The name "Status View"...

[Mesh]

Then we will never agree on this as I am speaking from the British English frame of reference.

Not necessarily. You're assuming that the rules applicable to the two scenarios we're discussing are different between British and American English. I admit that it could be, but that doesn't make it a foregone conclusion.

I also have other users' interests in my mind. That is why I have put forward a distinctive name for a feature that relates -- both linguistically and functionally -- to XYplorer.

I never argued that it wasn't distinctive. Just not as easy to comprehend as other possibilities, many of which have been suggested already.

I didn't say that it is intended for a tiny subset of extreme power users -- your interpretation of my words is incorrect. Nor did I state that it is an absolute requirement that people read through entire help file, version history and the forum posts. What I did state was that those are potential places where people may find assistance in case they have a query regarding a feature.

In the interest of refining this subdiscussion, you justified using XYcopy in the label by effectively stating that if a user doesn't know what it means, they can look it up. I don't disagree that if they don't know what it means, they can look it up. All I'm saying is that if there's a plain English alternative (to clarify, for a *menu* label), it's usually a better idea to use that then a function/module name.

"Background Jobs" is not misleading? Where is the explanation of what jobs it is referring to? Where is the clarification that not all file jobs will be shown in that dialogue window? How about the fact that those jobs can be foregrounded as well? "XYcopy Jobs" is not misleading. People new to XYplorer may not know instantly what it means, but that's the case with a lot of XYplorer's features.

Well, I preferred "Background Tasks" to "Background Jobs", but both of those are plain English - although they use common computer industry terminology. While a user might need to look up the specifics of what that covers, they will at least have a good idea as to roughly what it's referring to.

On the other hand, a function/module name is not nearly as easy to understand.

And there is nothing wrong with referring to a specific application that performs a particular function in conjunction with XYplorer. There is a reason why Don called it "XYcopy.exe". He didn't call it "File Transfer Agent.exe" or "This program does copy and move and delete operations if you enable it in Configuration.exe", did he?

First of all, we're talking about a menu label. The rules of thumb don't apply the same way when we're talking about different parts of an application.

What you're referencing is a module. It's something that users do not interface with directly. It handles file operations in the background. Therefore, it is not necessary to take into the same kind of consideration as a menu item in the UI.

We're not referring to a specific file operation, or a specific set of file operations - but rather, the concept of file operations in general. Therefore, it is not possessive.

If we were talking about a specific item, we would be talking about "the file operation's status". If we were talking about a specific group of items, we would be talking about "the file operations' status". But neither applies here. Here, we're using the general concept of "file operations" to indicate the *type* of "status". It's not possessive.

What you are talking about is some vague and general concept of file operations. Yet what that dialogue window shows is either a specific operation or a specific set of operations -- depending on how many are displayed. Thus, said dialogue window brings said operation(s) under its "hood", so it is possessive. That dialogue window possesses information about those operations.

The menu item shows the status of file operations in general. Once you're in there, yes, there will be specific ones present. But the menu item itself *is* generic. And for all the reasons mentioned earlier, it is *not* possessive.

So far, in addition to my statements on the matter, we have the Chicago Manual of Style, and the statements from an English teacher in Australia along with the_hyrax_lord, who claims to be a British English subject working on an MA in English - both agreeing with me. I think the evidence is mounting.

I took a liberty of asking someone I know on a personal basis and who happens to be a certified proofreader [in British English] and has proofread a considerable number of publications in his 62 year life. Here is his response:

...I think I understand what you mean about these things. I get fed up seeing "CD's" or "video's". Just look at it this way - if you spelled it out, would there be an apostrophe? Like 'compact disc's' ??? I think not. Or QUANGO's! Or DVD's!! Even worse! Ah well, back to my supper of sausage's and tomatoe's and potato's.

His explanation is incomplete, and thus incorrect. Even the source you supplied (Oxford) shows exceptions for certain items (because the absence of an apostrophe in those circumstances has the potential to be confusing), such as letters and numbers (e.g. 7's, P's, etc...).

