 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / British English / February 2004The Sorcerer's Apostrophe
That's a joke for the Americans, of course, who haven't heard of a philosopher. The Canadians manage all right with "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" - except that it's "Harry Potter à l'Ecole des Sorciers" in French! But I digress. Despite the Latin translation being entitled "Harrius Potter et Philophi Lapis", the correct Latin term is, of course, 'lapis philosophorum'. So, it should be "philosophers' stone". But why isn't it? Comments anyone?  SignatureJohn Briggs > That's a joke for the Americans, of course, who haven't heard of a > philosopher. The Canadians manage all right with "Harry Potter and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > correct Latin term is, of course, 'lapis philosophorum'. So, it > should be "philosophers' stone". But why isn't it? Comments anyone? Only one of them has it. The rest are still searching. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/ada/09-0.htm ...the few remaining haddocks were indistinguishable from halibut. > That's a joke for the Americans, of course, who haven't heard of a > philosopher. The Canadians manage all right with "Harry Potter and the > Philosopher's Stone" - except that it's "Harry Potter à l'Ecole des > Sorciers" in French! But I digress. And so do I: in italian it is "Harry Potter e la pietra filosofale", so the title is the same as in English, except that "filosofale" is an adjective. Bye, FB > That's a joke for the Americans, of course, who haven't heard of a > philosopher. The Canadians manage all right with "Harry Potter and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > correct Latin term is, of course, 'lapis philosophorum'. So, it > should be "philosophers' stone". But why isn't it? Comments anyone? OED confirms: [tr. med.L. lapis philosophorum, the stone of the philosophers (see philosopher 2), also lapis philosophicus, -icalis; in F. pierre philosophale, Ger. der Stein der Weisen. See Note below.] and << [Note. Lapis philosophorum occurs in works attributed to Raymund Lully (1234–1315), and in those of Arnoldus de Villa Nova (1240–1314). Probably it was used earlier; it appears in various mediæval works of uncertain age or doubtful authenticity; e.g. in the Clavis Majoris Sapientiæ attributed to Artefius or Artesius, whose date has been put by some c1130. In some of these also we find lapis philosophicus, l. philosophicalis. But the earlier works (e.g. the mediæval Latin De Investigatione Perfecti Magisterii), passing as translated from Geber (Abu Musa Ja'far al-Sufi), usually refer to it simply as Lapis ‘the Stone’, or noster lapis ‘our stone’ . Albertus Magnus (1205–82), who doubted the transmutation of metals, refers to it as lapis quem philosophi laudant ubique, ‘the stone which the philosophers everywhere laud’, and lapis quem honorant philosophi. It is thus possible that philosophorum originated later, as an identifying adjunct to lapis, as if ‘the Stone, of which all the philosophers speak’, ‘the Stone of the philosophers’, and that the descriptive phrase grew at length into a specific name or title. It will be seen that the correct form is not philosopher's, but philosophers' stone.] >> Either Joanne doesn't know much Latin, or she spilled a blob of ketchup on the manuscript and the publisher didn't dare correct her, or she was thinking particularly of the *actual* stone in the book which had, until it went into the vault, belonged to *one* philosopher. No doubt the many Potter fan-sites on-line have discussions up the yin-yang on the topic. >> That's a joke for the Americans, of course, who haven't heard of a >> philosopher. The Canadians manage all right with "Harry Potter and [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > it went into the vault, belonged to *one* philosopher. No doubt the many > Potter fan-sites on-line have discussions up the yin-yang on the topic. But it's not just J.K. Rowling (who read French and Classics!); the usual English form is 'Philosopher's stone' - presumably even in the head form of the OED entry. SignatureJohn Briggs > But it's not just J.K. Rowling (who read French and Classics!); the usual > English form is 'Philosopher's stone' - presumably even in the head form of > the OED entry. In OED2, it is "philosophers' stone". In Chambers 21st Century, it is "philosopher's stone". Take your pick. Giles. >> But it's not just J.K. Rowling (who read French and Classics!); the usual >> English form is 'Philosopher's stone' - presumably even in the head form [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Take your pick. But apparently the OED give no examples to support their choice. We all know that they should be right, but it would appear that no one has ever used it correctly! SignatureJohn Briggs > >> But it's not just J.K. Rowling (who read French and Classics!); the usual > >> English form is 