No period after abbreviation?
Jonathan Gowland
My company has a contract technical writer who has prepared a draft
style guide for use when writing manuals. It includes the following
edict:
When using abbreviations (such as eg, etc, ie), do not place a
full stop [a "period" to Americans] between or after the
abbreviation.
I was somewhat surprised by this. Can anyone quote any up-to-date and
authoritative references to support or contradict this treatment of
abbreviations?
Jonathan Gowland
William R. Ward
In America, it is usually considered proper to use the periods (though
I'd call them "dots" in this situation, since they don't end a
sentence) copiously in all-lowercase abbreviations and not in
uppercase ones. However in Rightpondia it has become trendy to omit
them. Is your writer British, or at least British-trained?
Australian English has more Americanisms in it than British English,
or so I am led to believe, so perhaps it is more common to include the
dots there than in Britain, where they even leave them off in things
like "Dr."!
--Bill.
--
William R Ward Bay View Consulting http://www.bayview.com/~hermit/
her...@bayview.com 1803 Mission St. #339 voicemail +1 408/479-4072
her...@cats.ucsc.edu Santa Cruz CA 95060 USA pager +1 408/458-8862
PGP Key 0x2BD331E5; Public key at http://www.bayview.com/~hermit/pubkey.txt
Ross Howard
On 3 Mar 1998 13:13:31 +1100, jo...@genasys.com.au (Jonathan Gowland)
wrote:
>My company has a contract technical writer who has prepared a draft
>style guide for use when writing manuals. It includes the following
>edict:
>
> When using abbreviations (such as eg, etc, ie), do not place a
> full stop [a "period" to Americans] between or after the
> abbreviation.
>
>I was somewhat surprised by this. Can anyone quote any up-to-date and
>authoritative references to support or contradict this treatment of
>abbreviations?
Try Goggin, Brian J., posts *passim*.
Ross Howard
****************************************************
There's a number in my e-mail address. Subtract four
from it to reply.
****************************************************
L.I. Endell
William R. Ward wrote:
: jo...@genasys.com.au (Jonathan Gowland) writes:
: > My company has a contract technical writer who has prepared a draft
: > style guide for use when writing manuals. It includes the following
: > edict:
: >
: > When using abbreviations (such as eg, etc, ie), do not place a
: > full stop [a "period" to Americans] between or after the
: > abbreviation.
: >
: > I was somewhat surprised by this. Can anyone quote any up-to-date and
: > authoritative references to support or contradict this treatment of
: > abbreviations?
: In America, it is usually considered proper to use the periods (though
: I'd call them "dots" in this situation, since they don't end a
: sentence) copiously in all-lowercase abbreviations and not in
: uppercase ones. However in Rightpondia it has become trendy to omit
: them. Is your writer British, or at least British-trained?
: Australian English has more Americanisms in it than British English,
: or so I am led to believe, so perhaps it is more common to include the
: dots there than in Britain, where they even leave them off in things
: like "Dr."!
As a Rightpondian, I still stick the dots in abbreviations such as e.g.
and i.e.. I have a minor problem with whether or not to put a full stop
after a dot if the abbreviation comes at the end of the sentence.
*I* tend to omit dots in abbreviations such as Dr because the dot (to me)
indicates that there is normally something after the final letter. The
omitted letters in Dr are in the middle so I feel that the dot should be
between "d" and "r". However, I understand that I am peculiar and should
not be quoted as a typical Rightpondian. :-)
Linz
--
Lindsay Endell li...@cam.ac.uk & li...@earthling.net
Ooh, not exactly a pedant as such, I wouldn't say...
Brian J Goggin
On Tue, 03 Mar 1998 09:40:51 GMT, rho...@mx7.redestb.es (Ross Howard)
wrote:
>On 3 Mar 1998 13:13:31 +1100, jo...@genasys.com.au (Jonathan Gowland)
>wrote:
>
>>My company has a contract technical writer who has prepared a draft
>>style guide for use when writing manuals. It includes the following
>>edict:
>>
>> When using abbreviations (such as eg, etc, ie), do not place a
>> full stop [a "period" to Americans] between or after the
>> abbreviation.
>>
>>I was somewhat surprised by this. Can anyone quote any up-to-date and
>>authoritative references to support or contradict this treatment of
>>abbreviations?
>
>Try Goggin, Brian J., posts *passim*.