So your own source proves your proofreader incorrect. I don't think I need to add anything to that.

That being said, you brought him up in response to comments regarding the Australian English teacher I quoted earlier. However, that teacher was not speaking on the use of apostrophes with acronyms, he/she was speaking about the original phrase "file operations status". So, your rebuttal wasn't really a direct rebuttal. Just pointing out the apples and oranges of how you posted that.

You continue to misunderstand me. Once again, I am not saying that new users to XY "must instantly comprehend the meaning of each and every term that is present in XYplorer". I am saying that where there is a clear plain English *alternative*, that is what should be used, so as to not make the UI **unnecessarily** complex. If you can't understand this concept, then by all means, feel free to design an app using your stated philosophy. But you'd better have a day job.

User interface won't suffer one little bit if it is to be called "XYcopy Jobs". It's just a text label.

If you honestly believe that, then I'll just say it's a good thing you're not the one designing XY's UI.

And last, but not least -- XYcopy is mentioned in the GUI after all! Go to Configuration -> File Operations. Below "Queue file operations", what does it say? Yes, it says "Copy handler: XYcopy.exe...". I'd say that absolute fact that you claimed it to be is not so absolute any more!

I'll grant you the letter, but not the spirit. If you tell someone to look at the pull down menu - well, guess what? There's a pull down menu they can see! If you tell someone to look at the tree pane, it's there for them to see. If you tell someone to look at XYcopy, they'll look at you like a deer in headlights. My original statement stands.

[zer0]

Not necessarily. You're assuming that the rules applicable to the two scenarios we're discussing are different between British and American English. I admit that it could be, but that doesn't make it a foregone conclusion.

There is nothing that states to the contrary, is there?

I never argued that it wasn't distinctive. Just not as easy to comprehend as other possibilities, many of which have been suggested already.

Not as easy to comprehend for who? Newbies? Obviously you mean them as existing should have come across it by now.

In the interest of refining this subdiscussion, you justified using XYcopy in the label by effectively stating that if a user doesn't know what it means, they can look it up. I don't disagree that if they don't know what it means, they can look it up. All I'm saying is that if there's a plain English alternative (to clarify, for a *menu* label), it's usually a better idea to use that then a function/module name.

It is a specific label that refers to a dialogue window that contains specific information about specific jobs that are have been/are/will be carried out by a specific executable. Naming it after the mechanism is entirely justified.

Well, I preferred "Background Tasks" to "Background Jobs", but both of those are plain English - although they use common computer industry terminology. While a user might need to look up the specifics of what that covers, they will at least have a good idea as to roughly what it's referring to.

On the other hand, a function/module name is not nearly as easy to understand.

Like I said, it's a portmanteau of "XYplorer" and "copying", with both being distinctively present in that term. You don't think that users will tweak that it has something to do with copying?

First of all, we're talking about a menu label. The rules of thumb don't apply the same way when we're talking about different parts of an application.

What you're referencing is a module. It's something that users do not interface with directly. It handles file operations in the background. Therefore, it is not necessary to take into the same kind of consideration as a menu item in the UI.

Every file has a name. Every file is called a particular name for a specific reason. And Don also uses that term in the help file and in the changelog. Why do you think he does that?

The menu item shows the status of file operations in general. Once you're in there, yes, there will be specific ones present. But the menu item itself *is* generic. And for all the reasons mentioned earlier, it is *not* possessive.

Likewise, for all the reasons mentioned earlier, it is possessive.

So far, in addition to my statements on the matter, we have the Chicago Manual of Style, and the statements from an English teacher in Australia along with the_hyrax_lord, who claims to be a British English subject working on an MA in English - both agreeing with me. I think the evidence is mounting.

In the red corner of the ring, we have my statements as a British English subject who has studied British English, we have the official Oxford University's English resource, the British Broadcasting Corporation and a professional proofreader. I think I have substantial backing too.

