On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Jerry Hastings wrote: > At 08:13 PM 4/8/2002 -0700, Chris Little wrote: > > >genitive forms changed to nominative: > >hitch/Hitchcocks has been renamed Hitchcock > >Naves has been renamed Nave > >Smiths has been renamed Smith > >Eastons has been renamed Easton > >Websters has been renamed Webster > > Why? I understand that both forms will sound funny to people from different > circles. People who are used to hearing a title shortened to the first > significant word, such as calling The Antiquities of the Jews, simply > Antiquities, will find Strong's, for Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, quite > natural. But, people who are used to hearing a book referred to by the > author's name will find Strong quite natural. Is it because the genitive > tends to loose the apostrophe, and ends up being plural? Just curious.
It's primarily for the purpose of consistency. We have some books in a posessive form and others not, and I just want to be consistent across all of them. The non-posessive form seems to be more prevalent and more sensible, so I conformed the others to that. Troy: We don't have a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance because it is unnecessary thanks to search. Jerry was just using it as an example. --Chris