Er ....
I reproduce some extracts from recent British works; I don't know
whether they will have any persuasive effect in Australia, but I have
no Australian usage guides.
There is, I suggest, strong support for the view that the omission of
full stops is at the very least an acceptable practice; even those
whose house styles require the use of full stops are willing to
acknowledge that.
I support your writer's recommendation. In my view, the omission of
full stops fits with the "open punctuation" style. For instance, I
don't use commas in addresses:
Mr Ross Howard
El Golf Course View
Barcelona
Spain
I do not think there is any danger of confusing the unstopped versions
(eg, ie, etc) with any other words, so there is, I suggest, no
disadvantage to the omission of the stops. The only abbreviation I
would worry about is "No" for "number"; I would capitalise it to avoid
any possible problem.
Note that all the sources cited are recent publications. Every recent
British guide that I checked (and that mentioned the matter) allowed
the practice; my choice of citations is representative (at least of my
library), not selective. However, the few American English books I
have suggest that full stops/periods should be retained; that accords,
if my memory serves me, with what Learned Members of this group have
said.
bjg
==========
Burchfield *Modern English Usage* third edition ("The New Fowler's"),
OUP 1996, ISBN 0-19-869126-2:
"Abbreviations and contractions. The use of a full point in these is
described in *Hart's Rules* (pp. 1 - 6), though some modifications are
now needed. The distinction between abbreviations (e.g. I.o.W. = Isle
of Wight) and contractions (e.g. Dr = Doctor, where the first and last
letters are retained) is a useful one, but has been eroded in the 20C.
by a widespread tendency to abandon the use of full points altogether
for both types. As long as consistency is maintained, a.m./p.m. and
am/pm, St. and St, D.Phil. and DPhil, and so on, i.e. types with and
without full points, are both acceptable, unless ambiguity would arise
by omission of the full point."
==========
Howard *The Macmillan Good English Handbook*, Macmillan 1997, ISBN
0-333-64806-4:
"RECOMMENDATION. Leave out stops in abbreviations, as nowadays it
looks laboured to put them in, and unnecessary stops hold up the flow
of the eye across a sentence."
==========
Cutts *The Plain English Guide*, OUP 1995, ISBN 0-19-869259-5:
"There's no need to use full stops in people's names or in
abbreviations or acronyms --- Mr J C Bennett, BBC, US, eg, ie, 8am,
9pm --- unless there's a genuine chance of ambiguity."
==========
Greenbaum & Whitcut *Longman Guide to English Usage*, Longman 1988,
ISBN 0-582-55619-8:
"*e.g., i.e.* [...] In print, the full stops are sometimes omitted, as
in this book."
"[...] Et cetera (nearly always abbreviated to *etc.*, *&c.*, which
are sometimes printed without a full stop) [...]."
==========
Butcher *Copy-editing: The Cambridge Handbook* third edition, CUP
1992, ISBN 0-521-40074-0:
"*Sets of initials* One can punctuate all, none, or just those that
consist of lower-case letters; [...]."
==========
PS Older works like *Hart's Rules* require the use of full stops. As I
replaced the more modern Butcher on my shelves, Hart fell off, hitting
me on the head, causing my forehead to bleed and breaking a glass. The
Gods of the OUP are not to be mocked.
David Marshall
Jonathan Gowland wrote:
> When using abbreviations (such as eg, etc, ie), do not place a
> full stop [a "period" to Americans] between or after the
> abbreviation.
> I was somewhat surprised by this. Can anyone quote any up-to-date and
> authoritative references to support or contradict this treatment of
> abbreviations?
I would say that the examples you cite are very unusual for both British
and American usage, where both would use e.g. etc. and i.e. Abbreviation
is *slightly* contentious in Britain, but the usual rule is that if the
final letter of the abbreviation is intended to be the final letter of
the word there is no full-stop. For a while the British trend was to use
the American rule (possibly because people didn't *know* there was a
rule) but I can't think of any current British newspaper that uses US
abbreviations.
UK US
Mister Mr Mr.
Mistress Mrs Mrs.
Doctor Dr Dr.
Drive Dr. Dr.
Street St. St.
Saint St St.
The last two are *very* contentious.
