tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327778823495975786.post8333524058297119828..comments2023-10-29T05:10:31.844-07:00Comments on Japes for Owre Tymes: Off to See the Wizard...Again and Again and AgainAngry Kemhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12922460027569086541noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327778823495975786.post-78619816773774906102008-10-11T18:56:00.000-07:002008-10-11T18:56:00.000-07:00Well, I do kind of see it as a society belonging t...Well, I do kind of see it as a society belonging to many cartoonists...plus if you leave the apostrophe out, it looks as if it's a society made up of <I>national</I> cartoonists. Then again, I could just be almost unbearably pedantic. Yeah...that must be it.<BR/><BR/>I do very much sympathise with your "Gay Caller's Association" dilemma. That would have driven me absolutely mad.Angry Kemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12922460027569086541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327778823495975786.post-32027387122853720502008-10-11T18:36:00.000-07:002008-10-11T18:36:00.000-07:00I see no need for an apostrophe after "Cartoonists...I see no need for an apostrophe after "Cartoonists." It's not a society belonging to many cartoonists (possessive plural); it's a society made up of many cartoonists (simple plural).<BR/><BR/>I once edited a newsletter for an organization of square dance callers known as the Gay Caller's Association. That's right: an association belonging to one caller. I wrote an editorial pointing out this error and correcting it, but I was really too late. The Wandering Apostrophe was right there in the legal papers that established the group. That didn't stop me from writing it correctly all the way through the run of my newsletter, of course.<BR/><BR/>Jana C.H.<BR/>Seattle<BR/>Saith Floss Forbes: If you don't know the tune, sing tenor.Jana C.H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16974426405568302762noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2327778823495975786.post-76155028917253205222008-10-11T12:41:00.000-07:002008-10-11T12:41:00.000-07:00On the other hand, perhaps the King is really Rich...<I>On the other hand, perhaps the King is really Richard II, and the dwarfishness is a sideways swipe at the "smallness" (read: youth) of the monarch at the time he assumed the throne.</I><BR/><BR/>...which would make it technically fair game for my dissertation!<BR/><BR/>I think I have to go throw up on my shoes now.Leahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07249532247015252188noreply@blogger.com