His explanation is incomplete, and thus incorrect. Even the source you supplied (Oxford) shows exceptions for certain items (because the absence of an apostrophe in those circumstances has the potential to be confusing), such as letters and numbers (e.g. 7's, P's, etc...).

So your own source proves your proofreader incorrect. I don't think I need to add anything to that.

His explanation is complete -- there must not be an apostrophe in plural acronyms. As for the Oxford source, it specifically mentions that an apostrophe is unnecessary in MPs; the 1940s and the like, which are plural acronyms. And it does not mention anything regarding potential confusion.

I'll grant you the letter, but not the spirit. If you tell someone to look at the pull down menu - well, guess what? There's a pull down menu they can see! If you tell someone to look at the tree pane, it's there for them to see. If you tell someone to look at XYcopy, they'll look at you like a deer in headlights. My original statement stands.

No, they won't. If I ask nas8e9 if he can see XYcopy's icon while he's transferring files, he'll know exactly what I am referring to. If I ask you what version of XYcopy are you running, you will know exactly where to look. There is even a thread on XYcopy wishes here: http://www.xyplorer.com/xyfc/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4784 and you were the 1st person to chime in with a reply. Why didn't you complain about XYcopy being so incomprehensible then?

[Mesh]

Not necessarily. You're assuming that the rules applicable to the two scenarios we're discussing are different between British and American English. I admit that it could be, but that doesn't make it a foregone conclusion.

There is nothing that states to the contrary, is there?

Between an Australian English teacher, and the_hyrax_lord, I think we've got contrary statements from people who are not limited to American English.

I never argued that it wasn't distinctive. Just not as easy to comprehend as other possibilities, many of which have been suggested already.

Not as easy to comprehend for who? Newbies? Obviously you mean them as existing should have come across it by now.

You're making assumptions. Not all users are active on the forums.

In the interest of refining this subdiscussion, you justified using XYcopy in the label by effectively stating that if a user doesn't know what it means, they can look it up. I don't disagree that if they don't know what it means, they can look it up. All I'm saying is that if there's a plain English alternative (to clarify, for a *menu* label), it's usually a better idea to use that then a function/module name.

It is a specific label that refers to a dialogue window that contains specific information about specific jobs that are have been/are/will be carried out by a specific executable. Naming it after the mechanism is entirely justified.

Clearly, you're not comprehending an extremely basic common sense tennet of application design. I simply say again that it's a good thing that you're not in charge of XY's UI design.

Well, I preferred "Background Tasks" to "Background Jobs", but both of those are plain English - although they use common computer industry terminology. While a user might need to look up the specifics of what that covers, they will at least have a good idea as to roughly what it's referring to.

On the other hand, a function/module name is not nearly as easy to understand.

Like I said, it's a portmanteau of "XYplorer" and "copying", with both being distinctively present in that term. You don't think that users will tweak that it has something to do with copying?

Except XYcopy *doesn't* only deal with copying, does it?

That's a much more severe assumption than what would come with "Background Tasks".

And using your logic, what do you think a user would guess "DestroyPhysicalMonitor" does?

You're ignoring the points you can't easily respond to, but that doesn't make them go away.

First of all, we're talking about a menu label. The rules of thumb don't apply the same way when we're talking about different parts of an application.

What you're referencing is a module. It's something that users do not interface with directly. It handles file operations in the background. Therefore, it is not necessary to take into the same kind of consideration as a menu item in the UI.

Every file has a name. Every file is called a particular name for a specific reason. And Don also uses that term in the help file and in the changelog. Why do you think he does that?

Wow, you completely ignored what was being said in the section of text you quoted me on. Amazing.

The menu item shows the status of file operations in general. Once you're in there, yes, there will be specific ones present. But the menu item itself *is* generic. And for all the reasons mentioned earlier, it is *not* possessive.

Likewise, for all the reasons mentioned earlier, it is possessive.

You have yet to cite a single source to justify your claim, or an authority who agrees with it. Meanwhile, I've got an industry accepted authoritative source, and two people who are learned in this very field who agree with me.