Hope that helps
Dave
(British :)
--
J. David Eisenberg
Jonathan Gowland <jo...@genasys.com.au> wrote:
: My company has a contract technical writer who has prepared a draft
: style guide for use when writing manuals. It includes the following
: edict:
: When using abbreviations (such as eg, etc, ie), do not place a
: full stop [a "period" to Americans] between or after the
: abbreviation.
: I was somewhat surprised by this. Can anyone quote any up-to-date and
: authoritative references to support or contradict this treatment of
: abbreviations?
: Jonathan Gowland
Just make sure that you do _not_ use a full stop after the symbols
for metric units. They're symbols, not abbreviations. Thus:
The 50 kg meteor landed 12 m away from the house.
--
J. David Eisenberg http://www.best.com/~nessus
SPMac...@netvalue.net
In article <6dfp0b$i...@gisdev.genasys.com.au>,
jo...@genasys.com.au (Jonathan Gowland) wrote:
> When using abbreviations (such as eg, etc, ie), do not place a
> full stop [a "period" to Americans] between or after the
> abbreviation.
This makes sense; the reason for using abbreviations in the first place is
to take up less space, and abbreviations without those useless periods take
up less space than ones that do.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Robert Clark
The word 'trendy' is the clue here, and I don't regard that word as
necessarily pejorative.
I think this 'trend' was started by graphic designers, as the phenomenon
can be seen in journals such as The Economist, which is very reputable.
To be frank, I approve of it and follow the trend wherever I can.
(I am a translator, English)
It seems to me that our US friends are very conservative on these matters.
Look at the way they capitalise their newspaper headlines - like something
out of the 1930s!
RC
Jonathan Gowland <jo...@genasys.com.au> wrote in article
<6dfp0b$i...@gisdev.genasys.com.au>...
| My company has a contract technical writer who has prepared a draft
| style guide for use when writing manuals. It includes the following
| edict:
|
| When using abbreviations (such as eg, etc, ie), do not place a
| full stop [a "period" to Americans] between or after the
| abbreviation.
|
Brian J Goggin
On 3 Mar 1998 12:44:25 GMT, li...@cus.cam.ac.uk (L.I. Endell) wrote:
>William R. Ward wrote:
[...]
>: In America, it is usually considered proper to use the periods (though
>: I'd call them "dots" in this situation, since they don't end a
>: sentence) copiously in all-lowercase abbreviations and not in
>: uppercase ones. However in Rightpondia it has become trendy to omit
>: them. Is your writer British, or at least British-trained?
My dear fellow! I am neither trendy nor British, yet I omit them.
Britain may be an element of the set Rightpondia, but there are other
elements.
Save pixels. Or ink. And trees. And whales.
bjg
Albert Marshall
L.I. Endell <li...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote
>
<Npt so much snip as slash>
>*I* tend to omit dots in abbreviations such as Dr because the dot (to me)
>indicates that there is normally something after the final letter. The
>omitted letters in Dr are in the middle so I feel that the dot should be
>between "d" and "r". However, I understand that I am peculiar and should
>not be quoted as a typical Rightpondian. :-)
>
You may be peculiar (never argue with a lady), but I believe that this
is widely accepted as the correct approach in Rightpondia.
--
Albert Marshall
Executive French
Language Training for Businesses in Kent
01634 400902
Aaron J. Dinkin
In article <6dh736$39o$1...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, "J. David Eisenberg"
<nes...@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> Just make sure that you do _not_ use a full stop after the symbols
> for metric units. They're symbols, not abbreviations. Thus:
>
> The 50 kg meteor landed 12 m away from the house.
But do use a hyphen when you use metric quantities attributively:
The 50-kg meteor landed 12 m away from the house.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Ross Howard
On Tue, 03 Mar 1998 01:57:35 GMT, b...@wordwrights.ie (Brian J Goggin)
wrote:
>Mr Ross Howard
>El Golf Course View
>Barcelona
>Spain
The full stop after "Mr" isn't all that's missing. Brian meant, of
course, "The El Golf Course Vista View".
Lawrence J. Krakauer
Albert Marshall wrote:
> L.I. Endell <li...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote
> <Npt so much snip as slash>
> >*I* tend to omit dots in abbreviations such as Dr because the dot (to me)
> >indicates that there is normally something after the final letter. The
> >omitted letters in Dr are in the middle so I feel that the dot should be
> >between "d" and "r". However, I understand that I am peculiar and should
> >not be quoted as a typical Rightpondian. :-)
> >
> You may be peculiar (never argue with a lady), but I believe that this
> is widely accepted as the correct approach in Rightpondia.
