Print

Print


Re: {{very OT}}RE: Echoes of Eliot
There must be many Eliot-related issues that many members of this forum are anxious to discuss.
 
To try to clear Augeas's stable is a futile task and every attempt in that direction is foolish, as the venerable TSE himself seems to have implied somewhere ("East Coker"?). 
 
Nevertheless, the difference in meaning between the two homonyms: "printer's [singular] mark" and "printers' [plural] mark" is something one either knows or does not know and that is all there is to it.  No reference to whatever dictionary may be at hand will change that. 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">Loucks, James
To: [log in to unmask] href="mailto:[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: {{very OT}}RE: Echoes of Eliot

That only shows how unprincipxxd they are.  --  Jim


From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. on behalf of Jacek Niecko
Sent: Thu 08-Sep-05 3:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: {{very OT}}RE: Echoes of Eliot

I am afraid that the issue is not debatable.

"Printers' " is not an option.  Such term does not exist.

But one should not be surprised that some are not aware that it is so.
After all, we live in an age when the editors of at least one of the
national newspapers in the United States do not distinguish between
"principle" and "principal."


----- Original Message -----
From: "George Carless" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: {{very OT}}RE: Echoes of Eliot


>> For the same reason it took the assorted listers several days recently to
>> discern the difference between
>> "printer's" and "printers' " [as in marks (rather than MARX)].
>
> Actually, that's not true.  The context was not given, and it wasn't clear
> whether "printer's" or
> "printers'" would have been correct.
>
> --George