Apostrophes

[sr71plt]

I've learned two things by reading through this thread:

There is no right or wrong answer for this.

Don't use any character name that ends in S.

You didn't fully learn then. There is a right answer, at least in U.S. style, and it was given a couple of times by more than one poster. That you chose not to "get" it, doesn't really surprise me--nor does it make you alone on the forum. You're probably right on the second one, though.

 

[Haulover]

But I think he got it right when he said

...
Don't use any character name that ends in S.

 

[oggbashan]

... Most writers stack their books willy nilly everywhere.

rj

I recognise that in my own library. But I KNOW where every book is. No one else might know, but I do. I have a system - in my head and it is organised how I think, not by rational logic.

In my secondhand bookshop things were better ordered but not by Dewey. Some sections were deliberately random. The average secondhand book buyer walks out with books they weren't looking for when they entered the shop. If the system is too easy they can look in the right section, find what they want, or that it isn't there, and walk out.

But if they have to search and rummage they'll find another book or books that attracts them.

 

[sheablue]

Currently, Giles's is technically correct.

However, Giles' was correct for so long, unless you are consulting a professional editor or regularly consult and adhere to the CMS, both are considered acceptable. I would just be consistent within one story.

 

[rjordan]

Copy editing course:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...tudents_us_57da2cc7e4b0071a6e05670b?section=&

rj

 

[Athalia]

You didn't fully learn then. There is a right answer, at least in U.S. style, and it was given a couple of times by more than one poster. That you chose not to "get" it, doesn't really surprise me--nor does it make you alone on the forum. You're probably right on the second one, though.

I understand your stance completely. What I was pointing out, as others have pointed out, is that regardless of the existence of an authority on the subject, teachers are still teaching what they've been taught. That's not a value judgment, that's a fact of life.

I am somewhat amused at being called "dickish" in that I do not happen to possess that particular piece of anatomy. But I suppose that if men can be bitchy, I can be dickish. I almost consider it a badge of honor.

 

[sr71plt]

You're missing--and others did as well--that what was brought up was the training of editorial form, not the teaching of English in high school. It was claimed there is no standard under the curriculum for this training. That's simply wrong. Editing courses are taught at the university and even writing club levels and, in the United States, there absolutely is a standard providing the underpinning for the curriculum. It's the Chicago Manual of Style. You and others simply were off the topic and went off on some irrelevant assumption of what the post was that I responded to.

The fact is that editing isn't taught in high school and college English classes at all. It's a separate curriculum, so it's not relevant to the standards of editing what the teachers in those classes are teaching.

Half the problem of folks posting to this forum about doing "whatever" in the technicals of writing is that they are pigheaded about there not being standards. There are standards. But the standards leave a lot of creative room in the writing of context.

 

[Athalia]

You're missing--and others did as well--that what was brought up was the training of editorial form, not the teaching of English in high school. .

I did indeed miss that. My apologies.