By that last, I assume you mean the omission of the dot, "Dr Who", but
not the idea that the dot indicates omitted letters. I have
certainly never seen "D.r Who". If anything indicates missing letters,
it would be an apostrophe, so we would write "D'r Who". But we don't.
I have never perceived the dot as indicating missing letter; just as
indicating an abbreviation.
Consider that a common abbreviation of "number" is "no.", yet the
original word has no "o" in it at all. The dot distinguishes between
these two sentences:
"The address of his house has no "3" in it."
"The address of his house has no. "3" in it."
OK, it's a bit forced.
--
Larry Krakauer (lar...@kronos.com)
Tom
David Marshall <da...@durge.org> wrote, in part,
> UK US
> Mister Mr Mr.
> Mistress Mrs Mrs.
> Doctor Dr Dr.
> Drive Dr. Dr.
> Street St. St.
> Saint St St.
>
> The last two are *very* contentious.
Contentious to some, perhaps, but not to me. (Well, not arguable to
me, let's say; my dictionary gives a somewhat different meaning to
"contentious.") I picked that convention up from Fowler some 40 years
ago, liked it, & have used it ever since--in correspondence, in notes,
& (when I can sneak it past copy editors) in publications.
Tom Parsons (stateside)
--
--
t...@panix.com | If someone says "can't,"
| that shows you what to do.
http://www.panix.com/~twp | --John Cage (from his father)
N.Mitchum
Lawrence J. Krakauer wrote:
-----
> [...] If anything indicates missing letters,
> it would be an apostrophe, so we would write "D'r Who". But we don't.
> I have never perceived the dot as indicating missing letter; just as
> indicating an abbreviation.
I've never seen that either side has an impregnable argument for
or against the period in "Dr." or "Ph.D." Two systems have grown
up, and apparently any defense of each is merely the
rationalization of long, comfortable habit.
-----
> Consider that a common abbreviation of "number" is "no.", yet the
> original word has no "o" in it at all.
>....
Well, the original word was the Latin "numero" and the copyists'
original abbreviation included not a period but a dot or line
*beneath* the o.
--- NM
Mailed copies of replies always appreciated. (Mailers: drop HINTS.)
Alec Owen
Possibly no. is the abbreviation of a Latin or Spanish word (nu/mero?)
I often omit the dot in abbreviations even though it is conventionally
correct. Probably as a form of protest against those responsible for my
education. I never put it in after 'etc'.
A Owen
Toronto
Lawrence J. Krakauer wrote:
>
> Albert Marshall wrote:
> > L.I. Endell <li...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote
> > <Npt so much snip as slash>
> > >*I* tend to omit dots in abbreviations such as Dr because the dot (to me)
> > >indicates that there is normally something after the final letter. The
> > >omitted letters in Dr are in the middle so I feel that the dot should be
> > >between "d" and "r". However, I understand that I am peculiar and should
> > >not be quoted as a typical Rightpondian. :-)
> > >
> > You may be peculiar (never argue with a lady), but I believe that this
> > is widely accepted as the correct approach in Rightpondia.
>
> By that last, I assume you mean the omission of the dot, "Dr Who", but
> not the idea that the dot indicates omitted letters. I have
> certainly never seen "D.r Who". If anything indicates missing letters,
> it would be an apostrophe, so we would write "D'r Who". But we don't.
> I have never perceived the dot as indicating missing letter; just as
> indicating an abbreviation.
>
> Consider that a common abbreviation of "number" is "no.", yet the
Albert Marshall
N.Mitchum <HINTS...@mail.lafn.org> wrote
>Lawrence J. Krakauer wrote:
>-----
>> it would be an apostrophe, so we would write "D'r Who". But we don't.
>> I have never perceived the dot as indicating missing letter; just as
>> indicating an abbreviation.
>
>I've never seen that either side has an impregnable argument for
>or against the period in "Dr." or "Ph.D." Two systems have grown
>up, and apparently any defense of each is merely the
>rationalization of long, comfortable habit.
>
After a year or so of aue, I am of the opinion that there is very little
point in arguing about logic in different practices on opposite sides of
the Pond.
If everybody would accept that languages are faits accomplis then the
missionary fervour of those who try to modify the practices of hundresd
of millions of people by posting to a newsgroup read by a few hundred
may be slightly abataed.