'Philosopher's stone' - presumably even in the head form [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > know that they should be right, but it would appear that no one has ever > used it correctly! In the absence of an academy defining "correct" English use, common usage has to take its place. An etymological derivation of the term in question suggests that "philosophers' stone" puts the apostrophe in a "correct" place. Both the title of a popular book and a definition in a recent dictionary put the apostrophe in a different place. As I said, take your pick. I suspect that the choice may depend more on how you wish to be seen by others than on any metaphysical conception of absolute correctness. Giles. >> >> But it's not just J.K. Rowling (who read French and Classics!); the usual >> >> English form is 'Philosopher's stone' - presumably even in the head form [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >on how you wish to be seen by others than on any metaphysical >conception of absolute correctness. It is, nevertheless, strange if the OED (or at least the edition seen by the poster) doesn't give a citation. It is usually quite punctilious on such things, giving at least a very early reference, and even a variety if the useage has changed over the ages, or been contentious. If I can be ar*ed I'll excavate my edition and check. SignatureDave OSOS#24 dswindell.gerbil@tcp.co.uk Remove my gerbil for email replies Yamaha XJ900S & Wessex sidecar, the sexy one Yamaha XJ900F & Watsonian Monaco, the comfortable one http://dswindell.members.beeb.net > >> >> But it's not just J.K. Rowling (who read French and Classics!); the usual > >> >> English form is 'Philosopher's stone' - presumably even in the head form [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > if the useage has changed over the ages, or been contentious. If I can > be ar*ed I'll excavate my edition and check. To save you the trouble, OED2 doesn't mention "philosopher's stone" at all. Only "philosophers' stone". But, as I have mentioned twice before (look, it's all cited above in this post and in yours too, much as I hate cascade posting), in a dictionary more recent than OED2, "philosopher's stone" occurs. It occurs too in the title of a popular children's novel, which also post-dates OED2. This is all I want to say. I am not going to be drawn into a silly argument about which form is more "correct" in contemporary English. I am merely pointing out what exists in the references cited. Giles. >>>>>> But it's not just J.K. Rowling (who read French and Classics!); the >>>>>> usual English form is 'Philosopher's stone' - presumably even in the [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > To save you the trouble, OED2 doesn't mention "philosopher's stone" at > all. Only "philosophers' stone". It gives no example of that usage. > But, as I have mentioned twice before (look, it's all cited above in > this post and in yours too, much as I hate cascade posting), in a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > argument about which form is more "correct" in contemporary English. > I am merely pointing out what exists in the references cited. But what is the purpose of this newsgroup, if it isn't for silly arguments 'which form is more "correct" in contemporary English'? SignatureJohn Briggs > > This is all I want to say. I am not going to be drawn into a silly > > argument about which form is more "correct" in contemporary English. > > I am merely pointing out what exists in the references cited. > > But what is the purpose of this newsgroup, if it isn't for silly arguments > 'which form is more "correct" in contemporary English'? I can't argue with that. Apologies for being snippy in my previous post. Giles. > But what is the purpose of this newsgroup, if it isn't for silly > arguments 'which form is more "correct" in contemporary English'? For slightly less silly arguments about whether the word "correct" is meaningful in discussing a living language? :-) -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Old teachers never die, they simply lose their class. > > But what is the purpose of this newsgroup, if it isn't for silly > > arguments 'which form is more "correct" in contemporary English'? > > For slightly less silly arguments about whether the word "correct" is > meaningful in discussing a living language? :-) ...inasmuch as it draws the line between solecism and evolution? The line may move over time, but it always exists somewhere. Cheers, Tony SignatureTony Mountifield Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org >>> But what is the purpose of this newsgroup, if it isn't for silly >>> arguments 'which form is more "correct" in contemporary English'? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The line may move over time, but it always exists somewhere. But where do you draw it in the case under discussion, where the OED describe "philosophers' stone" as the 'correct' version, but fail to give any examples of it ever having been employed? SignatureJohn Briggs "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote... > >>> But what is the purpose of this newsgroup, if it isn't for silly > >>> arguments 'which form is more "correct" in contemporary English'? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > describe "philosophers' stone" as the 'correct' version, but fail to > give any examples of it ever having been employed? I think you're making a good point, John. Have you considered asking the OED about it? http://www.askoxford.com/contactus/?view=uk Matti > "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the OED about it? > http://www.askoxford.com/contactus/?view=uk Yes, I have considered it :-) SignatureJohn Briggs > Yes, I have considered it :-) Would you mind sharing their reply with us? Unless you have considered it and have decided not to do it... Bye, FB >> Yes, I have considered it :-) > > Would you mind sharing their reply with us? Unless you have considered it > and have decided not to do it... Yes, of course. SignatureJohn Briggs >In OED2, it is "philosophers' stone". In Chambers 21st Century, it is >"philosopher's stone". FWIW, my 1999 edition of Brewer has "philosopher's stone". SignatureJohn Hall Johnson: "Well, we had a good talk." Boswell: "Yes, Sir, you tossed and gored several persons." Dr Samuel Johnson (1709-84); James Boswell (1740-95) "John Hall" <nospam_nov03@jhall.co.uk> wrote... > >In OED2, it is "philosophers' stone". > >In Chambers 21st Century, it is "philosopher's stone". > > FWIW, my 1999 edition of Brewer has "philosopher's stone". Ha! My Brewer, which is undated but must be in the range 1946-1956, has "Philosophers' Stone" and "Philosophers' Tree", but "Philosopher's Egg". My first edition (2000) of the Oxford DoP&F has all three entries as "Philosopher's". Matti > "John Hall" <nospam_nov03@jhall.co.uk> wrote... > > > > > >In OED2, it is "philosophers' stone". In Chambers 21st Century, it > > >is "philosopher's stone". > > > > FWIW, my 1999 edition of Brewer has "philosopher's stone". > Ha! My Brewer, which is undated but must be in the range 1946-1956, > has "Philosophers' Stone" and "Philosophers' Tree", but > "Philosopher's Egg". > My first edition (2000) of the Oxford DoP&F has all three entries as > "Philosopher's". As does my 1894 edition of Brewer. Signaturehttp://www.dacha.freeuk.com/photo/0z04-0.htm Llanberis Pass How insignificant are man's endeavours! >>> That's a joke for the Americans, of course, who haven't heard of a >>> philosopher. The Canadians manage all right with "Harry Potter and [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > usual English form is 'Philosopher's stone' - presumably even in the > head form of the OED entry. The head form in the OED is 'Philosophers' stone'. If it were not so, I would have told you. Did you read as far as 'It will be seen that the correct form is not philosopher's, but philosophers' stone.' in the OED note I quoted above? SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>> That's a joke for the Americans, of course, who haven't heard of a >>>> philosopher. The Canadians manage all right with "Harry Potter and [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > correct form is not philosopher's, but philosophers' stone.' in the OED > note I quoted above? You didn't tell me either way - I'm not psychic. I understand that none of the OED's citations give the plural form. Now, that's naughty - they've crossed the "dictionaries are descriptive not prescriptive" line. They shouldn't have done it without any citations to support them. SignatureJohn Briggs > The head form in the OED is 'Philosophers' stone'. If it were not > so, I would have told you. Did you read as far as 'It will be seen > that the correct form is not philosopher's, but philosophers' stone.' > in the OED note I quoted above? Yes it does say that. But it fails to cite a single example of that use, which makes its statement about "correct" use distinctly suspect IMO. BTW I'm working from the Second Edition CD ROM v3.0 of 2002. -- Mike Stevens, narrowboat Felis Catus II web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk Old teachers never die, they simply lose their class. Why don't you all write to JKR and ask her if she intended it to mean one Philosopher or more, instead of getting into smart-alec answers. Mike > That's a joke for the Americans, of course, who haven't heard of a > philosopher. The Canadians manage all right with "Harry Potter and the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > course, 'lapis philosophorum'. So, it should be "philosophers' stone". But > why isn't it? Comments anyone? > Why don't you all write to JKR and ask her if she intended > it to mean one Philosopher or more, instead of getting into > smart-alec answers. Don't top-post. SignatureJohn Briggs |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.