Of: Difference between revisions

Of (view source)

Revision as of 12:20, 6 July 2020

34 bytes added , 6 July 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,882

edits

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 ===Pompous possessives===
-“[[Of]]” is the pompous writer’s favourite possessive, because it makes something fun sound austere and sonorous. And it’s hard to screw up. lawyers have a horror of the apostrophe — possibly because they can’t remember how they work.<ref>[https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyers_motion_objects_to_opponents_use_of_possessives Lawyer’s Motion Objects to Opponent’s Use of Possessives] </ref>
+“[[Of]]” is the pompous writer’s favourite possessive, because it makes something fun sound austere and sonorous. And it’s hard to screw up. Lawyers have a horror of the apostrophe — possibly because they can’t remember how they work.<ref>[https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyers_motion_objects_to_opponents_use_of_possessives Lawyer’s Motion Objects to Opponent’s Use of Possessives] </ref>
-“Skywalker’s rise” doesn’t sound quite so momentous as “The Rise Of Skywalker”. Likewise, England’s Bank sounds like some ghastly New Labour funding initiative for social housing, not the Grand Old Lady of Threadneedle Street.
+“Skywalker’s rise” doesn’t sound quite so momentous as “The Rise Of Skywalker”. “England’s Bank” sounds like some ghastly New Labour funding initiative for social housing. “The Bank of England” is incontrovertibly the Grand Old Lady of Threadneedle Street.
-But our favourite example is dear old Ken Adams’ ''A Manual Of Style For Contract Drafting''<ref>Get your copy [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Manual-Style-Contract-Drafting/dp/1634259645 here], folks. It’s only a hundred quid!</ref> which, despite being ''dedicated'' to style, has stubbornly mangled its very own title through four editions and fifteen years. As it is, it’s a bit [[Bob Cunis]]: Ken could have gone the whole hog, and called it “''A Manual Of Style For The Drafting Of Contracts''”, or embraced his inner rebel, and called it — I dunno, a “''Contract Drafting Style Manual''”?
+Our favourite example is dear old Ken Adams’ ''A Manual Of Style For Contract Drafting''<ref>Get your copy [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Manual-Style-Contract-Drafting/dp/1634259645 here], folks. It’s only a hundred quid!</ref> which, despite being ''dedicated'' to style, has stubbornly mangled its very own title through four editions and fifteen years. As it is, it’s a bit [[Bob Cunis]]: Ken could have gone the whole hog, and called it “''A Manual Of Style For The Drafting Of Contracts''”, or embraced his inner rebel, and called it — I dunno, a “''Contract Drafting Style Manual''”?
 Colour me crazy.