If you want to keep howling at the wind, go right ahead. I think I've proven my point, and backed it up appropriately.

So far, in addition to my statements on the matter, we have the Chicago Manual of Style, and the statements from an English teacher in Australia along with the_hyrax_lord, who claims to be a British English subject working on an MA in English - both agreeing with me. I think the evidence is mounting.

In the red corner of the ring, we have my statements as a British English subject who has studied British English, we have the official Oxford University's English resource, the British Broadcasting Corporation and a professional proofreader. I think I have substantial backing too.

I was specifically referring to the phrase "file operations status" (although the Chicago Manual of Style was used for the other item as well). And on that matter, as I stated above, you have cited no sources and no authorities.

His explanation is incomplete, and thus incorrect. Even the source you supplied (Oxford) shows exceptions for certain items (because the absence of an apostrophe in those circumstances has the potential to be confusing), such as letters and numbers (e.g. 7's, P's, etc...).

So your own source proves your proofreader incorrect. I don't think I need to add anything to that.

His explanation is complete -- there must not be an apostrophe in plural acronyms. As for the Oxford source, it specifically mentions that an apostrophe is unnecessary in MPs; the 1940s and the like, which are plural acronyms. And it does not mention anything regarding potential confusion.

Your source said "Just look at it this way - if you spelled it out, would there be an apostrophe?"

Well, single letters can't be spelled out, and single numbers would be along the lines of "sevens", "sixes", and "fives". And so, once again, your own source - Oxford - contradicts your proofreader. His explanation remains incomplete, and thus incorrect.

I'll grant you the letter, but not the spirit. If you tell someone to look at the pull down menu - well, guess what? There's a pull down menu they can see! If you tell someone to look at the tree pane, it's there for them to see. If you tell someone to look at XYcopy, they'll look at you like a deer in headlights. My original statement stands.

No, they won't. If I ask nas8e9 if he can see XYcopy's icon while he's transferring files, he'll know exactly what I am referring to. If I ask you what version of XYcopy are you running, you will know exactly where to look.

Once again, you missed the point completely. There is no clearly visible element in XY that identifies "XYcopy". When using XY on Win 7 x64 (a caveat I mentioned at the beginning of this), there is no XYcopy icon. There is only the O/S's standard status window. There is nothing in the main UI that a user would see in the normal course of using it that labels it as such.

If you ask a user who is unfamiliar with XY to point to the tree pane, they can do it. If you ask them to point to XYcopy, they can't. How much simpler an explanation do you need?

[zer0]

Between an Australian English teacher, and the_hyrax_lord, I think we've got contrary statements from people who are not limited to American English.

But Australian English is also a dialect of English language. Also, it is a fact that Australian English has undergone "Americanisation" since the gold rushes started in the 1850s. Thus, it is not out of the ordinary for Aussies to side with the American English version. That doesn't make either of us wrong. It is quite probable that both of us are correct within contexts of our own dialects.

You're making assumptions. Not all users are active on the forums.

XYcopy isn't mentioned only on the forums. It is mentioned in the interface of XYplorer, in its help file and in its changelog.

Clearly, you're not comprehending an extremely basic common sense tennet of application design. I simply say again that it's a good thing that you're not in charge of XY's UI design.

I happen to be quite knowledgeable in the area of software design, both from the user interface perspective and from the software engineering aspect. This is because I have a degree in Software Engineering from a reputable university and I am currently employed by a software company that is in the top 20 of the largest software companies in the world as compiled by Forbes. Therefore, please do not insult my intelligence as I have not insulted yours.

Except XYcopy *doesn't* only deal with copying, does it?

You are correct, it deals with a lot more. But because of its name, it is under-promising and over-delivering in functionality. "Background Jobs" is over-promising and under-delivering in terms of functionality as not all jobs would be reflected in that dialogue window.

You have yet to cite a single source to justify your claim, or an authority who agrees with it. Meanwhile, I've got an industry accepted authoritative source, and two people who are learned in this very field who agree with me.

