Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: blmblm@myrealbox.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: OT "sic"? (was Re: Binary Search) Date: 14 Apr 2011 10:11:19 GMT Organization: None Lines: 72 Message-ID: <90nvi7FlabU1@mid.individual.net> References: <90gfdtFmkU2@mid.individual.net> X-Trace: individual.net yX8kW7COEVpLVwe9DTaUight4x9Pj/MJIAkOKopC7TIOv8bjja X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:fo+X1+2EDRuVQCcksMUAsQ/2OE8= X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:3059 In article , Lew wrote: > On Apr 11, 9:53 am, blm...@myrealbox.com wrote: > > In article , Lew wrote: > > > Mike Schilling wrote: > > > > Fair point. This was simpler before generics, when the Comparator could accept > > > > either K's [sic] or T's [sic] :-) > > > > "[sic]"? > > > > My understanding is that while it's less common than it used to be > > to form the plurals of multiletter acronyms [*] with apostrophes > > (e.g., "CDs" rather than "CD's"), apostrophes are still advised > > for forming plurals of single letters, to avoid ambiguity in the > > case of A and I (and possibly some others I'm not thinking of). > > > > But not "K" or "T". Eh. I guess my thinking is that it's simpler to have one rule for plurals of single letters, rather than having one rule for the ones where there might be ambiguity and another rule for the others. > > Can you cite any authoritative recommendation for leaving out > > the apostrophes here? > > > > [*] Or initialisms, for the pedantic? > > > > [ snip ] > > > > > In the simpler way, you compare Ts and Ks willy-nilly, without really saying > > > so. Sure it works, but it's hidden. > > > > [ snip ] > > > > > "Resist the urge to put an apostrophe before the s in a plural, > whether in common or proper nouns. The term for this vulgar error is > the 'greengrocer's apostrophe,' ..." I don't agree, however, that using apostrophes to form plurals of single letters is in this category of "vulgar error". Indeed, your cited authority goes on to say that this is a matter of "house style", and: > > "My preference: *Preference*. > don't use apostrophes to make abbreviations plural ' > not 'They took their SAT's,' but 'They took their SATs.' The only > exception is when having no apostrophe might be confusing: 'Two As' is > ambiguous (it might be read as the word as); make it 'Two A's.' > > Refer to his citations and C.V. for transitive authority. Anyway, thanks for the reply/citation. Very interesting. I do think that if you're going to use [sic] at all in quoted text -- which I'm inclined to dislike [*] -- it should be reserved for egregious errors, not for matters of style. But whatever. [*] Perhaps because to me any editing of quoted text, with the exception of replacing words or phrases with "[ snip ]" or the like, has unpleasant associations with a poster who shall remain nameless. -- B. L. Massingill ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.