TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Re: apostrophes (was Whose experience is it anyways??????)
Subject:Re: apostrophes (was Whose experience is it anyways??????) From:"Williams, Diane (contractor)" <Williams_Diane -at- DOTE -dot- OSD -dot- MIL> Date:Thu, 27 Feb 1997 09:36:11 -0500
> Another way of interpreting the abbreviated phrase is to include a
>missing word that we have taken as given for so long that many of us forget
>that good English used to require it be there. (two years worth of
>experience) This is probably what Chicago is assuming. The years own the
>worth, not the experience.
The Chicago Manual is assuming no such thing. Your phrase should read:
"...two years' worth" -- the worth of two years. As in "two years'
the time of two years, or "three days' pay" -- the pay of (that pertains
or belongs to) three days. Good English does not nor ever did require
the words "worth of" be inserted between "years'" and "experience." In
fact, it's somewhat redundant.
Well, if folks don't want to use an apostrophe with years why not say
"two years of experience in such-and-such"?
Walcoff & Associates, Inc.
DWilliams -at- dote -dot- osd -dot- mil