I have cited Oxford University's resource, I have cited BBC's Learning English Guidance, I have cited a proofreader who is accredited to an international standard. If those are insufficient for you, then that is not my problem.

I was specifically referring to the phrase "file operations status" (although the Chicago Manual of Style was used for the other item as well). And on that matter, as I stated above, you have cited no sources and no authorities.

What you are trying to do is to convert a plural noun (operations) into a singular form by referring to it as a general concept (file operations) to sidestep a rule of English punctuation. As "operation" is a countable noun, it is wrong to convert it from plural to singular without making appropriate spelling/punctuation changes. I have cited the BBC who have said "If you are using a regular plural noun ending in ‘s’, you simply add an apostrophe (’):" and Oxford who said "An apostrophe is used to indicate possession with a plural already ending with s". If you have objections as to the credibility or content of those sources you are more than welcome to contact them to discuss this matter.

Your source said "Just look at it this way - if you spelled it out, would there be an apostrophe?"

Well, single letters can't be spelled out, and single numbers would be along the lines of "sevens", "sixes", and "fives". And so, once again, your own source - Oxford - contradicts your proofreader. His explanation remains incomplete, and thus incorrect.

We are not talking about single letters. We are talking about possessive plural nouns and plural acronyms. I accept that apostrophes are needed for single letters and single numbers but neither are subject of this discussion.

Once again, you missed the point completely. There is no clearly visible element in XY that identifies "XYcopy". When using XY on Win 7 x64 (a caveat I mentioned at the beginning of this), there is no XYcopy icon. There is only the O/S's standard status window. There is nothing in the main UI that a user would see in the normal course of using it that labels it as such.

I use Win 7 x64 and, when I transfer files, XYcopy's icon shows up in the taskbar. The dialogue window is operating system's but the icon and the mechanism belongs to XY.

If you ask a user who is unfamiliar with XY to point to the tree pane, they can do it. If you ask them to point to XYcopy, they can't. How much simpler an explanation do you need?

Hold on just a moment. You didn't say a user who is unfamiliar with XYplorer in your previous reply. You said "someone". You didn't define that "someone". Therefore, you left the door open for me to interpret it as I see fit. If you wish, I can cite other forum users who are aware of what XYcopy is.

And you did not respond to me asking why you did not raise any objections to XYcopy's name in another thread in the "Wishes" subforum. May I ask why?

[j_c_hallgren]

I'm not Don and and thus not the forum admin, but i do have far more posts than either of you (though with this thread, both of you are gaining post counts quickly) and thus I'll politely say again:
"Can we have a truce here, please?...PLEASE?"

I certianly don't want to have either one of you (Mesg or zer0) get upset and leave or even just post any less on other threads as we really need both of you here, but it seems this very minor issue has gotten way overdone and I also doubt this will end soon or nicely....thus while I'm not going to take sides, I'd just request that both of you understand that the other has at least a few points that they will never change no matter how many words are used, and that all this energy and time is better used for other purposes..ok?

Once I saw that Mesh and zer0 came from different sides of the pond, I knew that this would not be resolved as we've been fighting this dialect battle since the 1700's!

So guys, can you both just agree to disagree on this and leave it at that? Thanks!

[zer0]

I am happy to extend a handshake of truce as long as that won't be highlighted by certain users as a sign of me admitting defeat or an attempt to save face.

[j_c_hallgren]

I am happy to extend a handshake of truce as long as that won't be highlighted by certain users as a sign of me admitting defeat or an attempt to save face.

At least from my POV, both of you have provided a reasonable "case", and while I'm not a 'judge' and said I'm not taking sides, I believe that if both you call it quits on this, neither one of you wins or loses...we can't always have a winner or a loser...sometimes to remain friends, we just 'shut up'...I've done that many times in real life.

[zer0]

At least from my POV, both of you have provided a reasonable "case", and while I'm not a 'judge' and said I'm not taking sides, I believe that if both you call it quits on this, neither one of you wins or loses...we can't always have a winner or a loser...sometimes to remain friends, we just 'shut up'...I've done that many times in real life.