In the case of the present discussion the languages in question are both
called English. If this is seen as the merest of coincidences, it may
help to put things in perspective.
<Snip remainder>
David Marshall
Tom wrote:
> > Street St. St.
> > Saint St St.
> > The last two are *very* contentious.
> Contentious to some, perhaps, but not to me.
Good man! There are even some Britons aware of the "rule" that don't
observe this useful convention. :)
Dave
--
Charles A. Lee
Dear Jonathan,
On 3 Mar 1998 13:13:31 +1100, you wrote:
>My company has a contract technical writer who has prepared a draft
>style guide for use when writing manuals. It includes the following
>edict:
>
> When using abbreviations (such as eg, etc, ie), do not place a
> full stop [a "period" to Americans] between or after the
> abbreviation.
>
>I was somewhat surprised by this. Can anyone quote any up-to-date and
>authoritative references to support or contradict this treatment of
>abbreviations?
>
>Jonathan Gowland
Yes, unfortunately. Refer to the style guide of the American Medical
Association. It seems that doctors are lazier than others when it
comes to punctuation. When I worked at Amgen (www.amgen.com), this
was the officially accepted style under which regulated documents were
submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Other more commonly used style guides are available in larger
dictionaries.
Charles A. Lee
http://www.concentric.net/~azcal
================================
= "Nobody goes there anymore; =
= it's too crowded. =
= - Yogi Berra =
================================
Ross Howard
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 13:08:28 +0000, David Marshall <da...@durge.org>
wrote:
And I'm one of the some. I'm well aware of the style but go to
considerable lengths to ignore it.
"Useful," you say? It's tidy, perhaps, but it's hardly useful. It'd be
useful if there were any risk of ambiguity, but do you really think
anybody is likely to see "St. James's Park" and "Oxford St" and read
them as "Street James's Park" and "Oxford Saint"?
If the reasoning behind distinguishing between "St" and "St." is to
prevent the same abbreviation from meaning more than one thing, that's
a battle lost long ago -- consider "Washington Direct Current", or
"desktop police constables" (or is it "politically-correct-compatible
software"? I never can remember which), or those soldiers with "Member
of Parliament" painted on their helmets. Amazingly, though, the world
hasn't ended.
As Truly Donovan regularly and rightly says, context is all -- and I
can think of no context in which "street" and "saint" could possibly
be confused.
Alec Owen
Charles A. Lee wrote:
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> On 3 Mar 1998 13:13:31 +1100, you wrote:
>
> >My company has a contract technical writer who has prepared a draft
> >style guide for use when writing manuals. It includes the following
> >edict:
> >
> > When using abbreviations (such as eg, etc, ie), do not place a
> > full stop [a "period" to Americans] between or after the
> > abbreviation.
> >
> >I was somewhat surprised by this. Can anyone quote any up-to-date and
> >authoritative references to support or contradict this treatment of
> >abbreviations?
> >
> >Jonathan Gowland
>
One of the best descriptions of what scholars should aim for in their
writing is in the opening sentences of A Handbook for Scholars, by
Mary-Claire van Leunen. She says:
Scholarly writing is formal, accurate, and allusive. It has to be.
It does not have to be wooden, finicking, and cabalistic.
Latin abbreviations are one of the easiest ways to make your writing
wooden, finicking and cabalistic. And that's assuming that you use them
correctly. Many people don't. Still worse, many people know they are
using them incorrectly, but continue to use them incorrectly, figuring
no one knows the difference anyway. Before you write that Latin
abbreviation, consider that there are two reasons why you probably
shouldn't use it. One, because you should try not to use
Latin in your writing. Two, because you should try not to use
abbreviations in your writing.
etc.
Etc., or et cetera, means "and so on." So when "and so on" is what you
want to say, say it. i.e. and e.g.
Some people have trouble keeping them straight. The former means "that
is" and the latter means
"for example." It's impossible to mix them up when you say them in
English, and there is really
no reason not to say them in English.
He was asked not to leave town that week (that is, until after the
inquest).
The police were suspicious for several reasons (for example, the
lock had recently
been changed).
If you must use i.e. and e.g., use them within parentheses, and in
technical-sounding contexts.
I am quoting only the relevant part. For the rest you must look it up.
