Talk:Hundred Years War: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>James F. Perry (→Apostrophe: argument for no apostrophe) |
imported>James F. Perry (→Apostrophe: counter-example) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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. [http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/pdf/EHR_full_author_guidelines.pdf Blackwell]). However, I think the apostrophe is technically correct: cf. ''a few minutes' wait'' or ''three weeks' notice''. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 05:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | 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. [http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/pdf/EHR_full_author_guidelines.pdf Blackwell]). However, I think the apostrophe is technically correct: cf. ''a few minutes' wait'' or ''three weeks' notice''. [[User:John Stephenson|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 | : 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). [[User:James F. Perry|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. [[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] 20:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:35, 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)