I agree and I am happy to do that as long as there will be no provocation and chest-beating from certain forum members.

[Demset]

I am happy to extend a handshake of truce as long as that won't be highlighted by certain users as a sign of me admitting defeat or an attempt to save face.

I wouldn't consider a truce an admission of defeat.

However, for what it's worth, I believe you are wrong on both counts (of the apostrophe issues).

I think Mesh is correct. He has cited convincing sources that do specifically mention the case at hand. And while I can't speak directly on the credibility of the teacher (or the hyrax lord), I know that their explanation makes sense and matches up with other examples of English usage that I've come across in my life.

[zer0]

However, for what it's worth, I believe you are wrong on both counts (of the apostrophe issues).

I think Mesh is correct. He has cited convincing sources that do specifically mention the case at hand. And while I can't speak directly on the credibility of the teacher (or the hyrax lord), I know that their explanation makes sense and matches up with other examples of English usage that I've come across in my life.

Let's once again clarify those counts, in case they were lost in the sea of words that have been exchanged.

1. "File Operations Status" -- both you and Mesh see no need for an apostrophe for it to be "File Operations' Status". I have put forward my argument that, since possessive meaning is implied because that status will show file operations, there needs to be an apostrophe. I have cited: BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learn ... tv57.shtml) and Oxford Dictionaries (http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/ ... he?view=uk). Those sources are considered authoritative worldwide.

2. "If you were talking about GUI's in general..." -- both you and Mesh believe that there must be an apostrophe. I have put my argument that, since in this example it is a plural acronym, there must not be an apostrophe. In my support, I have cited Oxford Dictionaries (http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/ ... he?view=uk) and a professional proofreader.

While I respect your right to have an opinion, I would humbly like to point out that I am a mere conduit of facts as they were presented to me by respected and authoritative sources. If you disagree with information provided by those sources or would like to examine their credentials, I can supply you with details as to how to get in contact with them to discuss this further. However, don't shoot the messenger

[j_c_hallgren]

Those sources are considered authoritative worldwide.

For the British variant of English, I'd agree, but in this XY case, American English also plays a part and there are different reference sources for that...and as you know, we're still arguing after centuries about how to spell "color/colour" so what chance does a poor 'lil 'ole apostrophe have?

The apostrophe or quote is used in some cases as a separator or divider, but let's not let it separate or divide us here on the forum!

We need to stay united to make XY the leader in alternative FM's and quibbling about a quote doesn't really help that cause...maybe the Brit's will think we're wrong or vice-versa...so as long as we can find a solution that either equally pleases both side or offends both, that would be the ideal, I think!

[avsfan]

We need to stay united to make XY the leader in alternative FM's and quibbling about a quote doesn't really help that cause...maybe the Brit's will think we're wrong or vise-versa...so as long as we can find a solution that either equally pleases both side or offends both, that would be the ideal, I think!

Uh - oh! Better re-write that phrase without any apostrophes so as to avoid setting off an additional firestorm! Disclaimer: Even though I'm an engineer, I come from a family of English majors, and misuse of apostrophes is one of my pet peeves! -- or should I say "Misuse of apostrophe's is one of my pet peeve's" (and I didn't even know that apostrophes or peeves even owned anything!)

I agree that it's about time to put this thread to bed... Good night, thread!

[serendipity]

... and quibbling about a quote doesn't really help that cause...

Yes, i totally agree. I have nothing against anyone here, but please stop this and instead enjoy this sketch from Monty Python.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9VLwV48OHs

[Mesh]

But Australian English is also a dialect of English language. Also, it is a fact that Australian English has undergone "Americanisation" since the gold rushes started in the 1850s. Thus, it is not out of the ordinary for Aussies to side with the American English version. That doesn't make either of us wrong. It is quite probable that both of us are correct within contexts of our own dialects.

I was not aware that Australian English has had that much influence from American English. However, they still have more fluency with British English than I do, and we still have the_hyrax_lord, who specifically mentioned British English. So again I reiterate that we have contrary statements from people who are not limited to American English.