A Owen
Toronto
Alec Owen
Charles A. Lee wrote:
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> On 3 Mar 1998 13:13:31 +1100, you wrote:
>
> >My company has a contract technical writer who has prepared a draft
> >style guide for use when writing manuals. It includes the following
> >edict:
> >
> > When using abbreviations (such as eg, etc, ie), do not place a
> > full stop [a "period" to Americans] between or after the
> > abbreviation.
> >
> >I was somewhat surprised by this. Can anyone quote any up-to-date and
> >authoritative references to support or contradict this treatment of
> >abbreviations?
> >
> >Jonathan Gowland
Here is another point of view.
This lesson will enlighten you on Latin abbreviations used in formal
English writing. Not only are they useful for writing formal papers, but
you will probably come across them in texts and books, especially in
liberal arts fields. The full Latin forms in brackets [] are there only
for your information, but you need only to remember the abbreviation.
You do not need to remember the full Latin form unless it helps you
remember the abbreviation.
1. e.g. [exempliae gratis]
= 'for example'; literally in Latin, 'for the sake of an example'; this
abbreviation is always set off with commas before and after: blahblah,
e.g., blahblahblah
"As a biologist, I have studied primarily creatures of low intelligence,
e.g., snails, slugs, insects, and Dan Quayle."
2. i.e. [id est]
= 'that is'
(cf. Spanish 'es decir' = 'that is to say'; German 'dass heist'):
used to rephrase, reword, paraphrase, clarify, or briefly explain
something in the text; this is also set off with commas both before
and after.
"The psychiatrists told him he was suffering from a delusional mental
disorder, i.e., he had lost his marbles."
3. cf. [conferre]
= 'compare': used in a text to cite an example for the sake of
comparison, for example, to mention something that is related,
analagous, or roughly equivalent to your subject:
"Luke 3 gives the genealogy of Jesus through his mother's family line
(cf.
Matthew 1, which traces his line through Joseph)."
4. N.B. [nota bene]
= 'note well', pay attention, notice well; this is often placed at
the beginning of a sentence to mark something important: "N.B.: Do not
throw rocks, furniture, metal articles, persons, or any other objects
from this bridge."
The above lesson is for you information and is not mine.
A Owen
Toronto
Aaron J. Dinkin
In article <34FDAA5A...@ica.net>, Alec Owen <ao...@ica.net> wrote:
> 1. e.g. [exempliae gratis]
"Exempli gratia".
<snip>
> 3. cf. [conferre]
"Confer".
> The above lesson is for you information and is not mine.
I yield the privilege of acerbic comments to Truly.
Mark Baker
In article <adinkin-ya0231800...@news.nii.net>,
adi...@commschool.org (Aaron J. Dinkin) writes:
> But do use a hyphen when you use metric quantities attributively:
>
> The 50-kg meteor landed 12 m away from the house.
Er, no, please don't. "The fifty-kilogram meteor..." I'd agree with, but
when writing it in numerals, I would consider a hyphen to be wrong.
Whether attributive or otherwise, there should be a thin space there. If a
thin space isn't available I'd accept either a thick one or nothing; some
people are fussier.
Aaron J. Dinkin
In article <6dmqoj$b6b$1...@aziraphale.pet.cam.ac.uk>, mba...@iee.org (Mark
Baker) wrote:
> In article <adinkin-ya0231800...@news.nii.net>,
> adi...@commschool.org (Aaron J. Dinkin) writes:
>
> > But do use a hyphen when you use metric quantities attributively:
> >
> > The 50-kg meteor landed 12 m away from the house.
>
> Er, no, please don't. "The fifty-kilogram meteor..." I'd agree with, but
> when writing it in numerals, I would consider a hyphen to be wrong.
I haven't seen such a construction without a hyphen.
Alec Owen
> Dr. Whom
A Owen
Toronto
Truly Donovan
On Sun, 08 Mar 1998 10:17:29 -0500, Alec Owen <ao...@ica.net> wrote:
>Aaron J. Dinkin wrote:
>>
>> In article <34FDAA5A...@ica.net>, Alec Owen <ao...@ica.net> wrote:
>> > 3. cf. [conferre]
>>
>> "Confer".
>>
>> I yield the privilege of acerbic comments to Truly.
>Go ahead; be petty. Truly wont mind.
Shall I confer thee to a summer's day?
Right.
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com