On 03/26/2002 04:24:52 AM Marco Cimarosti wrote:
>Kenneth Whistler wrote:
>> For years back in the late 70's and early 80's, before I got my
>> first PC, I typed up index slips with a manual typewriter. That
>> manual typewriter had various custom keys welded on, so that I could
>> get schwas, open-o's, lambda's, dead-key commas above, and the like.
>> [...]
>
>I stop quoting here because I already collected enough instances of <'s>
for
>making my point...
>
>It seems to me that a word such as "lambda's" is just an English plural
noun
>(also spelled "lambdas")...
Well, you've caught Ken in a practice that many (most?) English writers
consider bad: using apostrophe in forming plural. The rules of apostrophe
use are that it indicates missing letters or possession, but there are no
missing letters in "lambda's", and this use isn't possessive. (The
apostrophe in "the lambda's appearance" is correct usage.)
You're argument should really be made in terms of accepted orthographic
word forms in English: things like "dog's" (as in "the dog's tail") or
"can't".
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <peter_constable@sil.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Mar 26 2002 - 12:08:12 EST