Peter_Constable@sil.org wrote:
> 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.)
The English should know, right? It is interesting that a non-native-speaker
can sometimes be a better judge. Enter me.
open-o's
if it is A's and O's, then I agree with open-o's
70's and 80's
I don't understand why some people prefer 70s and 80s. Is it 9's and 10's or
9s and 10s? Or is it 9's and 10s?! I believe that they used "70's" in the
70's...
lambda's
Tricky one. But I agree with Mr. Whistler's choice. Think of it as ?'s, or
think of lambda as an acronym or better a word that is not usually used in
plural (like if's and but's).
And I don't think that this is "a practice that many (most?) English writers
consider bad". There are good reasons for using it and the mere fact that
the latest trend is against it is not enough to convince me that it isn't
better.
A style guide can state that CDs is preferred over CD's, and I would obey
that - for the sake of consistency. But in extreme cases like lambda's - I
would trust my own judgement. And give credit to people who demonstrate
ability to excercise such judgement.
Lars Kristan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Mar 26 2002 - 13:53:46 EST