You're making assumptions. Not all users are active on the forums.

XYcopy isn't mentioned only on the forums. It is mentioned in the interface of XYplorer, in its help file and in its changelog.

The cameo appearance in the interface is too sparse to count. And you are still making assumptions. I know countless experienced users (in various applications) who never touch the help file or look at the version history.

Clearly, you're not comprehending an extremely basic common sense tennet of application design. I simply say again that it's a good thing that you're not in charge of XY's UI design.

I happen to be quite knowledgeable in the area of software design, both from the user interface perspective and from the software engineering aspect. This is because I have a degree in Software Engineering from a reputable university and I am currently employed by a software company that is in the top 20 of the largest software companies in the world as compiled by Forbes. Therefore, please do not insult my intelligence as I have not insulted yours.

If you are that knowledgeable, you should be aware of this tennet of design. Interfaces should be designed to be clear and easily understood. Being unnecessarily complicated is poor design.

Except XYcopy *doesn't* only deal with copying, does it?

You are correct, it deals with a lot more. But because of its name, it is under-promising and over-delivering in functionality. "Background Jobs" is over-promising and under-delivering in terms of functionality as not all jobs would be reflected in that dialogue window.

Aha! So, according to your explanation, that would put them on relatively equal footing in regards to how the labels compare to their functionality. That being said, the clear choice should be the one that is in clear and plain English (as to have the greatest number of users who immediately get the gist of it), rather than the one that references a function/module name (which are often not clear or not what they appear to be).

You have yet to cite a single source to justify your claim, or an authority who agrees with it. Meanwhile, I've got an industry accepted authoritative source, and two people who are learned in this very field who agree with me.

I have cited Oxford University's resource, I have cited BBC's Learning English Guidance, I have cited a proofreader who is accredited to an international standard. If those are insufficient for you, then that is not my problem.

I was specifically referring to the "file operations status" issue, and on that, I remain correct in that you have cited no sources, nor any authorities who agree with you. (That being said, perhaps it's just my memory, but I don't recall you citing the BBC.)

Your citing Oxford and the proofreader was in regards to the plural acronyms, and your source contradicted your authority, nullifying his credibility.

I was specifically referring to the phrase "file operations status" (although the Chicago Manual of Style was used for the other item as well). And on that matter, as I stated above, you have cited no sources and no authorities.

What you are trying to do is to convert a plural noun (operations) into a singular form by referring to it as a general concept (file operations) to sidestep a rule of English punctuation. As "operation" is a countable noun, it is wrong to convert it from plural to singular without making appropriate spelling/punctuation changes. I have cited the BBC who have said "If you are using a regular plural noun ending in ‘s’, you simply add an apostrophe (’):" and Oxford who said "An apostrophe is used to indicate possession with a plural already ending with s". If you have objections as to the credibility or content of those sources you are more than welcome to contact them to discuss this matter.

Not necessary, as I sent a letter to Oxford on the first day you cited them. They don't accept email questions, so given where I am, I expect it to be at least a month before I get a reply - *if* I get a reply.


That being said, your quote from the BBC is too short for me to know what exactly it's referring to. And your Oxford source is specifically referring to possession, which as I - and the English teacher - pointed out, does not apply in this case.

My statement, which you quoted, that you have cited no sources and authorities stands. The source I cited to support my argument specifically mentioned this type of case (where there is no possessive meaning). Your source(s) do not. Therefore, they are not directly relevant.


All that aside, consider the fact that this is not a unique example.

Not only do you have the previously offered example of "Department of Veterans Affairs", but you also have phrases such as "the jobs market", which is widely accepted as correct, yet has a plural which is not possessive on the following word, and therefore does not require an apostrophe.


Also, I brought up your current argument (the one I directly quoted above), into the other discussion and received this response:


-------------------------------

The response you've quoted is irrelevant. It doesn't make a difference whether the word is singular or plural.
That is, if "Operations' status" is correct for plural, then "Operation's" status is correct for singular. The argument doesn't rely on the word being singular or plural.
Both the BBC and Oxford quotes are also irrelevant, because they are addressing the formation of a possessive. Here, "File Operations status" is not possessive.

