Grant, especially in quoting "typo's" which indicates its 'period piece' but it is a rule more proven by its breaches than its acceptance.
By the by, did you know it was the printers in St Petersburg who precipitated the Russian Revolution? In those days type was still set by hand and the printers went on strike, demanding to be paid as much money for setting punctuation marks as for setting letters.
In Oxford University's house style book for the New York Press it says "If you take hyphens seriously you will surely go mad." It might have said "all punctuation"
I recommend Eats, Shoots and Leaves a superb book on pedentry for nonpedants. I guess that immediately puts me off topic on the thread title I've just chosen!
Peter S.
If I miss spell sumthink it kost me munny.
