This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Let's say I want to cite something on page 1361 of this book. (For those unfamiliar with the book, its title page names two authors, "in collaboration with" a list of other authors. Each of its twenty chapters is clearly attributed to one or more authors.) I can think of two ways of doing this: like this [1]: 1361 or like this. [2]: 1361
I don't much like either, but mildly prefer the latter, cumbersome though it is. Comments? ( Brett?) -- Hoary ( talk) 12:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
CGEL (usually but not always italicized) is used both for this book and for A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. And therefore making " CGEL" a disambiguation page is helpful and proper. CGEL could also be used within this article, and within the article on A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, to refer to the book that's the subject. OK -- until a reader jumps from either of these two articles to the other, whereupon, of course, the referent of CGEL too would change.
Here are all the reviews of "this CGEL" that I've encountered so far. For each: author (journal): abbreviated name for Huddleston & Pullum's CGEL (abbreviated name, if any, for Quirk et al's CGEL). Thus for example Jean Aitchison, writing in Modern Language Review, uses CamGEL for this book and "Quirk and others" (without quotation marks, of course) for the slightly older book.
Our article A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language doesn't currently use any abbreviation for that title. But if any editor cares to expand that article, it surely will use some abbreviation.
I suggest that CamGEL and Q et al are used in this article; and CompGEL and H&P are used in the other one. But most of the other abbreviations that reviewers have devised would be OK. (However, what might be called "minimal pairs" -- such as CamGEL and ComGEL -- would I think be better avoided.) Comments? ( Brett?)
(I'd also be happy to learn of any other reviews, or quasi-reviews.) -- Hoary ( talk) 07:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the Mukherjee and Haan reviews are really worth including. There are plenty of worthwhile criticisms without resorting to the erroneous ones. Brett ( talk) 14:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Let's say I want to cite something on page 1361 of this book. (For those unfamiliar with the book, its title page names two authors, "in collaboration with" a list of other authors. Each of its twenty chapters is clearly attributed to one or more authors.) I can think of two ways of doing this: like this [1]: 1361 or like this. [2]: 1361
I don't much like either, but mildly prefer the latter, cumbersome though it is. Comments? ( Brett?) -- Hoary ( talk) 12:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
CGEL (usually but not always italicized) is used both for this book and for A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. And therefore making " CGEL" a disambiguation page is helpful and proper. CGEL could also be used within this article, and within the article on A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, to refer to the book that's the subject. OK -- until a reader jumps from either of these two articles to the other, whereupon, of course, the referent of CGEL too would change.
Here are all the reviews of "this CGEL" that I've encountered so far. For each: author (journal): abbreviated name for Huddleston & Pullum's CGEL (abbreviated name, if any, for Quirk et al's CGEL). Thus for example Jean Aitchison, writing in Modern Language Review, uses CamGEL for this book and "Quirk and others" (without quotation marks, of course) for the slightly older book.
Our article A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language doesn't currently use any abbreviation for that title. But if any editor cares to expand that article, it surely will use some abbreviation.
I suggest that CamGEL and Q et al are used in this article; and CompGEL and H&P are used in the other one. But most of the other abbreviations that reviewers have devised would be OK. (However, what might be called "minimal pairs" -- such as CamGEL and ComGEL -- would I think be better avoided.) Comments? ( Brett?)
(I'd also be happy to learn of any other reviews, or quasi-reviews.) -- Hoary ( talk) 07:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the Mukherjee and Haan reviews are really worth including. There are plenty of worthwhile criticisms without resorting to the erroneous ones. Brett ( talk) 14:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)