This was all dealt with in my first post, though.

[snip]

The main argument here is whether "File Operations status" is possessive. If it's not - which is my point - then no apostrophes are necessary. Any grammar book will show, if only by implication, that if something is not possessive, it doesn't require an apostrophe. The grammatical basis is that "File Operations status" is a compound noun, not a possessive.

Given that number (singular or plural) is not relevant, how do your colleagues respond to:

"What's your job status?"
"There's a new nightclub open. I wonder what the chick status is."
"I'm worried about my health status."

To be consistent, your colleagues would have to argue that all of these require apostrophes.

-------------------------------


So, if you want a specific rule of English to go by, "compound noun" would seem to be it.

And his ancillary point is equally valid.

While it is possible to use some of the other phrases he mentions in a possessive manner (e.g. "your job's status", "my health's status"), they can also be used in a generic and non-possessive manner (e.g. "job status", "health status", "chick status", etc...).

If the generic and non-possessive uses don't require an apostrophe (and "s") when used with singular phrasing, then they don't require an apostrophe when used with plural phrasing as well.

Your source said "Just look at it this way - if you spelled it out, would there be an apostrophe?"

Well, single letters can't be spelled out, and single numbers would be along the lines of "sevens", "sixes", and "fives". And so, once again, your own source - Oxford - contradicts your proofreader. His explanation remains incomplete, and thus incorrect.

We are not talking about single letters. We are talking about possessive plural nouns and plural acronyms. I accept that apostrophes are needed for single letters and single numbers but neither are subject of this discussion.

Your proof reader never specified any limits on what he was referring to. What you quoted seemed to indicate that he was speaking about improper uses of apostrophes to indicate plurals, in general. Without those limitations being set, your source contradicts your proof reader.

Once again, you missed the point completely. There is no clearly visible element in XY that identifies "XYcopy". When using XY on Win 7 x64 (a caveat I mentioned at the beginning of this), there is no XYcopy icon. There is only the O/S's standard status window. There is nothing in the main UI that a user would see in the normal course of using it that labels it as such.

I use Win 7 x64 and, when I transfer files, XYcopy's icon shows up in the taskbar. The dialogue window is operating system's but the icon and the mechanism belongs to XY.

Not for me. On my side, everything is generic. Besides which, a single fleeting *icon* is not sufficient to clearly identify "XYcopy", so my original points remain.

If you ask a user who is unfamiliar with XY to point to the tree pane, they can do it. If you ask them to point to XYcopy, they can't. How much simpler an explanation do you need?

Hold on just a moment. You didn't say a user who is unfamiliar with XYplorer in your previous reply. You said "someone". You didn't define that "someone". Therefore, you left the door open for me to interpret it as I see fit. If you wish, I can cite other forum users who are aware of what XYcopy is.

The entire premise of that discussion dealt with users who were not power users already familiar with XYcopy, and that they supplied compelling reason to design the UI to be clearly understood.

And you did not respond to me asking why you did not raise any objections to XYcopy's name in another thread in the "Wishes" subforum. May I ask why?

I apologize for not directly replying to that. The simple answer is that I either never saw that thread, or never went into it. I don't read the forums regularly. I still haven't looked at it, but I can tell you that as an internal module, the name would have been unimportant to me. That being said, I probably would have suggested something along the lines of XYtasks, to be a little more inclusive.

[Mesh]

So guys, can you both just agree to disagree on this and leave it at that? Thanks!

I don't mind a truce, although since I went to the trouble of sending a letter to Oxford, if they ever reply, I might as well post it.

To me, this is still a debate - not the type of nasty slugfests trolls tend to go for, so I don't mind it. But if it's bothering other users, I'll be content to let it rest for now.

I made my points, and I believe I provided enough supporting evidence to back them up, so I can be content with things as they are.