atw: Whose looking at who's apostrophes and who does it matter to anyway? WAS:: Re: Whom can I trust now [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

I'll have to lend my support to Bob and Daryl on this one, even if it 
means being lumped with the 'pickies'.  All the usage guides I've seen now 
recommend *against* using apostrophes in MPs, CDs, etc.  The only 
exceptions they mention are phrases like "dot your i's and cross your 
t's", where omitting the apostrophe would be very confusing.

This particular issue resonates with me because of an incident while I was 
working for Defence.  I put a great deal of effort into a manual I wrote 
and then had to wait for ever for a technical review, which I hoped would 
provide valuable technical input about Active Directory matters.  Instead 
I found that the esteemed 'technical expert' had simply gone through my 
manual and put an apostrophe into every occurrence of "OUs"  (= 
organisational units).  (He obviously saw himself as a better authority 
than the Defence usage guide, which also specifically outlaws apostrophes 
in this kind of situation, and the Manual of Style for Technical 
Publications, published by Microsoft - the inventors of OUs.) And that was 
virtually the only piece of 'expertise' he deigned to contribute.

As you can see, I'm still struggling to let go of my resentment....

Howard

Howard L. Silcock
Technical Writer
Zare Pty Ltd.




"Daryl Colquhoun" <atw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Sent by: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
06/04/2007 01:33 AM
Please respond to
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


To
"austechwriter list" <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc

Subject
atw: Re: Whom can I trust now
Topic





TRIM File Ref










>My, Bob. How picky. Maybe the apostrophe denotes the missing letters in
Parliament's. In which case it is ok. But then why is a person a member of
Parliaments, or does it mean Member's of Parliament. So should it be M'sP?

He's not being picky at all. It's plainly incorrect. I don't see how 
either
"Member's" or "Parliament's" could have been intended, since there's no 
hint
of any possession.

By the way, this has now been corrected in the web article but not in all
references to it. However, the solecism "fastracked" remains.


Emails direct to this address are deleted unread as an anti-spam measure.



**************************************************
To post a message to austechwriter, send the message to 
austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe to austechwriter, send a message to 
austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with "subscribe" in the Subject field.

To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field.

To search the austechwriter archives, go to 
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter

To contact the list administrator, send a message to 
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************

Other related posts: