«

Tom Anderson wrote:
> Lew wrote:
>
>> Leif Roar Moldskred wrote:
>>> Lew wrote:
>>>> But not "K" or "T".
>>>
>>> That's a matter of style: some style guides recommend the use of an
>>> apostrophe to mark plurals of individual letters, some do not. See "Eat,
>>> Shoots & Leaves -- The zero tolerance approach to punctuation" by Lynne
>>> Truss for a funny but in-depth discussion of the uses of apostrophes.
>>
>> Yes, it is a matter of style. Duh. That's why I cited a *style*
>> guide. There's a direct correlation there.
>>
>> Yes, styles vary.

> In which case the use of 'sic' is dubious. You are not marking something that
> is wrong, you are marking something that you wouldn't write that way yourself.
> If you start doing that consistently, i think you will soon find that your
> square bracket keys have worn out.
>
> To be honest, the use of sic in quoted text in a mail or news post at all is
> dubious. sic is used to indicate that there has been no error in
> transcription; when it is a machine doing the transcription, it is redundant.
>

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah ...

--
Lew
Honi soit qui mal y pense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../c/cf/Friz.jpg

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Lew wrote:

> Tom Anderson wrote:
>> Lew wrote:
>>
>>> Leif Roar Moldskred wrote:
>>>> Lew wrote:
>>>>> But not "K" or "T".
>>>>
>>>> That's a matter of style: some style guides recommend the use of an
>>>> apostrophe to mark plurals of individual letters, some do not. See "Eat,
>>>> Shoots & Leaves -- The zero tolerance approach to punctuation" by Lynne
>>>> Truss for a funny but in-depth discussion of the uses of apostrophes.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is a matter of style. Duh. That's why I cited a *style*
>>> guide. There's a direct correlation there.
>>>
>>> Yes, styles vary.
>
>> In which case the use of 'sic' is dubious. You are not marking something
>> that
>> is wrong, you are marking something that you wouldn't write that way
>> yourself.
>> If you start doing that consistently, i think you will soon find that your
>> square bracket keys have worn out.
>>
>> To be honest, the use of sic in quoted text in a mail or news post at all
>> is
>> dubious. sic is used to indicate that there has been no error in
>> transcription; when it is a machine doing the transcription, it is
>> redundant.
>
> Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah ... [hic]

tom

--
Plus, you gotta understand I can now type far, far faster than I can
think. This is not boasting - its admitting a personal tragedy. -- D

In article <e380412e-ebc2-440d-96f4->,
Lew <> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 9:53 am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > In article <inielt$uo...@news.albasani.net>, Lew <no...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
> > > Mike Schilling wrote:
> > > > Fair point. This was simpler before generics, when the Comparator could accept
> > > > either K's [sic] or T's [sic]
> >
> > "[sic]"?
> >
> > My understanding is that while it's less common than it used to be
> > to form the plurals of multiletter acronyms[*] with apostrophes
> > (e.g., "CDs" rather than "CD's"), apostrophes are still advised
> > for forming plurals of single letters, to avoid ambiguity in the
> > case of A and I (and possibly some others I'm not thinking of).
> >
>
> But not "K" or "T".

Eh. I guess my thinking is that it's simpler to have one rule for
plurals of single letters, rather than having one rule for the ones
where there might be ambiguity and another rule for the others.

> > Can you cite any authoritative recommendation for leaving out
> > the apostrophes here?
> >
> >[*] Or initialisms, for the pedantic?
> >
> > [ snip ]
> >
> > > In the simpler way, you compare Ts and Ks willy-nilly, without really saying
> > > so. Sure it works, but it's hidden.
> >
> > [ snip ]
> >
>
> <http://ethnicity.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/p.html#plural>
> "Resist the urge to put an apostrophe before the s in a plural,
> whether in common or proper nouns. The term for this vulgar error is
> the 'greengrocer's apostrophe,' ..."

I don't agree, however, that using apostrophes to form plurals of
single letters is in this category of "vulgar error". Indeed,
your cited authority goes on to say that this is a matter of
"house style", and:

> <http://ethnicity.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/a.html#apostrophe>
> "My preference:

*Preference*.

> don't use apostrophes to make abbreviations plural '
> not 'They took their SAT's,' but 'They took their SATs.' The only
> exception is when having no apostrophe might be confusing: 'Two As' is
> ambiguous (it might be read as the word as); make it 'Two A's.'
>
> Refer to his citations and C.V. for transitive authority.

Anyway, thanks for the reply/citation. Very interesting.

I do think that if you're going to use [sic] at all in quoted
text -- which I'm inclined to dislike[*] -- it should be reserved
for egregious errors, not for matters of style. But whatever.
[*] Perhaps because to me any editing of quoted text, with the
exception of replacing words or phrases with "[ snip ]" or the
like, has unpleasant associations with a poster who shall remain
nameless.

--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.

On Apr 14, 6:11*am, blm...@myrealbox.com <blm...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> I do think that if you're going to use [sic] at all in quoted
> text -- which I'm inclined to dislike[*] -- it should be reserved
> for egregious errors, not for matters of style. *But whatever.
>
>[*] Perhaps because [implied insult deleted]

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me
are at all true.