Nice post, and I've been intrigued by what I've seen of the history posts, being an amateur (using that word in the good original English sense) historian myself. Switching to paid, even though funds are tight, as I'm part of the vanishing middle class (due to billionaires's evil machinations).
Oh my. Did the editors truly change the possessive to “billionaires’s”? Assuming you referred only to Singer as one rich person, the noun billionaire simply needs an apostrophe s added to indicate possession. Had you meant Singer and other rich men—billionaires—then a single apostrophe after the noun, no extra s, is sufficient. What is here is absolute nonsense, with no logical or grammatical merit.
This is the first rule mentioned in William Strunk and E. B. White’s often challenged but never superseded -Elements of Style- I’m not surprised British editors ignore that work, as British authors are fiercely defensive of their use of passive voice, continuously, tortuously, and Mr. Strunk long ago disabused any clear minded writer of that notion.
Grammatical correctness is important because it adds precise meaning to sections of prose that might be ambiguous. In this case it would tell us the spelling of the original noun and whether it was singular or plural, all from the placement of an apostrophe, and the presence or absence of an additional s. Small details matter. British editors should know better—they mandated the Oxford comma, after all, but that’s a discussion for another comment.
(How is the above as an example of a well-structured comment? :) )
While the actual occurrences of misunderstandings or ambiguity of a serious nature that are eliminated are few, there's no reason to tolerate even the *possibility* of misunderstanding if you simply add that last comma.
And that doesn't even consider the low-level irritation of the reader you'd avoid when they go over an ambiguous final list element a couple of times, or more, to eliminate ambiguity.
Indeed all excellent points. My little aside on the Oxford comma did not clearly emphasize my position: the Oxford comma is as important as the “apostrophe s” rule for all singular possessives, even moreso.
I've come to the point in my life where it is much more important to me to "get it right" rather than to "be right".
To that end, any discussion I'm engaged in, if my point is is objectively demonstrated to be flawed, allows me to correct my position, and thus getting me closer to "getting it right'.
Excellent advice! One minor digressive point: if Mao didn't use soap in his pool, then I suspect he still may have been prey to various skin infections.
Bravo! Historical accuracy matters. And there’s no accuracy without specificity.
Nice post, and I've been intrigued by what I've seen of the history posts, being an amateur (using that word in the good original English sense) historian myself. Switching to paid, even though funds are tight, as I'm part of the vanishing middle class (due to billionaires's evil machinations).
This was a great post, and good advice. Thanks!
Oh my. Did the editors truly change the possessive to “billionaires’s”? Assuming you referred only to Singer as one rich person, the noun billionaire simply needs an apostrophe s added to indicate possession. Had you meant Singer and other rich men—billionaires—then a single apostrophe after the noun, no extra s, is sufficient. What is here is absolute nonsense, with no logical or grammatical merit.
This is the first rule mentioned in William Strunk and E. B. White’s often challenged but never superseded -Elements of Style- I’m not surprised British editors ignore that work, as British authors are fiercely defensive of their use of passive voice, continuously, tortuously, and Mr. Strunk long ago disabused any clear minded writer of that notion.
Grammatical correctness is important because it adds precise meaning to sections of prose that might be ambiguous. In this case it would tell us the spelling of the original noun and whether it was singular or plural, all from the placement of an apostrophe, and the presence or absence of an additional s. Small details matter. British editors should know better—they mandated the Oxford comma, after all, but that’s a discussion for another comment.
(How is the above as an example of a well-structured comment? :) )
Extraordinary! A perfect such example.
Hah! I *like* the Oxford comma!
While the actual occurrences of misunderstandings or ambiguity of a serious nature that are eliminated are few, there's no reason to tolerate even the *possibility* of misunderstanding if you simply add that last comma.
And that doesn't even consider the low-level irritation of the reader you'd avoid when they go over an ambiguous final list element a couple of times, or more, to eliminate ambiguity.
Indeed all excellent points. My little aside on the Oxford comma did not clearly emphasize my position: the Oxford comma is as important as the “apostrophe s” rule for all singular possessives, even moreso.
Strunk rules
I've come to the point in my life where it is much more important to me to "get it right" rather than to "be right".
To that end, any discussion I'm engaged in, if my point is is objectively demonstrated to be flawed, allows me to correct my position, and thus getting me closer to "getting it right'.
Excellent advice! One minor digressive point: if Mao didn't use soap in his pool, then I suspect he still may have been prey to various skin infections.
Very well put, indeed.