|
Post by Sue M-V on May 10, 2008 22:48:12 GMT
Did you have to bring the discussion down to that level? Ah, well, Tone - I pictured these dwarfs on roofs! Sue
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on May 10, 2008 23:54:32 GMT
Well, he would be in accordance with the recommendations of the Oxford Guide to Style: there aren't many definitions of wrong which would cover that.
|
|
|
Post by Bertie on May 11, 2008 8:44:37 GMT
Mea Culpa. I originally misread the sentence as being continuous, with a subordinate clause beginning with "that". (Well, it was late at night!) So, on review, I agree with Dave M et al.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on May 11, 2008 20:33:34 GMT
I'd go with Vv and Dave there, and agree with Bertie's follow-up that he is indeed wrong in saying that Vv is wrong.
But I'd avoid it by re-writing: ... taken with this particular word(s)). as: ... taken with this/these particular word/s.)
I feel that "word(s)" is not a "normal" way of doing it. Citations for argument forthcoming?
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on May 11, 2008 21:31:02 GMT
I think the word(s) version is much more normal, as in much more frequently-encountered, than the word/s version. In he/she the solidus seems fine: it sets out the choice; but in word/s the choice is not really between word and s.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Doherty on May 11, 2008 22:47:37 GMT
When I used to write training materials about (inter alia) client-server architectures I used to have to battle with people to convince them that a solidus means or -- everyone seemed to want to write client/server.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on May 12, 2008 19:57:19 GMT
That's IT people for you. (They don't do English English, but they do create a sub-set thereof!)
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Bertie on Jun 30, 2008 4:08:39 GMT
I see we've been spammed again.
[Spam removed -- pd.]
|
|