Talk:Hundred Years War: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce (→Apostrophe: I *knew* it was quiet here, *too* quiet....) |
imported>Ro Thorpe (→Apostrophe: hmm again) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::::Uh oh, *that* sounds ominous! I think I'll let this opportunity pass me by, myte! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 22:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC) | ::::Uh oh, *that* sounds ominous! I think I'll let this opportunity pass me by, myte! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 22:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::It's prompted me, however, to spruce up [[Apostrophe#Use in English]]: you may think the 2nd paragraph relevant here. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 00:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:06, 4 June 2009
Apostrophe
What do you reckon about use of an apostrophe in the title of this article? I expected Hundred Years' War but did find that most books listed on Amazon UK omit it, and publishers' notes seem to specify that no apostrophe should be used (e.g. Blackwell). However, I think the apostrophe is technically correct: cf. a few minutes' wait or three weeks' notice. John Stephenson 05:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- In the phrase a few minutes' wait, we are specifying the duration of the waiting period (a wait of two minutes duration, in effect). However, with the Hundred Years War, the phrase is not so much specifying the duration of the War (though that was its approximate duration) as the name of the war. Apart from that, the non-use of the apostrophe seems to be the norm (in books, for example). James F. Perry 20:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Trying to come up with another example: there is the Persian Gulf War which would never be called the Persian Gulf's War. Or the Battle of Gettysburg which would likewise never be called Gettysburg's Battle (though some would call it Gettysburg, Battle of. Egad, not that again!) The fact that the name of the War happens to end in an s doesn't necessarily make the use of the apostrophe technically correct. In my opinion. James F. Perry 20:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're right in everything you say, James. I don't *think* I ever recall seeing it with the apostrophe.... Hayford Peirce 20:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Suggest you do a quick Google. There's a certain online encyclopedia, for a start. Ro Thorpe 21:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Uh oh, *that* sounds ominous! I think I'll let this opportunity pass me by, myte! Hayford Peirce 22:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- It's prompted me, however, to spruce up Apostrophe#Use in English: you may think the 2nd paragraph relevant here. Ro Thorpe 00:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)